U.S. GOVERNMENT & POLITICS, SPRING 2011

ELECTIONS, DAY 3: 2008, AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE

Woll 41 (Buckley v. Valeo), 42 (Ortiz); Pomper, “The Presidential Election: Change Comes to America”

Friday, May 6

Pomper terms: reasons why Obama’s mandate could be considered “decisive” (46); increases in turnout, specific groups that increased turnout; new geographic patterns in Electoral College; key demographic trends in 2008 voting (Tables 3-2 and 3-3); contrasts between the nominees; positives and negatives of the Palin nomination; role of the September economic collapse in determining the election outcome, different responses of the candidates; impact of the debates; strengths and innovations of Obama campaign; problems with organization and message of McCain campaign; importance of issues and traits to voter behavior (Table 3-7)

CAMPAIGN FINANCE

Woll 41, Buckley v. Valeo

This landmark 1976 case established the principle that spending on campaigns is a form of free speech, which receives governmental protection except in very limited circumstances. The Court ruled it was ok to limit how much one person could give to one campaign, but not constitutional to limit overall individual spending on campaigns (including most notably a candidate’s personal spending of his/her own money to run for office). The formula money = speech means that campaign finance laws can really only affect types of campaign spending, not overall campaign spending. Rulings since this one (see below) have continued to strike down limitations on campaign spending in particular, but to uphold some regulations governing contributions.

Woll 42, Ortiz “The Democratic Paradox of Campaign Finance Reform”

Ortiz makes the simple point that campaign finance supporters seem to mistrust voters. If voters are competent to make decisions about candidates, then concern about who gives to whom, and how much, are misplaced. Voters have the capacity to decide if particular sources of campaign finance should make a difference in the decisions they make.

A LITTLE MORE: O’Connor pp. 346-351 has considerable detail on how U.S. elections are financed. At first glance, it would appear that the U.S. highly regulates the flow of money into elections, and it is true there are many regulations. However, the key point is that anyone can legally spend any desired amount to influence the outcome of elections. The result of 35 years of regulation is greater transparency (we know for the most part who gives money to whom) but no real way to restrict campaign spending (the Buckley v. Valeo decision prevents any stronger regulation). Here are two more critical Court decisions that shape campaign finance laws:

McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003)

This decision upheld the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) restrictions on campaign advertising by groups close to elections, and the new bans on soft money contributions to the national parties; the majority justices assert that the desire to regulate abuses in campaigns justifies limitations on campaign-related speech; the dissenting justices argue that First Amendment rights are clearly infringed by the BCRA and thus the law should be declared unconstitutional

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

This very recent decision (January 2010) further eroded BCRA and other campaign finance restrictions, ruling 5-4 that corporations can broadcast electioneering communications (corporations still are prohibited from direct contributions to candidates or parties). The ruling opens the door to greater independent expenditures in congressional and presidential campaigns.

QUESTIONS FOR TODAY:

1. (from Wednesday, but expanded) Are voters fools? Is it ok that voters do the best they can when voting? What is lacking in the present electoral process – lacking from candidates, from the media, from voters?

2. Why did Obama win, why did McCain lose? Be thorough in considering this question. Specific references to the many maps and tables presented by Pomper are called for (Table 3-2, for example).

3. List the pros and cons of choosing Sarah Palin as McCain’s running mate, then evaluate her impact on the election outcome.

4. Pomper reminds us that there is no perfect campaign and no completely failed campaign. What did the Obama campaign do wrong/poorly, and what did the McCain campaign do right/well?

5. Why did Pomper, writing in early 2009, interpret the future of U.S. electoral politics as likely favorable toward the Democrats? Be specific in pointing to evidence from Pomper’s reading.

6. Is money a problem in U.S. elections today?

7. Ask any election-related question!