11 12 15 LECTURE 19 In the News More substantive than previous debate Rubio emerging as anti Trump and anti Carson o Because of no experience and they have never served before o Rubio young Cuban American Obama o He is candidate that democratic party is most worried about o He is thoughtful eloquent and establishment choice donors like better Trump factual inaccuracies o Transpacific partnership treaty negotiated by Obama administration relationship Bush and Kasich try to present themselves as reasonable alternatives Rubio doing better job at between ISIS Assad Rebels and Russia o Booed several times o But don t seem to be getting traction Carson mostly stayed to sidelines Where does the Money come from Hard money subject to caps or absolute limits of amount of money people can contribute to a candidate regulated by federal elections commission o Self can self finance their own campaign o Individual contributors o Political action committees homebuilders association medical doctors association o Political parties Soft money not subject for caps o Independent groups non profit organizations source of criticism for Rubio o 527 groups defined by income tax code 527 certain nonprofit groups exempt form paying income taxes o Super PACs Self financing Because incumbents have an unlimited potential supply of money most do not finance their own campaigns People like to invest in people they know will win Typically only challengers self finance and willing to spend their own money o They know that as an incumbent they can raise as much money as they need to Self financed candidates typically don t do well o Steve Forbes 1996 2000 Republican presidential bid spent 37 7M and 38 37M o Ross Perot 1992 1996 presidential bid 63M and 8M Not a single electoral vote 19 of popular Loaning your own campaign early money generates name recognition and momentum seed money But completely self financed candidates lack grass roots support support from ordinary people Should we be concerned with money in politics Does money alter electoral outcomes o in 2012 o Generally incumbents have a huge spending advantage over challengers o In 2012 the candidate who spent the most won average house winner 1 4 M average house loser 688K Average senate winner 9 8M Average senate loser 6 5M 93 of House races 67 of Senate races Average house incumbent 1 5M Average house challenger 244K Average Senate Incumbent 11 3M Average Senate Challenger 1 3M o Money could buy election outcomes o Know Relationships not exact numbers Money and Electoral Outcomes vote share The candidate who spends the most wins Incumbent usually spend the most The more the incumbent spends the worse he does How to resolve this paradox Does money alter electoral outcomes voteshare What do we know about money and voteshare o The ability to win attracts money rather than money attracting votes o The proposition that money alters electoral outcomes independently is suspect Effect of spending is greater for challengers than it is for incumbents o Incumbent s added spending has less of an effect on vote totals than challenger s added spending o Thus limiting expenditures would hurt challengers more than incumbents o If money buys votes it buys far more votes for challengers than for incumbents o Money is an equalizer in the system helping challengers to overcome the advantages of incumbency Who oversees the money Federal election commission FEC Oversees all federal races Was borne out of the Watergate scandal o FEC was created by 1974 FECA Composed of 6 members o Nominated by the president confirmed by the senate o 6 year terms o 3 democrats and 3 republicans o Key MCs have recommended names to the White House o Many are former MCs or party chairs Criticism of FEC o captive agency toothless tiger fox guarding the henhouse So many rules and regulations where they have hard time going after members of congress expected of violations o Their budget and powers are under the control of those who they are supposed to regulate comes from congress o The last thing MCs want is a fully empowered FEC o Lax slow on enforcement and prone to deadlock due to its bipartisan structure o 2 3s vote is needed to take action Laws governing campaign finance FECA refined by Buckley v Valeo McCain Feingold redefined by Citizens united vs FEC Major provisions of FECA Caps on self financing o Later struck down by Buckley o Cant limit freedom of speech Caps on total amount of campaign could spend o Later struck down by Buckley v Valeo Prohibits independent expenditures o Later struck down by Buckley v Valeo Allowed for unions and corporations to form PACS Reporting requirements for all contributions over 250 Capped the amount of money individuals parties and PACs could contribute to a campaign hard money Partial public funding for presidential elections Challenges to FECA Buckley v Valeo 1976 o Coalition of liberals and conservatives Attacked the FECA as a violation of 1st A rights to free speech o Court upheld restrictions on the size of campaign contributions hard money Struck down caps on total spending caps on self financing and independent expenditures o Opened the door to the soft money loophole parties and PACs making independent expenditures Difference between hard and soft money Hard money subject to regulation by the FEC o Money given to individuals parties PACs to candidates and campaigns Soft money unregulated independent expenditures o Uncoordinated Soft Money Money raised by parties and PACs without any restrictions or limits o Independent expenditure uncoordinated with any candidate or campaign o Could not be used to explicitly promote or defeat a candidate o Could be used for Party building activities Registration drives GOTV o Most controversial purpose Issue advocacy Ads that work for a candidate and against another Do not explicitly say vote for or vote against elect or defeat but could say anything else Dukakis on crime example
View Full Document
Unlocking...