×
Log in to StudySoup
Get Full Access to GWU - Study Guide - Final
Join StudySoup for FREE
Get Full Access to GWU - Study Guide - Final

Already have an account? Login here
×
Reset your password

GWU / Political Science / PSC 2219 / Where does the money come from?

Where does the money come from?

Where does the money come from?

Description

School: George Washington University
Department: Political Science
Course: Political Parties and Interest Groups
Term: Spring 2019
Tags: psc2219, Politics, and political science
Cost: 50
Name: PSC 2219 Final Study Guide
Description: Final Study Guide
Uploaded: 05/05/2019
16 Pages 50 Views 7 Unlocks
Reviews


PSC 2219 FINAL EXAM 


Where does the money come from?



Rules that can impact the campaigns: 

1- Closing times 

- Each state determines what time their polls will open and close

- Typically, Democrats did better in the evening and Republicans did better in the morning/afternoon

- Maybe because typically Republicans were white collars workers and Democrats were factory workers

- Typically, Republicans want to close at the exact time while the Democrats want to keep it open

- Closing times matter as to who votes and who doesn’t

2- The process of voting 

- How easy or hard it is for someone to vote

- How easy it is to get the form, information required, absentee ballots, same day registration or earlier registration


What are the ways money can/can not be coordinated in campaigns?



3- Ballot format 

- Some states will be by office, others by party (straight column each for Republican, Democrat and office) We also discuss several other topics like What does the bottom-up approach focus on?

- Influences the outcome

- For county committees, the order of the names may matter (alphabetical order) 4- Voting systems 

- Voting machines (punch cards, butterfly ballot, scanning through machine - Varies by each county and state

5- Election dates Don't forget about the age old question of Based on dynamic equilibrium, what is lag time?

- More at local level

- People don’t want their local elected official to be affected by the national election; want it to be more bipartisan

6- Legislative redistricting 

- How you draw districts can affect how and who wins


What are the two types of committees?



- Changing the rules of the game

Shift in campaigns overtime in the Fall elections (60’s onwards) 

- Used to be party centered campaigns

- Party did most of the work

- Changes took place overtime as the process was opening up

- Now, it is more candidate centered

- To create a campaign, you have to create an organization and hire people to help you run - Do not really need the party anymore to run

Factors that caused the shift 

1- Electoral reforms 

- Way of allowing for direct primaries

- Candidate can run for office

- More transparents and open process If you want to learn more check out Define amygdala.

2- Emergence of independent professionals 

- Help candidates run their campaign

- Hired to write your speeches and press releases, raise funds, do polling, create events

3- New forms of communication We also discuss several other topics like What are the four macromolecules? what are their locations and functions?

- Television- can visualise the candidates, people hear your unfiltered message - Internet and social media- message can spread to a wide variety of people 4- Rival of direct mail 

- Can go direct to the people; use e-mails to ask for support and financing - Ways to raise

5- Proliferation of interest groups and political organisations 

- 60’s onwards , new types of issues and interest groups emerged to help you spread your message and raise resources for the candidate

Parties and candidates try to work together and support each other;however, tensions do arise

Tensions that can emerge between party and candidate 

1- Differences in message 

- Party may think they know better than the candidate on running and try to do things differently If you want to learn more check out Why were there problems with the colonial arrangement?

2- Different goals 

- Candidates goals is usually to win while the party looks at the broader agenda (coattails effect)

3- Competing alliances 

- The candidate have other groups that are helping you run the campaign and seeking their advice and the candidate might see the party as another of these groups

- The party wants to be seens as an equal to the candidate and want to be prefered over the groups

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Don't forget about the age old question of What is the resolution of an electron microscope?

Campaign financing 

Early 1970’s things changes and reforms were implemented that limited financing Congress passed the modern..act

Things from the campaign finance reforms 

1- Contribution limits 

- How much under federal law you can give as an individual

- Parties can give money as well based on size on constituencies

2- Spending limits (at the Presidential level) 

- Differ by state

3- Public disclosure 

- If you give more than 200$, you must disclose your information

Where does the money come from? 

1- Individual contributors 

2- Political action committees (PAC) 

- Assumption that this means their votes are being bought but the reality is it is not; they usually just gets access

- Most will go to incumbents, those who have demonstrated support to them in the past - PAC’s don’t all give $5000 (max)

3- Parties to various candidates 

4- The candidates themselves 

- In Maryland, the Democratic nominee David Trone spent 16m$ of his own money - Trump spent his own money

5- Public funding 

- Not a realistic option anymore

Ways money can/can not be coordinated in campaigns 

1- Independence funding 

- Organization can spend as much as it wants, CAN call for the defeat or election of a candidate (creating super PACs) as long as they DO NOT coordinate with the candidate 2- Issue advocacy ads

- Cannot call for the election or defeat of a candidate but Can coordinate with a candidates campaigns

Role political parties play in the operation of gov. 

After every election, the Dem, Repub, the House and Senate will caucus and choose their leaders - Most people will vote for their party leader

- Parties as they organize have a big say on how the house and Senate organise - With house leaders and how the senate and chambers operate

2 types of committees: 

1- Committee of jurisdiction; approving committee 

2- Committee of appropriation(most important committee) 

Each party selects who gets to serve on each committee

- Agreed upon between both parties

- Who actually sits on which committee is done by the party

Policy agenda of the house and senate is determined by the majority party

How the house and Senate operate can change: parties set the rules

Each party can rewrite the rules as they take office to the extent they want to Woodrow Wilson wrote a book called Congressional Government: his issue was each committee chair determined what issue to talk about under his jurisdiction- one individual was not looking at the broader interest

By ’s, people said decision making was to centralised and all power was at the speaker of the house (committee assignments rules in congressional debate)

By 1920, power had gone away

Primary way to determine who was a chair was seniority

Elected as a Democrat in the South

Keep on getting re-elected in the South

Change in 1930 to 1970: 

- Civil RIghts movement

- Democratic party wanted to change that but the people opposing them were their own fellow party members (they have more power )

As of 1957, 13 of 19 committee chairs were controlled by Southern Democrats or border states Democrats

One chair, Grant Bard from South Carolina, opposed to progressive social welfare - Rarely held committee meetings

- If a meeting was held, he didn’t talk about legislation

- Did this to stop northern democrats getting bills passed

- Had a small staff that were not that smart in order to prevent the party from passing legislation

Howard Smith

- Exact things that would benefit him or modifications to the bill that the party didn't like so as to hold the party as hostage until they agreed with him

1969; 8 of the 20 committee were controlled by southern democrats or border states democrats (including the 3 most imp: appropriation(decides budgets), ways and means( where taxes were done, where committee assignments were done), and the rule based committee( rules when talking about legislation)

8 of the 13 appropriations subcommittee chairs were from the southern democrats

Democrats starting in 1960’s

- Liberal democrats started to push for change as they were frustrated as seeing their views denied

- Were able to get medicare through

- Democrats looked at ways to change the rules

- Early 70’s (74), significant changes made in the House to open the proces up through:

1- Broaden criteria to choose the committee chairs other than seniority

2- Give the caucus the power to challenge and remove chairs through secret ballots 3- Make sure individuals subcommittees have an opportunity to serve as Chair

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

- Rules are set by the majority party and the party in office gets to moderate - Woodrow Wilson was concerned that Congress was too decentralized - Members chairing the committee had too much authority, acting in their own interest, not for the party

- 20 years later the complete opposite happened; a centralized system under Joe Cannon and the Republican. Internal revolt in the House where Republican and Democrats take the authority away, in 1920s back to the decentralized system

where seniority is the main way you accumulate power, goal is to get reelected. One region benefited greatly: the South, one party region anybody and everybody was Democrat. Likely to hold office until you died.

Changes started taking place in the early 70’s 

- Younger people are becoming increasingly frustrated with the systems - After Watergate they have the numbers to change the rules to effect the way it operates to effect the way the house operates:

- Seniority is no longer sole basis

- Caucus can vote, secret ballot and don’t have to worry about publicly taking down the chair

- Chair Edwards Hebert from Louisiana in Armed Service; he was

patronizing, caucus got together and removed him.

- Took away authority from ways and mean from making committee

assignments and gave it to the Speaker of the House. Speaker is

responsible to every member of the party

- Create more sub-committee chairs who were younger, wanted to be

involved, this is where power resides (on the house side 150

subcommittees).

- The Democrats controlled the House for nearly 40 years until the early 1990s. - Bill Clinton lost the House in 1994 (the Gingrich revolution).

- Newt Gingrich was pushing the party to change, he said you have to push, raise issues, make them the issue.

- Jim Wright Southerner from Texas Gingrich challenged him; wrote a book and the only people that bought it were unions and they gave it away for free (looked like fraud) - Gingrich used that as a platform to become the House Minority leader, younger republicans said maybe Gingrich is right, have to force the issue and was willing to take on Clinton. “Contract for America” specifically outlined for every House Republican candidate saying if we win this is what we will do in office.

- Gave Gingrich as Speaker a lot of authority: 

- Authority to select committee chairs regardless of seniority.

- Instituted six year term limit on committee chairs (Republican rule).

- When Republicans are in the house it still applies, applies to majority and minority (Chair and Ranking Minority Member)

- 8 year term limit on the Speaker of the House

- Committee chairs the authority to appoint sub-committee chairs.

- Reducing committee staff by 1/3 lot less damage to be done cannot write all these bill

Republican wrote the rules that applied to them as they were in power. Democrats can use seniority, they can remove them, can retain chair for 20 years (those are their rules). Parties determine how they want it set up for themselves.

Senate 

- 100 Senators with 6 year term limits.

- Everybody got along and worked together, people reelected on a regular basis, especially in the House.

- As the newer members got elected and put on a particular committee looked at senior members as their mentors, Democrats and Republicans.

- Reality is you had to learn the ropes, peers there to help, focused on constituency services

- Number of things happen that affect the political spectrum itself that were particularly important to the Senate.

- Whole rush of issues seem to emerge, tax cuts, regulation, foreign policy. Civil Rights new invigoration, environmental issues, consumer rights, women’ issues, Vietnam. - People want action; new issues and new groups.

- By the early 1960s the TV is becoming more important; three major networks had talk show, news went from 15 to 30 minute segments, mechanisms for getting information out.

- More new issues, new groups, new mechanism but they need legislative champion. - Need someone in position of authority to take the issue and run.

- Issue groups look to Senators as they have longer terms and more name recognition. - Boosts up the prestige of the Senators (50s and 60s collegiality club) but now dynamics are changing, I can bypass the Senate and be a spokesperson, more important. - Eugene McCarthy in 1968, Vietnam War allowed him to take down LBJ. We start to see changes taking place in the Senate as Senators more focused on themselves and how to advance their careers.

- One way of doing this is the filibuster which used to be rarely used.

- Start to see the idea of expanding opportunities for Senators, Senate starts to create more sub-committees.

- In the Senate as the majority party for the most part everybody had a

sub-committee chair somewhere.

- Change occurs- Senate becomes more individualized they don’t have to look to each other to advance themselves, opportunities present to them to advance by themselves.

House and Senate each have their own rules but are different because they are set up differently. Changes taking place to reflect the time.

Challenge for the leadership and ways to keep everything/everyone in line - Carrot and stick approach: 

Carrot is always better, people feel better about the situation.

However, have to have the leverage - Jeffords and the Republicans switched parties. Democrats in the early 1980s had a similar situation, Reagan rolled the Democrats on spending and tax cuts. Dems had majority in the house, found out that they had a mole in their midst, one of the Dem committee members during budget discussions told the Republicans the whole democratic game plan. Phil Graham conservative Democrat from Texas on the Budget Committee told the Republicans all the information. They took him off the budget committee (punish him send the signal). Phil Graham resigns his seat, ran as Republican, little time to get a candidate for Dems and Graham crushes them and Republican puts him on Budget committee. - Award, deny or take away committee membership 

- (Dems did this to Joe Lieberman in 2008, he endorsed John McCain). Didn’t want to lose his vote, better to keep his vote around so they took away his spot on one committee and let him retain chairmanship. Smart vote Joe Lieberman put them over the top for Affordable Care Act.

- Award, deny or take away sub-committee chairs. 

- Arlen Spector- Republicans told him do not hold up conservative legislation, used that leverage and he went along

- Offer or refuse campaign assistance (financial, Campaign events etc.) - E.g. sending invitations out to the interest groups, if you were in good with the Speaker of House, the idea being you might get more interest groups if they think ranking members/ leadership is going to be there with you.

- Promote or hinder the passage of legislation. 

- You want provision in a bill, pushing for it for your hospital but how leadership feels about you may determine whether the provision goes in or not.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Types of issues where parties are more unified: 

1- Organizational or procedural issues 

- Rules that will govern congress, the leadership positions

2- Presidential initiatives 

- Define administration; they develop and put a lot of effort into

- President puts its power into it and party gets behind it

3- Core party issues 

- That define to be a democrat or a republican

Conditions that can make the parties more unified: 

1- Party polarization 

- When it actually means something to the caucus to be from a specific party - Look to leadership as to how to advance agenda

2- Greater interparty competition 

- Margin between the 2 parties in either chamber is narrow

- Work between members of caucus and work out the problems in advance so that when you get on floor you have the confidence and support

3- Centralised leadership authority 

- Head of the party has the ability to crack the whip on their members

4- Patronage 

- More authority and more patronage thus, more ability to put individual in line for support as you have something to give them

5- Styles of individual leaders 

- Not every legislators in a leadership position is willing to go after and punish their members who disagree with them while some are (Tom DeLay- Republican US Representative)

Interest groups and their role 

- Try to influence policy 

- Played a key part since the late 1890’s

- First interest group was the anti-saloon league that pushed for prohibition and was successful

- Realised they could not get their legislation passed immediately at the national level

- So they said that each county should have a choice

- Nowadays, it is very common; everyone belonging to any organization will have an interest groups

- 35,000 people registered at the federal level to lobby

Iron triangle: mutually beneficial, three-way relationship between Congress, government bureaucrats, and special interest lobby groups

Ways they play a critical role in the political process 

1- Source of policy information and ideas 

2- Can be a key area of political support 

- Many are able to endorse a candidate

3- Can provide funds 

4- Expertise 

- Have individuals who have distinct knowledge about the issues you are legislating on - Continuous cycle between administration, interest groups, and Congress

Party in Executive branch 

2 of the areas where the President, from a political standpoint, can be important for the party 1- Chief campaigner 

- Can go out and raise funds; main attraction

- Recruit candidates

2- When they are the head of the ticket (on the ballot) 

- When they are popular, they can help bring other people in

- Are they able to bring people along that would not come otherwise?

- Coattails effect: Ability of the President to affect the downstream races; tendency for a popular political party leader to attract votes for other candidates of the same party in an election.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

President should implement people that share similar values in Office.

President and their parties are very frustrated by the bureaucracy

- Rare to find them cheering the political process

Problems for the President and limits the party’s power 

1- Constituency pressure 

- President appoints high level leaders and promises things they will do; however, nothing happens for those things to happen

- But when you appoint someone it’s not in a vacuum

- To get something done you would need to get through Congress, White House, Bureaucracy, and Interest groups/constituencies

- “Zero based budgeting”; every year, every government project should start at $0 but no one has been able to implement it

2- Protection by the legislature

- Sometimes Congress can create a position of Office that exceeds the President’s term - Creates a protective bubble

3- Legislature can require shared power 

4- People know President’s can only run for 2 terms (term limits) 

- People they can drag it out long enough till the President is no longer in power

Tension within the party at the White House level that can create frustrations. - Higher levels (Secretary of State) feel locked out as they don’t meet with the President every day; while their National Security Advisor is the one who meets the President every day and has a greater bond with them (common for foreign policy)

Courts 

- Party plays a key role in choosing the potential list of people to appoint for Supreme Court

- Party will go out and find information on these candidates as well as interview them ( their writings, views, background… to help them understand their stance on issues and how they’ll vote)

- Senate has the right to nominate and the right to confirm or deny a nomination - When parties are looking for someone to fill the positions, they take politics into account - Candidate has a modest set of accomplishments

Politics has always been part of the process; only became more evident from the 80’s as Congress has become more balanced politically

- Became in the forefront with Bork; brightest legal minds, wrote extensively on controversial issues making his views clear (willing to answer questions on his views in hearings), made it easy for Democrats and some Republicans to oppose him, set precedent for people going forward on how they didn’t want to go, didn’t come across well on TV,

- George H.W. Bush had a chance to give a candidacy David Souter in 1990; had no writings (was a blank slate), was 50 years old, lived with his mom, was a Judge for a while, wasn’t perceived as being politically public.

- Bush was confident Souter was conservative and would vote in the same way as him/his party; however, later on he found out that was not the case

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Shift in American politics over the last 40-50 years Movement away from one party dominance to a more balanced approach but also more polarised 

1932- 1968: 

- Democratic won the show over these years; elections were mostly over economic issues (Democratic arguing for more federal regulation)

- Social issues and foreign policy was not much of an issue between the parties but changes towards the end

- Democrats won the Presidency 7/9 times and controlled the House and Senate fro 32/36 years

- 55% of public consider/registered themselves Democrats (about 20% more than Republicans)

- Republicans could not maintain status quo to win

1968: 

Change starts to occur into politics

- Vietnam escalated and people were being sent out; there were also a lot of protests against it

- Concern with race relations and desegregation and poverty

- Bobby Kennedy and MLK were assassinated in that time period

- LBJ, a sitting President being forced to stop aside and not to run for re-election - Hubert Humphrey get nominated at the Democratic convention (in Chicago) as nominee - Yipees, youth anarchists, were causing chaos all fo change

- Democratic party was closest to them but they made it harder for the party as they couldn’t control it (neither could Mayor Daley)

- Bad Democratic Convention- candidate who wasn’t tested in the political environment and when he previously ran for President, he lost.

- His opponent is Richard Nixon (similar path as JFK)- Runs for governor in 1962 and loses shockingly and in 1964, decides not to run for the Presidential elections (backs Goldwater)

- Runs again in 1968; main challengers were George Romney (Governor of Michigan; supported the Vietnam war but as it got unpopular he claimed

he was brainwashed) and Nelson Rockefeller (Governor of NYC and ran in 1964 but lost)

Eisenhower- Southern Strategy to put together a coalition to win the election - Got 7 Southern States, Nixon got 5

George Wallace ran as an independent in 1968

- Nixon

42.7 for Humphrey and 13.5 for Wallace

1968 Election- frustration and division that took place in the country at the time

Issues that emerged during this period that facilitated this shift (Transforming issues) 

Characteristics

1- To be a coalition altering issues, the conflict over the issue had to be broad and deep - That a lot of people cared about and cared very deeply about

2- Must be on the political agenda for a relatively long time 

- Multiple election cycles

- Underlying issues must be there at least

3- Must have the capacity to revoke resistance 

- Needs to have 2 sides on this issue; polarizing issue

- Some issues only have one side (child abuse)

4- Must cut across the existing lines of party cleavage 

- Have people who are highly emotional on the Democratic side and actually agree with the Republican side

Issues that emerge from the 60’s onwards that led to the shift in voting patterns (coalition altering issues) 

1- National Security 

- More or less, Democrats and Republicans were on the same page; however, this started to break down during Vietnam War

- France was fighting against the indigenous people for land

- France was providing the military personnel to fight and US was sending funds to help the french; 1950’s the French lost the battle

- US moved in

- For the most part as the 60’s moved forward, it becomes politically dicey and within the Democratic party, there emerges a ...that say they want the US to move out and pull back

- This hurt the Democratic party a lot more than the Republican as they were a bigger party

- Vietnam starts to unravel, not only the bipartisanship of the issue, but also within the Democratic party and creates a split

- Overarching issue that created division within the

2- Race 

- 1950’s, the SC got involved in Brown vs. Board of Education

- As they start to push for change, the backlash emerges; Eisenhower sent Little Rocks to make sure African americans could go to school, Civil Rights Act

- Political consequences were very broad for the Democrats

- As Democratic party decided that’s not a viable option, Southern voters start to respond by starting to vote for the Republican party

- Inserts division within the Democratic party

3- Social issues 

- Cluster of issues that fit under this broad rubric

- Term was first published in a book

- For the Democratic party, there were very emotional issues being discussed and they have to bridge the gap between the two opposite sides (crime, drug use, freelove- everything was breaking down)

- System was geared too protective of criminals, compromising the safety of the average citizen; Republicans were able to piggyback off this feeling

- Democratic party was slow off the mark in response to these issues; Republicans were able to win consecutive Presidential elections from 1968

- Issues: Abortion, school prayers, same sex marriage, pornography, Pledge of Allegiance, LGBTQ, capital punishment, euthanasia, death penalty, STEM cell research - From the Republican perspective, social issues was a key factor they knew they could use for their advantage

Characteristics of social issues: 

1- Tend to be issues of right and wrong 

2- Individual behaviour vs. societal values 

3- Money can’t solve the problem 

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Effect of the coalitions altering issues 

1- Resulted in new voting behaviour 

- Southern Whites; realigning group- were majority Democratic but increasingly became Republican

- African Americans; realigning group- by 1960’s are the Democratic realm while ⅓ were voting Republican

- ‘64 Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act; Democrats are perceived as going all in for civil rights and there is a significant shift towards more African American

- Catholics; dealigning group- overwhelmingly Democratic party and had shifted towards Republican party but didn’t go over there(approximately even split between the 2 parties) - Shift from 1972 onwards; Republicans held an advantage over conservative Catholics as well as liberal Catholics

- Socioeconomic status; descendent of immigrant groups start to move up the ladder; higher income and higher education

- Social issues; Initially, Catholic Church were against abortion (not even the white Evangelicals but later they joined them)

- Republicans look for more practicing Catholics (by how frequently they attend religious services)

- White Evangelicals; emerging group- were not heavily involved in the political process as an organized body

- 1920’s, they were portrayed as backwards and unsophisticated especially during the Scopes Monkey Trials

- Typically, they make up 37% of the Republican party (they are the base of the party)

- Shift towards being more organised, solidly aligned, and integrated

2- Increased party polarization 

- Due to party realignment of some of the key groups within the party coalitions (both parties are more homogenous nowadays than the past)

- 1970’s, Democrats won 79% congressional districts that were considered Liberal and 49% were Conservative; however, this number reduced overtime

- Social and legislative changes taking place

- White move out of the cities and into the suburbs and the minorities

moved into the cities

- Shift in demographic of city and redistricting is used for party benefit (gerrymandering)

3- Greater electoral competition 

- The South has changed from being all one party to becoming more Republican but also more competitive so that the Democrats still have a chance

Divided Government 

Somewhere in the Executive branch there is an out party control; Either a chamber in the House and the party in the President, vice versa, are different

- Usually there is a unified government

- Nowadays, divided government is more the norm

- It was an accident that divided gov. Emerged in the late half of the 20th century

Reasons for the growth in divided government: 

1- Concept of ideology 

- Associate themself with one party but then they realized their views and ideas are more in line with the other party (from the 80’s and 90’s onwards)

2- Lack of electoral competition 

- Often incumbents run unopposed or they are very strong so no one wants to go against them

3- Rise of candidate-centered politicians 

- Run in the center so that the differences between the other candidates isn’t that obvious and helps to minimise the distance

4- Ballot mechanisms 

- Most states makes it illegal to vote with stray ticket voting

- Don’t want people to run by party people but by office and candidate

Increase in the 60’s and 70’s and went down in the 80’s; also has been going down nowadays because people are voting for their party altogether

Page Expired
5off
It looks like your free minutes have expired! Lucky for you we have all the content you need, just sign up here