APG Unit Three: Interest Groups, Political Parties,

Reasons for Joining Interest Groups

  1. Irrationality of joining a group:
  1. Single person will probably not make much of a difference
  2. Person will probably receive benefits from the group anyway, e.g. an elderly person joining the AARP will benefit from the group’s lobbying efforts whether or not he joins the AARP “free rider” problemneed for groups to offer incentives to join

II. Types of incentives:

  1. Material Benefits, e.g. newsletters, t-shirts, mugs, magazine subscription
  2. Purposive Benefits, i.e. satisfaction that a person has done a good thing in joining
  3. Solidary Benefits, i.e. social benefits of joining
Factors Influencing Interest Group Strength

I. Nature of Membership

  1. Size
  1. More members = more money, more votes (AARP example)
  2. More members also means greater cross-[reassure among members and possibly less focus.
  1. Spread, i.e. the degree to which a group’s membership is either concentrated or dispersed
  2. Reasons why people join the group, e.g. a member who joined solely for getting a good deal on life insurance would be less committed than one who joined because he was deeply committed to “the cause”
  3. Organizational Structure: centralized or decentralized
  4. Leadership
  5. Resources, e.g. money, expertise, reputation, connections

Political Action Committees

  1. Explosive Growth of PACs: group that raises funds for favored candidates
  1. In 1974, only 600 PACs existed. Now more than 4100
  2. Reason: cong. legislation that had the intent of preventing a few wealthy campaign contributors from helping candidates “buy” elections. Instead, cong. wanted to “open up” campaign contributions to the masses, as represented by PACs
  3. FECA of 1974 did just that:
  1. Individuals could contribute no more than $1000 to a candidates, and no more than a total of $25,000 to all candidates in any year.
  2. Individuals could also contribute $1000 to a PAC, with no limit on the # of PACs they contribute to
  3. PACs could contribute $5000 and there is no limit to the amount a PAC can contribute in any one year
  4. No limit on the amt. of independent expenditures that a PAC could make
  1. Explosive growth of PAC contributions
  1. In 1972, PAC contributions to cong. races totaled $8.5 million. By 1992, it was $190 million; 1996, $201 million
  2. Percentage of campaign money coming from PACs has also been rising
  3. In 1978, only 63 congressmen received more than 50% of their campaign funds from PACs. In 1986, 194
  4. In 1990, PACs contributed more than $17 million to senators facing either token opposition or no opposition at all
  1. PAC strategies
  1. Campaign Contributionsfactors influencing who gets PAC money:
  1. Incumbents (party affiliation is of little importance)
  2. Winners
  3. Those who share a similar philosophy
  4. Those who are likely to grant access
  5. Those in positions of special influence, e.g. party leaders
  6. Tightness of race, and the likelihood that the will help make the difference in the outcome
  7. Whether or not a candidate holds a committee seat of importance to the PAC
  8. PAC money makes up a higher % of congressional campaign funds than presidential campaign funds
B.Voter education projects
  1. Independent expenditures and soft money
  2. “Bundling”
  1. Who has PACs
  1. Corporations: ~50% of all PACs
  2. “Non-connected” (ideological) organizations: ~25%
  3. Professional/trade/health associations: ~15%
  4. Labor Unions: ~10%
  5. Overrepresentation of upper/upper-middle class and underrepresentation of the poor.

V.Dangers of PACs

  1. Ethical Concerns: does a contribution “buy” anything?
  2. Special access of PACs that the average person lacks
  3. Drives up the cost of campaigning
  4. Overrepresentation of those wealthy enough to have PAC representation
  5. Underrepresentation of those who lack such representation
  6. Further incumbency advantage in elections
  1. In Defense of PACs
  1. PACs provide a means of participation and representation for the average person.
  2. W/O PACs, perhaps only the wealthy could afford to run for office
  3. 1st Amendment’s right to petition the govt.
  4. Contributions are nonpartisan
  5. No conclusive evidence that PACs change congressional votes. Contributions likely to make a difference in arcane, obscure issues with little public awareness more than in issues of major importance with much public awareness
  6. PACs provide political education

PACs diversify political funding. With over 4100 PACs, many interests are represented

Elections

Congressional Elections

  1. Primary Elections
  1. A Progressive Reform
  2. Types:
  1. Closed
  1. used in most states
  2. only registered party members can vote for partisan officers, no crossing of party lines
  1. Open: Independents may vote
  1. voters get ballot of any one party they wish
  2. crossing of party lines allowed
  3. danger of “raiding” and damage to pol. Parties
  1. Blanket (“free love”): Independents may vote
  1. voters can “mix and match” there votes, i.e. vote for candidates of different parties for different offices
  2. damage to pol. Parties
  3. used in CA since 1998. Used in WA and AL also
  1. Factors affecting outcomes of congressional elections
  1. Incumbency: the greatest influence
  1. Scope of incumbency advantage:
  1. ~90% of congressmen who run are reelected, ~80% of senators
  2. Lack of competitiveness charges of “permanent Congress” and the call for term limits (ruled unconst. by SC)
  1. Advantages of Incumbents
  1. Franking privilege
  2. Staff already in place
  3. Patronage
  4. Gerrymandering districts
  5. Committee service to district
  6. Name recognition
  7. Casework done for constituents
  8. Pork barrel projects for district
  9. “War Chest” built up to discourage challengers from running

B.Type of election

  1. Incumbent campaigns: least competitive
  2. Weaker challenger campaigns: uncompetitive, but more competitive than incumb. campaigns
  3. Strong challenger campaigns: more competitive than the above two
  4. Open seat campaigns: the most competitive
  5. House or Senate (Senate more competitive)
  6. Midterm electionsloss of seats for party of President (every year since ‘38 until 1998)
  1. Coattail effect
  2. Media, esp. in Senate elections
  3. Party affiliation—still a strong predictor of voting behavior
  4. Issues
  5. Campaign consultants
  6. Technology

Path to the Presidency

II.I. Invisible Primary: unofficial campaigning by unofficial candidates
II. Declaration of Candidacy
  1. Nomination Phase
  1. Some states use conventions method of sending delegates to the national convention
  1. Local caucusesdistrict conventionstate conventionnational convention. Each level selects delegates to attend higher level
  2. Importance of Iowa Caucuses
  1. Other states use presidential primaries as method of sending delegates to national convention. Increased use of primaries in the last 30 years.
  1. “Beauty contest primary:” voters vote for candidates and state parties select delegates to attend the convention either on a proportional basis or a “winner-take-all” basis (Republican Party)
  2. Delegate selection primary: voters vote for delegates to attend convention
  3. Combination of the above
  4. Importance of New Hampshire primary
  5. “Front-Loading” trend
  6. “Super Tuesday” and “Junior Tuesday” the week before
  1. National convention
  1. Selection of presidential nominee: a mere formality since the winner is known well ahead of time emphasis on “image” instead of “scrimmage”; “ratification rather than nomination”
  2. Selection of v.p. nominee
  1. chosen by pres. Nominee and rubber stamped by convention
  2. “Balancing the Ticket”
  1. Development of a party platform
  2. Reconciliation and unification of party by end of convention
  1. Analysis of Presidential Nominating System
  1. Pro:
  1. Highly participatory: caucuses, primaries, conventions
  2. Highly representative
  3. Weeds out weaker candidates
  1. Con:
  1. Low rates of turnout
  2. Too lengthy
  3. Does not test candidates for qualities they need as President. Too much emphasis on media game.
  4. Front-loading has adversely affected states with later primaries (e.g. CA). In essence, these states have no say in who is nominated.
  5. Delegates at caucuses and conventions tend to be unrepresentative: more ideological, more activist, more educated, less moderate, much wealthier. “selectorate” replaces “electorate”
  1. Fall campaign
  2. Election day
  3. Meeting of electors
  4. Formal election
  5. Inauguration day

The Electoral College

I. Rationale for such a system at the Constitutional Convention:

  1. Poor communication common people would lack essential information
  2. Desire to have the “best” people select the President. Fear that the common people might be swayed by demagogues.
  3. A compromise by those who wanted direct election and those who wanted the Congress to elect the President
  1. Allotment of Electoral Votes to States
  1. Each state has as many electoral votes as it has members in Congress
  2. Minimum #: 3
  3. Washington D.C. has 3 votes by virtue of Amendment 23
  4. Total of 538 votes
  5. California has highest # (54)
  6. Implications of movement of people from “rust belt” to “sun belt:” greater representation in latter, lesser in former
  1. Selection of selectors: each party develops a “state” of electors prior to the election (typically loyal party members)
  2. Winning of electoral votes
  1. Candidate with most popular votes (only a plurality is needed) wins all of state’s electoral votes (winner-takes-all)concentration of campaign in large, competitive states. Emphasis on “swing states”
  2. Electors meet in respective state capitals in December to cast ballots
  1. Winning the Election
  1. Majority of electoral votes (270) needed to win
  2. If no candidate has majority (this is what the Founders thought would happen most of the time. They did not anticipate the development of the two-party system):
  1. House selects President from among top 3 candidates
  2. Each state has one vote
  3. Done in 1800 and 1824
  4. Senate selects VP from among top 2 candidates
  1. Criticisms
  1. Possibility of minority President (1824, 1876, 1888)
  2. “Faithless Electors”: no fed. law requires electors to vote the way they are “supposed” to vote.
  3. Small states proportionately overrepresented, e.g. Wyoming, with about 500,000 people, has 3 electoral votes, or about 1 vote per 166,666 people. California, with about 33 million people, has 54 electoral votes, or about 1 vote per 611,111.
  4. Small states ridiculously overrepresented if election goes to House, e.g. Alaska would have the same voting power as California
  5. Inhibits development of third parties
  1. Alternatives
  1. Direct Election
  2. District system (candidate who wins a congressional district wins that district’s electoral vote)
  3. Proportional System (candidate gets same percentage of electoral votes as popular votes)
  4. Keep electoral votes but abolish the electors themselves

Campaign Finance

I. Sources of Campaign Money
  1. Small Contributors
  2. Wealthy contributors
  3. Candidates themselves
  4. PACs
  1. Number of these has sextupled since 1974
  2. Contributions of these to congressional candidates has risen by more than 15-fold ($12 million in 1974 to $201 million in 1996)
  3. Percentage of campaign money from PACs has also risen dramatically
  1. Political Parties
  2. Special Fund-raising events
  3. Federal subsidies (for Pres. Candidates only)
  1. Federal Election Campaign Acts (1971-1974): disclosure, subsidies,limitations
  1. Established a Fed. Elections Commission to regulate fed. elections
  2. All candidates must disclose contributions and expenditures
  3. Presidential candidates can receive fed. subsidies on matching fund basis (money comes from tax check- off’s). In 1996, Clinton and Dole received $61 million.
  4. Presidential candidates who receive fed. money are subjected to spending limitations
  5. Contribution limitations:
  1. Individuals: $1000 per candidate, per election and no more than a total of $25,000 can be contributed overall in one year period
  2. PACs: $5,000 per candidate, per election, and no overall cap.
  1. Analysis
  1. No subsidies for congressional campaignsfurther incumbency advantage.
  2. No limits on spending in congressional races (these were overturned in Buckley v. Valeo, 1976)
  1. Massive spending on congressional races and further incumbency advantage
  2. Members of Congress spend great amounts of time with fund-raising projects
  3. Late-starters are discouraged
  1. No limitation son independent expenditures
  2. No limitations on soft money
  3. No limitations on loans
  4. Minor presidential candidates cannot receive subsidies before the election unless their party earned at least 5% of the popular vote in the previous election. They can get the subsidy after the election if they earn 5%, but it’s a little too late!
  5. Parties are weakened since presidential election funds go to the candidates themselves rather than the partiesrise of candidate-centered campaigns rather than party-centered
  6. Growth of PACs
  7. Controversial proposal to raise limitations so that candidates will need less time to get funds, and so that they will depend upon fewer PACs. Could be coupled with tighter disclosure requirements.
  8. No limitations on “bundling”
  9. Bush Jr. raised > $50 million by Sept 1999no need to take subsidiesnot required to abide by spending limits
  10. Cost of campaigning has risen, but dollar limitations remain the samemore time spent on fundraising by candidates
  11. Large majority of PAC money goes to incumbents further incumbency advantage

Political Parties

Party Weaknesses

  1. Parties lack strong rank-and-file membership
  1. Anyone can join merely by registration
  2. No duties or dues
  3. Most activities occur only at election time

**In general, decline in strong party identification among party members

  1. Tension between party regulars and issue purists/candidate loyalists
  1. Party Regulars
  1. Lower/middle income background
  2. Older
  3. Less educated
  4. More pragmatic
  5. Supportive of all the parties candidates and positions
  1. Issue purists/candidate loyalists
  1. Middle/upper class background
  2. Younger
  3. More educated
  4. More ideological
  5. More selective in support of candidates and positions

(Use New Right in Republican Party as example of these)

  1. Not responsive enough to social reform
  1. Fear of alienating middle and upper classfew bold party moves for social reforms
  2. “Party Passiveness”
  3. During normal periods, “passiveness” may be desirable, but during periods of rapid change, parties are too slow to respondstatus quo bias
  1. Parties have lost many of their traditional functions, or these functions have been weakened
  1. Nomination of candidates (now done by primary elections)
  2. Funding of political campaigns (trend towards candidate-centered campaigns)
  3. Unifying govt. (we now have a divided party govt.)
  4. Providing patronage (jobs now filled by Civil Service)
  1. Parties are decentralized
  1. Each organized along federal model:

National CommitteeState CommitteesLocal Committees

  1. Neither DNC nor RNC has true clout over the state and local committees. Neither has any real power to “punish” those who stray from the party line.
  2. Supreme authority of national party rests with the national convention.

Impact of Parties on Government

  1. Congress
  1. Majority party controls all committees
  2. Majority party has chairmen on all committees
  3. Majority party controls key leadership positions
  4. Staffers are partisan
  1. Executive Branch
  1. Nearly all appointments to White House Office are partisan. Many go to people from election campaigns
  2. Nearly all appointments to top positions in other parts of executive branch are partisan.
  3. Development of Civil Service System has greatly reduced party influence over the bureaucracy.
  1. Judicial Branch: nearly all appointments partisan
  2. State and local govts.
  1. most state and local govt. positions are partisan
  2. many local govt. positions (e.g. school board, city council) are nonpartisan

Party Reform

  1. Historical abuses
  1. Control of nominations by bosses and caucuses
  2. Corruption of political machines, e.g. Tweed, Daley
  3. Unrepresentative nature—young, poor, and minorities often excluded
  1. Reforms of Progressive Era
  1. Direct Primary Elections
  2. Nonpartisan elections at state and local level
  3. Civil Service expansion
  4. Initiative, referendum, and recall
  5. 17th Amendment
  1. Other factors that have weakened the parties and contributed to “dealignment”
  1. Candidate-centered campaigns (esp. after the FECA)
  2. Rise of campaign consultants to take over many of the functions of the parties
  3. Public disenchantment with parties ad politics during the ‘60s
  4. Growth of interest groups—have taken on some party functions
  5. Development of mass media—candidates rely on media rather than party organization to get message across
  6. Growth of political independents (though 2/3 of “independents” are actually “leaners.” Same % of pure independents in 1992 as in 1956)
  7. Trend to “vote the man, not the party” and rise of split-ticket voting
  1. Reforms of the Democratic Party
  1. 1970 McGovern-Fraser Commission
  1. Since the Democratic Party is a more representational party, it was under more pressure than the Rep. party (a more “organizational” party) to “open itself up”.commission recommended, and the party adopted the following reforms:
  1. prohibited unit rule
  2. prohibited discrimination
  3. encouraged young people to take part in party activities
  4. developed a “quota system” to ensure that young, women, and minorities were represented in party affairs (esp. the national convention)
  1. Results of reforms:
  1. a more liberal nominee in 1972
  2. landslide defeat in 1972
  3. pressure from party moderates to develop mechanisms that would produce more moderate candidates with a better chance to win:
  • Super Tuesday to give more clout to South
  • Superdelegates go to make convention more moderate
  1. Midterm Conferencelater abandoned
  2. 1986 Fairness Commission
  1. Complaints from Jesse Jackson that the threshold requirement was too high. He won 18% of the vote in 1984 primaries, but got only 10% of the delegates)
  2. Requirement was lowered from 20% to 15%. Candidates now only have to get a minimum of 15% of the vote to receive delegates.
  1. Party Resurgence
  1. Nat. party organizations are better funded than in the past
  2. Both parties, w/better funding, hold training sessions for candidates: how to plan, raise funds, organize
  3. State parties are making use of soft money
  4. Very strong party unity scores within Congress: 70-80%