Elections Paul Johnson Dept. of Political Science, University of Kansas . Outline Outline * Table of Contents Section 1 Campaign Regulations Federal Laws * 1907: Corporations banned from donating to candidates for federal office * 1971: reporting of donations required * 1974: Major new policy enacted - Spending limits on Cong'l elections - Donation limits on all national elections - Voluntary Spending limits in Presidential Elections The Framework of Limits Has been 1/2 Destroyed * They Still Limit individual donations to candidates and PACS * And PAC donations to candidates are also limited * But efforts to limit Congressional candidate spending, corporate advertising, and Presidential Campaign spending have failed. Supreme Court Struck Down Mandatory Spending Limits on Free Speech Grounds * Spending limits on Cong'l elections: unconstitutional * Limits on personal spending by candidates: unconstitutional * Paradoxically, - individual donation limits upheld! * Voluntary Presidential Campaign Spending limits upheld Shifting Concerns in Campaign Spending * PACS were a major worry, especially in the 1970s * There was a rapid growt of PAC organizations, which many expected would help Republican candidates - But it turned out PACS donated to INCUMBENTS, including Democrats. - So neither Dems nor Reps have pushed too hard to 'control' PACs Soft Money * After 1988, we saw growth of “soft money” donations to state parties * Recall: - Hard Money: reported donations to candidates & parties within federal limits - Soft Money: unregulated donations to state & local parties * 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act - Outlawed “Soft Money” - Raised limits on individual donations - Restricted campaign ads by organizations 60 days before election BCRA donation limits * $2000 per candidate per election * $25,000 to national party * $10,000 to state party * $5000 to any other political committee * Total 2 year limit $95,000 PAC limits after BCRA Basically, the same as before BCRA (as adopted 1974) * $5000 per candidate per election * $15,000 to national party * $5000 to state party * $5000 to another committee * No total limit on receipts or donations The 60 day Rule Struck Down, Corporate Political Activity Limits Lifted Somewhat difficult story, please be patient. * Corporations still cannot donate to candidates, but * The BCRA 60 day limit and the 1907 ban on campaign advertising activity by corporations was struck down in 2010 (Citizens United case). * Ruling that corporations are legal people, the Sup. Ct. ruled that limits on their speech are unconstitutional. * A corporation can spend an unlimited amount on advertisements. Reporting Now the Focus * "There's not much more that campaign finance reformers can do other than to try to make disclosure as firm as possible, maintain reasonable campaign contribution limits ..." said Jamie Raskin, a law professor at American University * "I'm confident we will prevail on the issue of disclosure and transparency at the end of the day, but the question is when," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.)... "The forces that want to hide this money are digging in. It will be a pitched battle." (LA Times, 2012-06-25) * Campaign finance laws are VERY complicated. Presidential Campaign Spending Limits * There IS a voluntary primary spending limit in PRESIDENTIAL campaigns (only) * It has different rules & procedures for the nomination and the general election * In 1974, law was passed with idea that spending in nomination should be $10 million and general election should be $20 million (were inflation adjusted) Nomination Vs General Election Spending * Nomination Phase: Candidates who obey limits receives "matching funds" from federal government. - Fed matches first 250 of donations - State-by-state spending restrictions & Total spending limit * General Election Phase: after the convention, Candidate & Party - receives inflation-adjusted $20,000,000 - in return promising to spend no other money About Those Voluntary Limits +-------+-------------+------------------+ | | Nomination | General Election | +-------+-------------+------------------+ +-------+-------------+------------------+ | 1974 | $10mill | $20mill | +-------+-------------+------------------+ | 2008 | $42.05mill | $84.1mill | +-------+-------------+------------------+ | 2012 | 45.6mill | $91.2mill | +-------+-------------+------------------+ Spending Limit System Has Fallen Into Dis-use * The Nomination spending limit system collapsed first - 2000: George W Bush 1st major party candidate to opt-out of limits in nomination campaign * The General Election spending limit system collapsed second - 2008, Obama first candidate to refuse limits in both nomination and GE - OpenSecrets.org estimates Obama total spending at $618million - So, they did not just “break” the system by a little. Section 2 Presidential Nominations Basics * State parties choose delegates to nat'l conventions * Some states use - caucuses - primaries * Sequence of caucuses and primaries throughout Spring is the real "nomination processes" * Delegated gather at Party Conventions to - formalize selection - write party platform Primary Participation Rules An example of “federalism.” State laws govern state parties, subject to national restrictions. States decide whether to have * Closed Primary: allow only registered party members * Open Primary: allow all registered voters to choose to vote in any party's primary * Semi-Open: allow "independents" to choose a party primary, allow registered party members to vote in own party primary. Sequence of State Primaries * It is an unfolding STATE-TO-STATE process * New Hampshire: historically, the first primary (was March, now January) * States shift primaries earlier in the season to attract attention Iowa Caucuses: Effort To Steal Spotlight * Began in 1976: Its a “caucus”, not a “primary” * Iowa Caucuses--January 11, 2008 \Longrightarrow January 3, 2012 - Kick off the pres. Nominating season - Choose delegates to Iowa county conventions - Usually have turnout less than 10 percent of party members - Are usually attended by most eager & extreme party members. Shifting Dates: Jan, Feb, March. * Historically, “Super Tuesday” was a prominent day in March when several large states held primaries. * Tsunami Tuesday: Feb 5, 2008, one month before usual Super Tuesday - States with half of the United States' population!(Alabama Illinois Alaska Missouri Arizona New Jersey Arkansas New Mexico California New York Connecticut Oklahoma Colorado Tennessee Delaware Utah Georgia Kansas Idaho West Virginia) * 2012: States changed to later dates, hoping to move into the “ open space” that had been created by Tsunami Tuesday. (Super Tuesday was March 6, but “no so Super.”) National Parties Trying to Push States To Later Dates * Worry: If all states move to early dates, then a boring period of “non-campaign” opens in the calendar. * Since the early 1980s, both parties have experimented with rules changes to stop states from moving to earlier dates (with poor record of success). * 2016: new Repub. rules threaten to un-seat delegates selected in states that shift to earlier primary dates. What Behavioral “Political Science” is there for Nominations? * Voter's dilemma: “'Who do I like?' versus 'Who can Win?'” * Chicken & Egg Problem: Candidates who don't have money can't advertise, can't gain attention so voters will know they exist, so they can't raise money. * Political Momentum: Candidates who perform above expectations attract attention and donations, even if they don't win! * Momentum given credit for nomination of Jimmy Carter in 1976, but there are plenty of counter-examples. Section 3 General Election Electoral College * 435: same as House of representatives * 535: house + Senate 538: * house + Senate + DC as if it were a state (23rd amendment added that). OOps, big mistake in Constitution * Each EC member casts 2 votes * If only 1 has a majority, he's president * If tied, then a head-to-head vote occurs in the House of Representatives, each state has 1 vote. * 2nd place candidate becomes Vice President 12th Amendment to rescue * Electors cast separate votes for Pres and Vice Pres Majority wins * If no majority, House chooses Pres among top 3 vote getters, 1 vote per state. * Note: there's nothing to stop the selection of a Democ. Pres. And Repub. Vice Pres. Electing Electors * State laws control the election process * Selection of slates by "Winner-take all" rule in most states * Nebraska & Maine are exceptions: divide electors according to House district winners. * Lawsuits are Allowed: federal courts can be called to supervise election administration Wrong One Won? * George W. Bush (2000) * Benjamin Harrison (1888) * Rutherford Hayes (1876) * John Q. Adams (1824) Financing * Candidates can spend an unlimited amount of money * The Voluntary limits system fell into disuse in 2012. Strategy: Divide the Dollar * Spend money on big & close states (ignore Kansas) * *Electronic media advertising*: Rising share of expenditures * Political Consultants- Travel- Staff get “pushed” onto party or group budgets Drawn to the Center? The Median Voter Theorem! * I'll draw this on the whiteboard. Its a famous, long-standing modeling approach. * Draw voter ideal points and place candidates. * Logic pressures a competitive candidate to mode closer to the other one. * If both adjust, they should end up on the “median voter”. That is, the median of the voter ideal points. * Do I believe in this logic with all my heart & soul? YES! Section 4 The Voter's Choice Low Information Decision Making * Most people don't have tons of free time to study politics * They rely on “cost-saving” information cues * Most notably: - Party identification - Cues from organizational memberships - Retrospection Party Identification, again! * People who say they are “strong” Democrats or Republicans are highly likely to vote for party's candidate (90 - 99%) * People who say they are ”weak identifiers” are less predictable (70 - 80%) * Since 1950, Partisan effect has weakened because: - There are more “independents” now - There are more “weak” party identifiers now Prospective Theory of Voting This is an ”issue based” theory of voting. Voters check candidate promises, and choose accordingly. * Voters have preferences, “ideal points” * Candidates make promises * Voters choose the candidate closest to their ideal points Are American Elections like the Median Voter Theorem? * Candidates tempted to “run to the center” in general election campaigns * But not always - Goldwater (1964) McGovern (1972) did not - Suffered ignominious defeat! * Some are not able to move: pinned down by history Retrospective Voting Voters ignore promises, make simple evaluation of the incumbent's performance * Is it logical to decide on the basis of policy promises? Make a list why or why not! * Retrospective theory: voters ask “what have you done for me lately”? * After party ID, most powerful predictor of election outcomes is - percent change in personal disposable income Do Campaigns matter? * Here's a puzzle. Candidates spend more and more. And yet analysis seems to indicate that election outcomes are mostly predictable. * Famous political science result: election returns can be predicted within 4% using only party identification levels and personal disposable income change * Campbell study 1924-2000 - Campaign mattered 1948,1960 - Maybe 1976, 1980, 2000 - Not in the rest (9) * Correction: Does not mean campaigns don't matter, only that they ”play out” in an understandable way, like a game of Bridge (cards) Interesting Example * Freedman, Franz, and Goldstein, “Campaign Advertising and Democratic Citizenship” American Journal of Political Science, October, 2004 * Study campaign ads and surveys of 75 top media markets for 2000 election * p. 734 “... we have provided strong empirical evidence to support the notion that advertising can inform and mobilize the citizenry.” * Exposure to ads increases interest in campaign * Exposure to ads raises knowledge and likelihood of voting Likes and Dislikes * Ask people to name up to 5 likes and dislikes about each major candidate * Ads have no effect on House elections * Presidential elections: high exposure to ads increases number of - Likes 0.2 - Dislikes 0.4