Скачать презентацию Functions of Parties organized critique of the Скачать презентацию Functions of Parties organized critique of the

7b00b00bcbdb1df040b3ce5244cc0e31.ppt

  • Количество слайдов: 27

Functions of Parties ® organized critique of the party in power ® a choice 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

Buckley v. Valeo ® Limits on spending are unconstitutional ® Limits on contributions are Buckley v. Valeo ® Limits on spending are unconstitutional ® Limits on contributions are okay ® No limits on individual spending

Legacy of Buckley ® Public financing is key ® All CFR is a constitutional Legacy of Buckley ® Public financing is key ® All CFR is a constitutional issue

® Who Gives Individuals ® Corporations/labor unions ® Political action committees (PACs) ® ® ® Who Gives Individuals ® Corporations/labor unions ® Political action committees (PACs) ® ® Who Receives Candidates (hard $) ® Parties (soft $) ® "independent expenditures“ (express advocacy) ®

How Much to Whom? ® INDIVIDUALS ® Hard Money $25, 000 a year limit 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"

How Much to Whom? ® CORPORATIONS AND LABOR GROUPS Hard Money from treasury- $0 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" ®

Disclosure ® Candidates must report all PACs and party contributions ® Name, address and 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

Presidential Candidates ® Public funding based on matching system ® candidates who accepted federal 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

Hard vs Soft Money ® Hard money given to candidates Given by PACs, individuals 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 ®

Increasing Cost of Campaigns Increasing Cost of Campaigns

Increasingly Expensive Races Most Expensive Senate Races 2000 ® New York Senate $83, 698, 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

House Challengers in Battleground Districts in the 1992 Election House Challengers in Battleground Districts in the 1992 Election

Challengers in Battleground Districts 1996 House Elections Challengers in Battleground Districts 1996 House Elections

PAC contributions PAC contributions

Soft Money contributions 2000 Soft Money contributions 2000

Public Financing Britain No Limits on Spending Yes Denmark Yes, to parties No Public Financing Britain No Limits on Spending Yes Denmark Yes, to parties No France Yes, to candidates Yes Italy Yes, to candidates No Israel No Yes Japan No Yes Germany Yes, to parties No US NO NO Television Free Time to parties on public stations Free Time to candidates; no negative ads Free Time to candidates on public stations NONE

Two CF Systems ® Official Post Watergate system ® Low individual limits on giving 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

What is to be done? ® Clean Money Solution (ME, NE, MA) ® complete 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)

Mc. Cain Feingold ® Ban Soft Money contributions to national parties ® Earlier versions Mc. Cain Feingold ® Ban Soft Money contributions to national parties ® Earlier versions ® 60% of funding from district ® Free TV time

Brookings Proposal ® Increase individual contribution limits ® Increase limits on hard money contributions/end 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

CFR is not a Problem View ® Free speech costs money ® How much 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

CFR is a Problem ® Only corporations/wealthy have $$$ ® $150, 000 annual income CFR is a Problem ® Only corporations/wealthy have $$$ ® $150, 000 annual income =25% of contributions ® Increases political clout of corporations ® Uneven distribution of wealth + private financing of elections = ® Solution= democratically/public financing

Barriers ® Partisan reforms ® Incumbent protection ® Ants in the kitchen/balloon analogy Barriers ® Partisan reforms ® Incumbent protection ® Ants in the kitchen/balloon analogy

Why the system is broke! ® Express Advocacy ® communication whose purpose is to 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

But Independent Expenditures ® An independent version of express advocacy ® No coordination with 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)

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