Functions of Parties

1
Functions of Parties

• organized critique of the party in power
• a choice of leaders and programs
• recruit and nominate electoral candidates
• Provide cues to voters
• Mobilize voters
• Capital Intensive Politics
• Kayden vs. Greider

2
Buckley v. Valeo

• Limits on spending are unconstitutional
• Limits on contributions are okay
• No limits on individual spending

3
Legacy of Buckley

• Public financing is key
• All CFR is a constitutional issue

4

• Who Gives
• Individuals
• Corporations/labor unions
• Political action committees (PACs)

• Who Receives
• Candidates (hard )
• Parties (soft )
• "independent expenditures (express advocacy)

5
How Much to Whom?

• INDIVIDUALS
• Hard Money
• 25,000 a year limit on all donations
• 1,000 limit per election per candidate (primary
  and general)
• 5,000 limit per PAC
• Unlimited soft money contributions to party
• Unlimited "independent expenditures"

6
How Much to Whom?

• CORPORATIONS AND LABOR GROUPS
• Hard Money from treasury- 0
• barred from contributing to candidates
• BUT, they can create PACs
• 5,000 per candidate, per election (primary and
  general)
• 15,000 a year to a party
• Unlimited soft money contributions to party
• Unlimited "independent expenditures"

7
Disclosure

• Candidates must report
• all PACs and party contributions
• Name, address and occupation of any individuals
  contribution 200
• disclose all expenditures exceeding 200
• Sunshine principle
• candidates, parties and PACs must disclose how
  they raise and spend money

8
Presidential Candidates

• Public funding based on matching system
• candidates who accepted federal matching funds
  could not spend more than 37 million
• 61.8 million in public money for campaign costs
  
• 12.4 million for convention costs.
• could accept 11.9 million from their parties

9
Hard vs Soft Money

• Hard money given to candidates
• Given by PACs, individuals
• Heavily regulated
• Soft money given to political parties for party
  building activities, GOTV
• Corporations and unions may contribute soft money
  to parties in unlimited amounts
• not constitute election activity, may be used on
  issue advocacy

10
Increasing Cost of Campaigns
11
Increasingly Expensive Races

• Most Expensive Senate Races 2000
• New York Senate 83,698,388
• New Jersey Senate 71,408,718
• Minnesota Senate 23,649,774
• Michigan Senate 17,974,728
• Pennsylvania Senate 16,689,453

12
House Challengers in Battleground Districts in
the 1992 Election
13
Challengers in Battleground Districts 1996 House
Elections
14
PAC contributions
15
Soft Money contributions 2000
16
(No Transcript)
17
Comparison with Other Countries
18
Two CF Systems

• Official Post Watergate system
• Low individual limits on giving
• Ban on corporate and labor contributions
• Disclosure/Sunshine
• Grey market
• Unlimited soft money contributions
• Unlimited issues ads/indep expenditures
• Leadership PACs

19
What is to be done?

• Clean Money Solution (ME, NE, MA)
• complete public financing
• spending limits
• Problems
• Primaries
• Issue ads/independent expenditures
• Public resistance (David Duke problem)

20
McCain Feingold

• Ban Soft Money contributions to national parties
• Earlier versions
• 60 of funding from district
• Free TV time

21
Brookings Proposal

• Increase individual contribution limits
• Increase limits on hard money contributions/end
  soft money
• Require disclosure for issue ads
• Tax credit for small contributors
• Discount TV time

22
CFR is not a Problem View

• Free speech costs money
• How much is too much
• guarantees audience not votes
• goes to like minded candidates, does not buy
  votes
• Most issues have big on both sides
• Solution
• No limits with full disclosure

23
CFR is a Problem

• Only corporations/wealthy have
• 150,000 annual income 25 of contributions
• Increases political clout of corporations
• Uneven distribution of wealth private financing
  of elections
• Solution democratically/public financing

24
Barriers

• Partisan reforms
• Incumbent protection
• Ants in the kitchen/balloon analogy

25
Why the system is broke!

• Express Advocacy
• communication whose purpose is to elect or defeat
  a candidate for office
• "magic words" - "vote for," "vote against,"
  "elect," "defeat"
• subject to limits and regulation by FEC
• all funds raised and spent must be reported to FEC

26
But Independent Expenditures

• An independent version of express advocacy
• No coordination with candidate
• must be reported to the FEC
• Can be done by PACs, parties, individuals (not
  corporations, unions)

27
Issue Advocacy

• purpose is to promote a policy position
• Does not use magic words
• Not regulated by FEC
• No disclosure!