Discuss the pros and cons of interest groups and campaign finance in American politics.
PLEASE MAKE SURE TO INCLUDE CLASS CONTENT AS WELL AS INFORMATION FROM THE LINK PROVIDED TO REFER BACK TO. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT YOU MENTION SOMETHING THAT IS MENTIONED IN THE READINGS!
Compose a written response to the given prompt containing a minimum of 150 words. After you have posted your discussion, respond thoughtfully to the Discussion Topic posts of at least two other classmates. Be sure to follow the Rubric attached at the bottom.
Discuss the pros and cons of interest groups and campaign finance in American politics. In addition to the class content, refer to the landmark Citizens United case for insight that may help with your response. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained
Requirements:
Political Parties, Voting, and ElectionsLearning ObjectivesAfter covering the topic of political parties, elections, and voting, students should understand:1. The evolution, organization, and functions of the two major political parties.2. The role of ‘‘third’’ or ‘‘minor’’ parties and the hurdles they face in our system.3. The history of suffrage in America and the rules governing registration, voting, and elections.4. The prominent role of money in contemporary elections.AbstractAs noted in chapters 1 and 2, our government is a democratic republic, and the centerpiece of all such governments are elections in which eligible voters select candidates to represent them. The organizing of voter preferences through political parties is central to the electoral concept. Not only did the framers not foresee this, but they were actually hostile1 to the concept. This lack of foresight may have been their biggest failure. A strong case may be made that our two-party system traces its roots to the nation’s founding. This system is sustained by our most common electoral rules: single-member district, plurality (or ‘‘SMDP’’) rules. Not only do these rules affect our party system, but there is strong evidence that they can affect the outcome of individual elections. Other rules affecting elections include campaign finance regulations.1 See especially Federalist # 10 (https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-1-10#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493273) and George Washington’s farewell address (https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=15&page=transcript).Carl D. Cavalli
– 118 –IntroductionPolitical parties seek to control government through elections. As such, their existence is closely tied to the electoral process.Political PartiesWhat is a political party? It is an organization that selects candidates for office to represent the party’s ideals, conducts election campaigns to get their candidates into office, and organizes government to facilitate achievement of its goals. Selection includes recruiting (searching for and encouraging) candidates to run, and then conducting a nominating process to formally select a nominee among all competing candidates. In election campaigns, parties provide services (i.e., advertising, polling) for their nominees, and will also encourage turnout to support them. Examples of organization include majority party leadership in Congress (see chapter 7) or state legislatures, and presidential or gubernatorial appointments to the executive and judicial branches (see chapter 8). All of this is toward the goal of implementing a broad policy agenda. In addition, political party labels serve as ‘‘cues,’’ or shortcuts to help us as voters decide whom to support in elections.Unlike other multi-party democracies, we have sustained a system of two major parties for most of our history. This fact is interesting because the framers did not anticipate their formation. Indeed, they were actively hostile to the idea. James Madison devotes Federalist #10 to a discussion of controlling the effects of factions. He defined a faction as ‘‘a number of citizens…united…by some common impulse of passion, or of interest…’’—a definition in which all modern interpreters include political parties (Madison, 1787). Additionally, in his farewell address as president, George Washington warned us ‘‘against the baneful effects of the spirit of party.’’However, the formation of political parties was in the air, and that air portended two political parties from the start. Every major issue surrounding the formation of the government provoked two opposing sides: national versus state power, commerce versus agriculture, North versus South, and when it came down to it, pro-Constitution versus anti-Constitution. Moreover, these were not random divisions. Those on one side of any issue tended to be consistently on the same side of each of the other issues. Two big factions.ElectionsWhy conduct elections? With elections, we can reward elected officials who appear to serve us well (by re-electing them to office), and punish elected
– 119 –officials who fail to serve us well (by kicking them out). That is, we can hold them responsible for their actions. This ability also provides the public with a sense of influence (as debated in chapter 1). One might actually make the case that voting replaces violence as the main means of political participation (consider: if you cannot vote politicians you dislike out of office, then how do you get them out?).From the viewpoint discussed above, elections represent a bargain, both in the sense that they are (at least in theory) a good deal for us and in the sense that they represent an exchange between us and the government. What is the bargain from the government’s standpoint? They concede our right to participate—to influence their composition—in exchange for gaining stability and legitimacy2. What is the bargain from our standpoint? We concede other means of altering the government (for example, violence) in exchange for the sense of influence discussed above.Basics: PartiesFormationAs noted in the introduction, political parties were neither anticipated nor welcomed by the framers. However, the stage was set from the founding for a two-party system. The two big factions mentioned earlier developed, at first, into the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.The FederalistsThe better organized faction at our founding was the Federalists. The framers were largely Federalists. They felt the Articles of Confederation was a failure (see chapter 2) and so wrote an entirely new constitution. They favored national power over local power—in large part because they felt co-ordination at the national level was required to promote and develop the nation’s commerce and industry (i.e., see Wood, 1998). Most were northerners, probably because most of the nation’s commerce and industry was located in the north.The Anti-FederalistsAt least as numerous, but less organized were the Anti-Federalists. With many located in the agricultural South, they feared a powerful national government and the industrialization it might bring. They wanted to maintain the nation’s agrarian roots. Throughout the states, opposition to centralized national power was found 2 That is, we will respect and obey the laws they create, even if we disagree with them. Disagreement becomes a catalyst for voting (and other forms of participation), and not for violence.
– 120 –most often in areas ‘‘in which small, self-sufficient, and often debtor farmers were most numerous’’ (Main, 2006, p.112).From the Anti-Federalists to the DemocratsThe Anti-Federalists began to organize into a true political party in the mid-1790s. They recognized the value of coordinating their efforts to win elections throughout the nation and to help bridge our system of separation of powers. Under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, they called themselves Republicans3. By the election of 1800, their organizational efforts paid off and they began to win huge majorities in Congress (Senate Historical Office, 2010, Office of the Clerk, 2010) as well as an unparalleled seven consecutive presidential elections.Among intra-party divisions in the 1820s, Andrew Jackson came to lead the party and attempted to preserve its Jeffersonian roots. It was at this time they began to call themselves Democrats. Even though some left the party, perceiving Jackson’s leadership to be autocratic, they continued to win elections. Including their Jeffersonian Republican forebears, they won all but two presidential elections from 1800 through 1856 and maintained control of Congress for all but a few years during that time.After a period of dominance by the new Republican Party (see below) in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Democratic Party regained its majority in the 1930s under the leadership of Franklin Roosevelt. They maintained this majority largely intact into the 1970s. It was a changed party, however.From its Anti-Federalist forebears, it came to be the party of the ‘‘common man.’’ While the party maintains a similar focus today as the party of workers, minorities, and women, its view of government has changed drastically. Franklin Roosevelt’s Democratic Party was quite different from Jefferson’s and Jackson’s. Gone were the Anti-Federalist fears of national government. Roosevelt’s ‘‘New Dealers’’ believed in using the power of the national government to fight economic distress and inequality (i.e., see: https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/).From the Federalists to the Whigs to the RepublicansThough our founding was dominated by Federalists, their dislike of political parties proved to be their downfall. They began organizing into what looked like a political party around the same time as the Anti-Federalists—the mid-1790s. 3 This is not the modern Republican Party (see next section). To distinguish this party from the modern one, the terms ‘‘Democratic-Republicans’‘ or ‘‘Jefferson’s Republicans’‘ are often used.
– 121 –However, as the faction in power, their focus was on policy, not elections. By the time they realized the value of organizing for elections, it was too late. In the elections of 1800, they lost out to their better-organized opponents (see above) virtually everywhere. By the early 1800s, they were finished as an organized group.Their sympathizers did not disappear, however. A combination of former Federalists and Democrats (who feared what they saw as autocratic rule in the election of Democrat Andrew Jackson to the presidency) formed the Whig Party. They were quite successful in the 1830s and 1840s, electing several presidents and building congressional majorities (Senate Historical Office, 2010, Office of the Clerk, 2010). The thorny issue of slavery split and ultimately destroyed the party in the early 1850s.At that time, a new party arose from anti-slavery elements in both the Democratic and Whig parties. To emphasize their belief that they were truly fulfilling the framers’ vision, they called themselves Republicans. Under the leadership of John C. Fremont and Abraham Lincoln, they quickly rose to major party status. From the mid-1850s through today, they have competed with the Democrats as one of the two major political parties in America.Consistent with their Federalist roots, the Republicans have historically been the party of business and commerce. However, unlike their forebears who saw a strong national government as the key to commercial development, modern Republicans often take a dim view of federal power. More like the Anti-Federalists, modern Republicans generally place more trust in local government. The modern Republican Party supports free-market commerce (i.e., it opposes much government regulation of businesses and industries), small and localized government, and a socially conservative ideology (i.e., see: https://www.gop.com/our-party/).Three-Part StructureAs noted earlier, parties exist to select and elect candidates and to organize government. This idea suggests a three-part structure to parties as we know them. There is not only the party organization itself but also the party in government and the party in the electorate (voters) (i.e., see Key, 1964, Beck, 1997).It is the party organizations at all levels (national, state, and local) that help to select and elect candidates. They do this by first nominating candidates as their choices for the general election. The process of nominating usually consists of either a primary, where voters select a nominee, a caucus, where party members gather to agree upon a nominee, a convention, where party members gather in one location to formally choose a nominee, or some combination of these methods.
– 122 –Presidential NominationsWe can see all three of these methods in presidential party nominations. In the mid-to-late summer of presidential election years, the national party organizations (the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee) each hold a national convention to formally select their presidential nominees. At the convention, delegates representing all 50 states and many territories vote to select the nominees. Most delegates are bound by state and/or party rules to vote for particular candidates, so the outcome is rarely in doubt (leading some to talk more of coronations than conventions). So, how are the delegates chosen, and why are they bound to one candidate? This is where the other methods come into play.All states and territories hold either a primary or caucus4 to choose their delegates to the national conventions. A primary can be either open to all voters or closed to all but registered party members (there are some other variations as well). Voting takes place at polling places around the state, much like any election. A caucus involves only party members meeting around the state. They involve more effort as participants must gather in one spot (an auditorium or gymnasium) to openly debate the choices (i.e., see: https://www.c-span.org/video/?403824-1/iowa-democratic-caucus-meeting). Because of the effort involved, caucuses usually involve far less of the electorate than do primaries. The Democratic Party requires all of its primaries and caucuses to use proportional representation rules which allocate delegates favoring candidates in proportion to their support in the primary vote or the caucus. The Republican Party allows states to use winner-take-all rules, where the top finisher gets all the state’s delegates, if they so choose.To win elections, the party organizations help candidates appeal to the electorate. The focus of these ‘‘get-out-the-vote’’ (GOTV) efforts is two-fold. First, the organizations want to make sure their supporters—the party in the electorate (often called the ‘‘base’’) turn out to vote. Next, they want to reach out to independent and uncommitted voters to win their support. Particularly strong or popular candidates may even reach out to supporters of other parties. Today, these are high-tech efforts to target and appeal to the public using mailing and email lists, consumer and demographic data, and social networking media (i.e., YouTube, Twitter, Facebook) in addition to traditional speeches, fliers, rallies, and TV/radio advertisements.Candidates who win the general election will take their seats in office to become their party’s party in government. In legislating or administering policy, they will attempt to represent their party and to get its agenda enacted into law.4 Or in some cases, like Kansas and Maine, a combination of both.
– 123 –Modern Regional BasesThe Democratic and Republican parties have competed head-to-head as our only major parties for over 150 years. Currently, the Democratic Party’s regional bases are in the Northeast, the Great Lakes region, and the West. The Republican Party’s regional bases are in the South, the Upper Midwest, and in the Great Plains. This distribution is evident in the 2020 presidential Electoral College results (i.e., see https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/). While this distribution is accurate, it is also misleading.Both parties are competitive in many areas. However, while some suggest that a mixed “purple America” is a more accurate portrayal of recent party competition than is red (Republican) versus blue (Democrat) (i.e., see Ansolabehere, Rodden, and Snyder, 2006), others see increasingly stark partisan division in the future (i.e., see Wasserman, 2017)5.RealignmentThe current alignment of political parties has not always been the case. We have seen many different partisan alignments. At any given time, there is a set of parties competing over the issues of the day. This set of parties competing over these issues comprises a party system. New events and new generations with new issues will alter the composition of—and competition between—the parties, leading to a new party system. This change is often referred to as realignment (Burnham, 1970). Through much of our history, realignments occur with surprising regularity—approximately every 30 years. Perhaps it is a result of generational change.In any case, most electoral scholars identify five or six realignments in our history (i.e., see Sundquist, 1983), usually resulting in a dominant party. They are identified here by approximate year:• 1800: In a sense, 1800 saw an alignment rather than a realignment since this was the point at which political parties were developing. Indeed, the very development of parties was the issue. Recall the differing views on organizing between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The Federalists disliked factions, believing them detrimental to the public good, while the Anti-Federalists saw organizing as the key to success. The Anti-Federalists’ organization into Jefferson’s Republicans paid off as they became the dominant party in American politics for many years (and, indeed, the only party for a few years).5 For a graphic representation of this notion, see https://vanderbei.princeton.edu/JAVA/election2020/
– 124 –• 1828: A new generation of Americans saw the rapid disappearance of property requirements for voting. This change meant voting and politics were no longer limited to the wealthy elite. In a more practical sense, it made public campaigning a viable option for election. Andrew Jackson was the first person to run for president by openly campaigning for votes among the public. It was the new issue of the political age—political participation, and Andrew Jackson’s Democrats capitalized on the expansion of the vote to ordinary (white, male) citizens to become the dominant party for the next 30 years.• 1860: An old issue, slavery, became the issue of the age as the nation debated its expansion into the west. The industrial North—less dependent upon slavery—was the locus of a growing movement to abolish the practice, while the agricultural South was still dependent upon it. The issue fractured both the Whigs and Democrats, destroying the former, and leaving the Democrats as a largely Southern, pro-slavery party. In 1854, the abolitionists united to form a new party, the Republicans. The growing anti-slavery movement rapidly catapulted the party to majority status (aided by the secession of largely Democratic Southern states from the union in the 1860s). They would remain the majority party nationally until well into the 20th century.• 1896: The late 19th century saw the United States emerge as a major industrial, economic power in what we might today call the first age of globalization. The major issue was how far to pursue industrialization and globalization. The Democrats, still located largely in the more agricultural South, resisted the trend while the Republicans embraced it. The nation sided with the Republicans, re-energizing their majority at the dawn of the 20th century.• 1932: Perhaps the most iconic realignment occurred in the 1930s as a result of the Great Depression—the greatest period of economic distress the country has experienced. The issue for the age was the extent to which the federal government should actively combat it. While both parties embraced at least some activism (it may be argued that Herbert Hoover, the Republican president at the time the Depression hit in 1929, made greater use of the federal government to address the nation’s troubles than any previous president6), it was the Democratic Party under Franklin Delano Roosevelt that eventually advocated extensive use of the federal government to actively combat the effects of the Depression 6 See for example the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, created in 1929 https://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/234.html).
– 125 –(the New Deal). An increasingly distressed public flocked to Roosevelt and the Democrats, who won unprecedented majorities in the 1930s.• 1960s? If the 30-year cycle held, we would expect to see another realignment in the 1960s. However, there is scant evidence of any traditional realignment. The Democratic Party maintained a relatively strong majority through the 1970s and weaker majority into the early 1990s. While there were new issues—most notably the civil rights movement, and more recently the rise of economic and social issues—they led to neither a new majority nor radically reformed parties. To this day, while Democratic support has weakened notably, there is little corresponding increase in support for Republicans. Instead, beginning in the 1970s, people began to leave both parties and identify as independents (i.e., see Gallup Poll data on party identification: https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx). This change leaves us with a more competitive two-party system, but not with a ‘‘50-50’’ division of Democrats and Republicans. More accurately we now have a ‘‘30-40-30’ division that includes independents—leading some to say there has not been a realignment, but rather a dealignment, or a movement away from political parties (Nie, Verba, & Petrocik, 1976, Rosenof, 2003).In the mid-1990s, many proclaimed a Republican realignment. There were similar claims of a Democratic realignment after the 2006 and 2008 elections, and again by Republicans after the 2010, 2014, and 2016 elections. All are wrong. The key to realignments is their establishment of a stable, long-term party system, which means you can never proclaim one after only one or two elections. They may only be designated in retrospect after a decade or more.Minor PartiesThat only two major parties have dominated our politics for over 150 years does not mean no other parties exist. There are dozens and possibly even hundreds of smaller parties7, which raises a few questions.Why are there only two major parties?There are several contributing reasons. First, as noted earlier, we divided into two major factions very early on, leading almost inevitably to our two major parties. Second, though, is that our divisions have never been so vast as to sustain 7 The site Politics1.com lists 47 others at the time of this printing (see: https://politics1.com/parties.htm)
– 126 –many major parties. We share several universal values (see chapter 4) that do not leave much support for additional parties. Third is our self-fulfilling skepticism of third parties. Most all of us are not so issue driven that we will back parties with little chance of winning, even if we agree with their issue positions. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary—we often adjust our own issue positions to conform to the party we support (Campbell, et al, 1960, Fiorina, 1981, Green, et al, 2002, Karol, 2009). We like to back winners, essentially because the rather reasonable logic is that parties do us no good unless they can actually win elections. Of course, if we do not support them, they will not win. It is a vicious cycle for third parties.Last, and least appreciated, are rules. Rules matter. While we like to think that elections are simply “The candidate with the most votes wins,” it is more complicated. Different rules may lead to different outcomes even with the same set of votes. All American elections are state-run; it is a delegated power (see chapter 3). There are federal regulations and constitutional requirements imposed on the states, but the bottom line is that they actually run the contests. This in itself is a ‘‘rule’’ that matters! It means 50 states may have 50 sets of differing electoral rules. Since all contemporary state legislatures and governors, who write the rules, are under the control of one major party or the other, those rules are generally favorable to the major parties. The first hurdle third parties must clear is negotiating 50 sets of rules—none of which were written by (or for!) them.There are two sets of rules that have the greatest effect: voting rules and ballot access rules.• Voting Rules: The most common American voting rules are Single-Member District, Plurality rules—known as SMDP. Not all U.S. elections are SMDP, but most are. ▷As the name implies, Single-Member Districts have only one representative. It is how we elect representatives to Congress and state legislatures. For example, the state of Georgia is currently apportioned 14 U.S. representatives based on its population (see chapter 2). The state does not, however, simply elect 14 people state-wide. Federal law requires states to create one electoral district per representative—so Georgia must elect one representative each in 14 separate districts. It is this winner-take-all nature (often referred to as ‘‘first-past-the-post’’) that advantages major parties. You must have enough support to finish first. As such, it may be better to think of single-winner elections. Contrast this with Multi-Member District systems (or multi-winner elections), where each
– 127 –district elects several representatives. If states were allowed to use multi-member systems for Congress, Georgia might hold a single, state-wide election where the top 14 finishers won office. Another possibility might be a handful of districts electing several representatives each. In either case, candidates can finish second, third, or lower and still win office. This procedure gives minor parties a much better chance. ▷In Plurality elections, the threshold for victory is simply getting more votes than anyone else. Contrast this to Majority elections where the threshold is higher: more than half of the votes cast (or alternatively, more votes than everyone else combined). The advantage of plurality rules to major parties may seem counter-intuitive at first. Since winning requires a lower threshold, it is tempting to think minor parties have a better chance at meeting the lower standard—and they do. However, major parties do, too—and they get, by definition, more votes than minor parties (the very meaning of plurality, right?). In addition, they do so without needing help from anyone else. This situation leaves little hope for smaller parties. In contrast, even major parties will not always meet the higher standard of a majority election without help (see the case studies at the end of this chapter). That help may come in the form of coalitions with smaller parties to build the necessary majority—giving those smaller parties at least some influence (and a reason to stick around!).• State Ballot Rules: As noted above, states control elections, and each sets its own rules. This power includes deciding which parties get access to limited ballot space. All states award space to parties who won a significant portion of the vote in previous elections—usually 20-25%. Major parties easily meet that standard, so their candidates appear on virtually all ballots. However, minor parties rarely do that well, so they generally do not get automatic access. They must seek it each time. To get access, states have all manner of requirements: fees (ranging from a few to thousands of dollars), petition signatures (again, ranging from a handful to thousands), paperwork, and legal action. Minor parties have to spend precious resources meeting these requirements, while the major parties are already out campaigning. This structure means the major parties can devote all of their time and money to campaigning while minor parties have to devote a significant portion just to get on ballots.
– 128 –So why do they bother?Minor parties bother because they have a message. That message usually involves individuals, issues, or just a better way (or any combination of those things).Some minor parties are vehicles for a single candidate. The Reform Party of the 1990s was the classic example of a single-person, or cult-of-personality party (see: https://reformparty.org/). Its life blood was two-time presidential candidate Ross Perot, a billionaire who practically bankrolled the entire party from his own pocket. While he was a candidate in 1992 (when the entity was the more loosely-organized ‘‘United We Stand America’’), and 1996, the Reform Party was born and rose to become the most formidable third party in decades. In 1992, Perot captured almost 20 million votes—the best showing for a third-party presidential candidate in 80 years. In 1996, he ran for the Reform Party’s nomination at a convention that he paid for. In the general election, he captured over 8 million votes—a significant drop, but still one of the best third-party showings in years. After that, Perot began to withdraw from active participation in the party, and in 2000, he declined another bid for president. The effect on the party was dramatic. Public support dropped, and the party fractured among internal fighting. The official pa
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.