Campaign and Election Reform (Library in a Book)

LIBRARY IN A BOOK

CAMPAIGN AND ELECTION REFORM Harry Henderson

To my fellow citizens CAMPAIGN AND ELECTION REFORM Copyright © 2004 by Harry Henderson Graphs © 2004 by Facts On File, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the publisher. For information contact: Facts On File, Inc. 132 West 31st Street New York NY 10001 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Henderson, Harry, 1951 – Campaign and election reform / Harry Henderson. p. cm.—(Library in a book) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8160-5136-4 (acid-free paper) 1. Elections—United States. 2. Election law—United States. 3. Campaign funds—United States. 4. Campaign funds—Law and legislation—United States. I. Title. II. Series. JK1976.H46 2004 324.6′3′0973—dc21 2003006485 Facts On File books are available at special discounts when purchased in bulk quantities for businesses, associations, institutions, or sales promotions. Please call our Special Sales Department in New York at (212) 967-8800 or (800) 322-8755. You can find Facts On File on the World Wide Web at http://www.factsonfile.com Printed in the United States of America Graphs by Jeremy Eagle MP Hermitage 10

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

CONTENTS PART I OVERVIEW OF THE TOPIC

1

Chapter 1 Introduction to Campaign and Election Reform Chapter 2 The Law and Campaigns and Elections

3

45

Chapter 3 Chronology 104 Chapter 4 Biographical Listing

124

Chapter 5 Glossary 134 PART II GUIDE TO FURTHER RESEARCH 153 Chapter 6 How to Research Campaign and Electoral Reform Chapter 7 Annotated Bibliography 174 Chapter 8 Organizations and Agencies 239

155

PART III APPENDICES

261

Appendix A Statistics Related to Campaign Contributions Appendix B Buckley v. Valeo (1976)

263

268

Appendix C The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974

286

Appendix D Legislative Summary of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 291 Index

298

PART I

OVERVIEW OF THE TOPIC

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION TO CAMPAIGN AND ELECTION REFORM In recent years, both political scientists and ordinary voters have become increasingly concerned about how the process by which Americans choose their political leaders works—or does not work. This concern involves many facets of the electoral process. Most readers approaching the topic of campaign and election reform probably think first of the issue of campaign finance reform. Since the mid-1990s, there has been renewed public interest and concern about the role that an increasingly large stream of campaign contributions from special interests plays in the electoral process. In all the elections of 2000 (state, local, and federal), about $3 billion was spent by the two major parties, an estimated $460 million of it being the unregulated funds called “soft money.” Concerns about campaign finance and proposed reform measures include the following: • how candidates raise campaign funds, and what contributors expect from them in return • whether there should be legal limits on how much money candidates can raise or spend • the role of corporations, unions, and other well-funded interest groups in raising campaign contributions • the many loopholes (including so-called soft money) that have made existing campaign finance regulations increasingly ineffective • how to ensure prompt, timely disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures • whether campaigns should be publicly financed in order to reduce special interest contributions while putting candidates on a more nearly level playing field

3

Campaign and Election Reform • whether media outlets should be required to provide some free airtime for qualified candidates Although campaign finance reform was the aspect of electoral reform that captured the most public attention in the 1990s, it is equally important to consider how the actual elections are run. In autumn 2000, many voters may have been concerned with the influence of money in politics, and many even felt that issues that really concerned them were not being addressed by the two major candidates. Nevertheless, most people believed that their votes would be properly counted at the polls. The voting technology was generally old-fashioned (employing levers, pencils, or punch cards), but seemed to be basically reliable. On election night many Americans watched with fascination—and increasing dismay—as what had started out as an already close election was first “called” by the media for Republican George W. Bush after having come down to the battle for the state of Florida. Late that night Democratic candidate Al Gore made the traditional phone call of concession to Bush. About an hour later, however, Gore, having learned that the vote was too close to call, withdrew his concession. In the days that followed a tiny margin of just a few hundred votes in favor of Bush fluctuated as the two sides battled in court over whether there would be a recount of the votes—and whose votes would be recounted. Amidst all the minutiae dealing with dimpled, hanging, or pregnant “chads,” (partially punched pieces of ballot cards) some important questions from U.S. history could be seen emerging like troubling ghosts. Much puzzlement surrounded the Electoral College, an institution that in most elections amounts to a mere formality. Most people had to be reacquainted with the fact that technically voters do not choose the president and vice president directly but rather vote for a slate of electors chosen by the party. And because in all but two states the electoral vote is awarded on a winner-take-all basis, a candidate could win the popular vote but not get enough electoral votes to become president. (Indeed, with either a system of proportional allocation of electors or a direct popular vote for president, the battle in Florida would not have happened, and Al Gore would have won the election, albeit by a narrow margin.) Another element of the Constitution emerged in the protracted legal duel between the Gore campaign, which asserted the primacy of the right to vote (and to have one’s vote counted), and the Bush campaign, which responded that selective recounts without uniform standards would result in some voters being denied the “equal protection of the law” guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Meanwhile, the alleged “purging” of voter rolls (mainly in heavily minority communities) based on apparently faulty

4

Introduction to Campaign and Election Reform criminal records data brought forth the specter of the many subterfuges that had been used in the old South to keep African Americans from reaching the polls despite the guarantees given them by the Fifteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court ultimately agreed with Bush’s point of view (by a bare 5-4 majority) and ordered the recount stopped, effectively giving him the presidency. This result was decried both by many people who felt that the Court had “stolen” the election for Bush and by a number of legal scholars who had problems with the reasoning, but of course it stood. However, the 2000 election left enduring issues about the voting process: • Are many citizens being denied access to the voting booth because of faulty or cumbersome registration procedures? • Does the use of faulty (or even legitimate) criminal record data disproportionately keep blacks and other minorities from voting? • Are minorities and the poor being disproportionately affected because their voting places tend to have the oldest, least reliable voting technology? • Should there be uniform standards to make sure ballots and voting procedures are not confusing, particularly to first-time voters? • Is there a way, consistent with the First Amendment, to discourage the media from predicting the results of an election while some people are still voting? • Should there be clear and uniform standards for determining valid votes during a recount? Beyond campaign finance reform and addressing the defects in the electoral process, there is the question of whether the fundamental way in which nearly all U.S. legislative elections are organized is truly fair and democratic. The Electoral College system of indirect voting seems to many to be anachronistic in an age where citizens are linked by electronic communication, as well as being fundamentally undemocratic. Both the current Electoral College system and the single-seat legislative district that is the American norm imply a “winner takes all” vote in which a minority vote, even one of 49 percent, brings no representation. Such a system makes it almost impossible for third parties and independents to secure a lasting foothold in the political arena, since a vote for a minor candidate is generally perceived to be a wasted vote. Proposed forms in the fundamental structure of elections include: • choosing presidential electors either by district or proportionately, rather than by a statewide winner-take-all vote

5

Campaign and Election Reform • abolishing the Electoral College entirely and going to a direct popular vote for president • having larger congressional or state legislative districts with multiple candidates, with seats awarded to each party in proportion to its vote • using a preference or cumulative voting system in which voters can mark candidates in order of preference so they can vote for the candidate they truly favor rather than for “the lesser of two evils” These three major areas of possible reform—campaign finance, electoral procedures, and election mechanics—all have potential interactions. For example, if elections were not winner-take-all, candidates would presumably target their spending differently, perhaps focusing more on “selling” their own qualifications rather than launching negative attacks against their major opponent. This in turn might affect the amount of spending (and thus of contributions) needed. Concerns about campaigns and elections did not suddenly arise in the last quarter of the 20th century. To better understand all the issues involved in election and campaign reform, it is useful to survey how campaigns and elections have changed through the United States’s more than two centuries of existence.

A SHIFTING POLITICAL LANDSCAPE There is a remarkable continuity in U.S. politics, evidenced by a stream of 43 presidents, each duly elected without subsequent violence (except in the case of Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War). Today’s major political parties trace their origins to the early to mid-19th century. Most of the printed ballots used at the polls have changed little in more than 100 years. People still choose a single representative to go to the U.S. House of Representatives from their district, and they still vote for a slate of electors who have pledged to vote for their party’s candidate for president. Yet this continuity can be deceptive. Much about the electoral process has changed in two centuries, including the extent and nature of political campaigning, who pays for campaigns and how, and, perhaps most important, who is allowed to vote.

“THE PEOPLE” . . .

BUT

WHICH PEOPLE?

The Declaration of Independence claims to speak for “the People” of the United States. Thirteen years later, the Constitution described itself as an effort of “We, the People” to form “a more perfect Union.” The framers of

6

Introduction to Campaign and Election Reform these documents, following in the footsteps of 17th-century political philosopher John Locke, did indeed believe they were creating a new and more fitting sort of government based on popular sovereignty and not divinely anointed kings. This government, however, was quite consciously not a democracy in the modern sense. While the ultimate consent of the people lay at the heart of the legitimacy of the state, the government would operate through the voices of a relatively small and select group of people who were considered to have the education, temperament, and experience to make sound decisions about governance and who possessed personal resources that gave them a stake and responsibility in the community. This elite group amounted initially to a relatively small number of white males who owned a significant amount of property. The now obscure and controversial Electoral College was actually the result of a compromise by the drafters of the Constitution. Fearful that the whims of a popular majority might threaten liberty and property, some delegates at the Constitutional Convention wanted Congress to elect the president, but others believed that this would destroy the balance between the legislative and executive branches. Others suggested having the state legislatures choose the nation’s chief executive, but this in turn might make him too beholden to the states, weakening the federal government. The solution that was adopted, the Electoral College, was closer to the second plan, but placed a sort of “buffer” in the form of electors between the state legislatures and the presidency. As originally envisaged, each state legislature would choose its slate of electors from among the state’s prominent and respected leaders. The electors would then choose the president, based on their assessment of the candidates and supposedly in a way that would minimize factionalism. Perhaps the closest modern analogy to this system might be how the board of directors of a corporation is chosen indirectly by the stockholders but in practice by the chief stakeholders. Until the 1820s electors were usually chosen by the state legislature, not by a popular vote of the state’s citizens. The hope of avoiding “factions,” as political parties were then called, proved to be overoptimistic. By the early 1800s, for example, those who followed Jefferson’s principles had founded the Democratic-Republican Party and were opposed by the more conservative Federalist Party of Alexander Hamilton. Nevertheless, political campaigns as we know them today scarcely existed. It is true that candidates had since colonial times been expected to throw parties for the voters (George Washington’s ledgers, for example, include a 1758 entry for £39 for beer, wine, and liquor to be distributed on election day for a colonial legislature.) Campaigning was via speeches before

7

Campaign and Election Reform small audiences and through the press. The newspapers or broadsheets of the day made no pretense of objectivity, mounting vigorous rhetorical (and often personal) attacks against candidates. Campaigns were on a small scale, in keeping with the electorate being small and the means of communication limited. Campaigning was much less necessary than today, because candidates were drawn from the dominant men in the community whose influence already guaranteed them the allegiance of many of the voters. Before the 1820s, when property qualifications for voting were common, small “freeholders” who had just enough property to be allowed to vote were strongly motivated to follow the wishes of the powerful merchants and landlords upon whom they depended economically. In general there were fewer elections than today. Many candidates ran unopposed because the consensus among the small number of people directly concerned had already made its choice—George Washington, for example, was an overwhelming selection. Also, many officeholders (such as judges) were appointed by the governor rather than elected as they are today. Given these factors, the laws prohibiting outright bribery and votebuying were probably reasonably effective. Such corruption as existed was unsystematic and on a small scale.

POPULISM

AND THE

EXPANDED FRANCHISE

By the 1820s, however, the political landscape was beginning to change. Property or taxpaying requirements for voting were being eased or eliminated in many states, including New Hampshire, Vermont, and Kentucky. This resulted in the franchise, or right to vote, being extended to most white males. Meanwhile, regional interests began to diverge, and political issues such as tariffs and slavery began to separate the industrializing, trade-centered states of New England from the agrarian slaveholding South and the expansion-minded West. This meant that national parties had to appeal to a variety of conflicting constituencies. Presidential hopefuls had to think more strategically in order to have the best chance at garnering a majority of electoral votes. As a result of having to appeal to a larger and more varied constituency, political campaigns became more complicated. Thus in 1828, Martin Van Buren served Democratic challenger Andrew Jackson as what we would today call a campaign manager. In the Jackson campaign, newspapers were cultivated and fed suitable material, special pamphlets were widely distributed, and speaking tours were organized. This coordinated campaign successfully spread Jackson’s populist message, securing him the presidency in 1828 over incumbent President John Quincy Adams, a National Republican who ran a more traditional campaign.

8

Introduction to Campaign and Election Reform Naturally the new style of campaigning cost considerably more money. By the 1830s most congressional seats were being regularly contested by the two major parties (Democrats and Whigs), with perhaps $2,000–3,000 in all being spent on a given race. Most contributions to a candidate came from a few wealthy backers. However, corporations also became involved in campaigns: in the election of 1832 the Bank of the United States spent $42,000 to try to defeat Andrew Jackson in the 1832 election. (After his victory, Jackson abolished the bank.)

RECONSTRUCTION

AND THE

RIGHT

TO

VOTE

Following the defeat of the South in the Civil War, three constitutional amendments were ratified. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery. The next two, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, would eventually have a momentous effect on voting rights. The Fifteenth Amendment guaranteed the right to vote to all citizens regardless of race (though in practice it was limited to men); it was, of course, specifically intended to give the vote to freed black slaves of the South. The Fourteenth Amendment did not directly refer to voting, but its language would be ultimately applied to many aspects of electoral law (as indeed to many other legal issues): All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The 1876 election, in which electoral votes were disputed in South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana, and the presidency eventually awarded by Congress to Rutherford B. Hayes over Samuel J. Tilden, resulted in a political accommodation that led to federal troops being withdrawn from the South. This effectively ended the Reconstruction period in which many blacks had participated in politics for the first time, even holding legislative and congressional seats. White domination quickly returned, and the effective disenfranchisement of southern blacks would endure until the 1960s.

THE GILDED AGE AND THE RISE OF MONEY POLITICS The 1880s is often called the Gilded Age because of the opulent furnishings available to the wealthy new industrial class of coal, steel, oil, and railroad barons. The population and economy had expanded rapidly in the decades

9

Campaign and Election Reform following the Civil War. Companies such as Carnegie Steel and Standard (Rockefeller) Oil enjoyed monopolies, but those monopolies depended in part on government acquiescence and help in suppressing labor unrest. The railroads counted on large government subsidies for expansion and on the ability to “fix” freight rates. This interdependence between the big business and the federal government naturally led to large amounts of corporate contributions to officeholders, usually favoring the Republicans, who tended to support business interests. There were other sources of political power in the Gilded Age. The growing immigrant communities in cities such as New York and Chicago were organized by political bosses who provided jobs and various services in exchange for votes. The city political machines, usually Democratic, would be considered corrupt by modern standards, with the bosses siphoning off huge amounts of public funds for private use. However, the arrangement did give immigrant and other working-class communities some stake in the political process. The wiser bosses knew that they had to continue to provide benefits for the voters in order to retain their loyalty. Under the bosses, electoral corruption can be regarded as systematic and institutionalized. The most notorious, Boss Tweed and his cronies, may have diverted as much as $200 million from New York City’s coffers between 1865 and 1871. In the heyday of New York’s Tammany Hall (roughly 1860–1930) there was little suspense as to the outcome of city elections or in who would be sent to the state house in Albany. At the federal level, by the 1880s “assessments” or regular fees paid by government workers to the party in power were commonplace. Indeed, it is estimated that by 1878, 90 percent of the money raised by Republican congressional campaign committees came from assessments. The Democrats lagged behind but mainly because of lack of opportunity given the Republican dominance during the period. The political corruption of the Gilded Age inspired new political reform efforts, however. After President James A. Garfield was assassinated in 1881 by a disappointed job seeker, reformers began to call for the establishment of new federal and state civil service systems, and they met with some success. The Pendleton Act of 1883, which established the federal civil service system, prohibited political parties from assessing contributions from government workers in exchange for their continued employment. (There had been modest previous efforts to outlaw such assessments, such as an 1867 law prohibiting the collecting of assessments from workers in navy yards.) The civil service reforms moved a gradually increasing number of government jobs from being appointive (and thus subject to patronage, or the appointing of supporters after a party comes to power), to being selected on the basis of merit examinations.

10

Introduction to Campaign and Election Reform Beyond the dominance of big-city politics by political machines, corruption at the polls could also be carried out in piecemeal fashion. In one notorious case in the 1888 election, a letter from the Republican National Committee to Indiana party officials recommended that “floaters,” or voters willing to sell their votes to the GOP candidate, be organized into groups of five, each to be escorted into the polling place by a party worker who was to make sure they voted as promised. Vote-selling schemes worked because voting was not done in private and ballots were not secret. The ballots were printed by each party using a distinctive size and color, and a voter chose either a Democratic or Republican ballot to drop into the ballot box in full view of bystanders. It was thus easy for the buyer of votes to verify their receipt. Starting in the late 1870s, however, and thanks to the efforts of reformers such as Richard Henry Dana III in Massachusetts, an increasing number of states began to adopt the “Australian” ballot (named for its first being adopted by that country). In this system, all voters are given a ballot printed by the election authorities, not the political parties. The ballot lists the candidates for each office and is usually marked by the voter in an enclosed polling booth. Since party poll-watchers could not tell how someone had actually voted, outright vote-buying became increasingly difficult. States also began to fight voting corruption by what were called “publicity laws” (today they would be called disclosure laws). These laws required candidates to report their campaign expenditures. However, the electoral reform campaign at the state level made slow headway. By the end of the 19th century, 18 states had enacted disclosure laws of some sort, but three had then repealed them. Corruption in cities was also being fought by new groups. In 1875, Governor Samuel Tilden appointed James Coolidge Carter to draw up a new model charter for city governments in New York State. In 1894, Carter founded the National Municipal League to promote better city governments. Following the corruption-plagued 1888 election, reformers began to make bolder calls for campaign regulation. The liberal magazine The Nation editorialized that “the next step in reform” should be “a comprehensive law limiting the expenditures of candidates and requiring a sworn statement of all such expenditures after election.”1

THE PROGRESSIVE ERA AND THE BEGINNINGS FEDERAL CAMPAIGN REFORM

OF

The modest state and local electoral and campaign reforms of the late 19th century had addressed some of the “retail” vote-buying and other polling place corruption. However, the reformers had been able to do

11

Campaign and Election Reform nothing to curb what many observers saw as the growing corporate influence on, if not control of, the federal government. The huge industrial and railroad trusts and the wealthy individuals who controlled them had begun to make a growing number of contributions of $50,000 or more. Contributors included famous names such as John Jacob Astor, Jay Gould, and John Wanamaker. Party committees increasingly turned to such “fat cat” contributors for the major part of their campaign funds. For example, Mark Hanna, William McKinley’s campaign manager, successfully raised millions of dollars for the 1896 and 1900 campaigns, mostly from big businesses that wanted favorable treatment from government. In the 1904 campaign, Democratic contender Judge Alton B. Parker accused his opponent, the flamboyant and popular President Theodore Roosevelt, of having accepted large contributions from big corporations. Roosevelt denied the charge at first, but after the election several major companies admitted that they had contributed to the Republicans. The resulting uproar galvanized Roosevelt, who had previously in his career campaigned to reform New York municipal and state government, to call for federal campaign finance reform. Meanwhile, a citizens’ group called the National Publicity Law Organization (NPLO) was founded by reformer Perry Belmont to lobby for disclosure and limits on campaign spending. Such grassroots activism was typical of what became known as the Progressive Era. Other Progressive reform efforts would lead to the adoption of the initiative and referendum in many states, allowing voters to enact laws directly, bypassing legislatures that they believed to be corrupt and ineffectual. The passage of the Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1913 also promoted a more direct form of democracy by requiring that senators be elected directly by popular vote rather than by the state legislature. In 1907, Congress finally responded to the growing pressure for federal campaign reform. Congressman Benjamin “Pitchfork Ben” Tillman, remarking that congressmen had become “instrumentalities and agents of corporations,” reintroduced and successfully passed a campaign finance bill that had stalled in an earlier Congress. The law, called the Tillman Act, prohibited corporations and national banks from contributing to federal campaigns. However, it did nothing to curb contributions from wealthy individuals. A number of modern-sounding proposals were voiced by those seeking further reform. For example, William Bourke Cockran, a Democratic representative from New York, suggested that public money be used to pay for at least a portion of campaign expenses. President Theodore Roosevelt expressed some interest in the concept, but it would not be taken up by Congress until the 1970s.

12

Introduction to Campaign and Election Reform Meanwhile the NPLO had continued to agitate for campaign disclosure regulations. The Republican majority in Congress passed the Publicity Act of 1910, which required the reporting of all receipts and expenditures by national party committees or committees operating in more than one state. However the reports did not have to be made until after the election. After the 1910 election, when the Democrats took control of the House and had gained seats in the U.S. Senate, they tried to amend the Publicity Act so that reports would have to be filed before the election. At this point the Republicans tried to finesse the Democrats by proposing that disclosure requirements be extended down to individual congressional districts and to party primaries as well as the general election. The Republicans believed that such intrusion would never be acceptable to southern Democrats who espoused states’ rights, and so the bill would become dead. However, the Republican strategy backfired. Congress adopted the 1911 Amendments to the Publicity Act, incorporating the “extreme” provisions that had been inserted by the Republicans. The new provisions included the first federal campaign-spending ceilings—$10,000 for Senate races and $5,000 for the House, or the amount established by state law, whichever was less. In 1918, however, Truman Newberry, who had defeated Henry Ford in the Michigan Republican primary, was convicted of massively violating the state limit on spending in the primary election. Newberry challenged his conviction in court, and the Supreme Court in Newberry v. United States (1921) ruled that the authority given Congress in the Constitution to regulate the electoral process did not extend to primary elections held by the political parties.

TEAPOT DOME

AND

LEAKY LAWS

During the 1920s, corruption again surfaced on a large scale during the Teapot Dome scandal, in which oil companies gave large amounts of money (in a nonelection year) to federal officials in exchange for leases allowing them to extract oil from federal land. Public outcry again put pressure on Congress, which passed the Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925. The new law largely kept the framework of the 1910–11 regulations, except for dropping the regulation of primaries to conform to the Supreme Court’s ruling and patching up the loophole used in Teapot Dome by requiring that all multistate political committees must file quarterly reports that included all contributions of $100 or more, including in nonelection years. (The spending limits for Senate and House races were raised to $25,000 and $5,000, respectively, unless lower amounts were specified by state law.)

13

Campaign and Election Reform Although the requirements of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act sounded tougher than their predecessors, in practice the regulations had little effect on the flow of money from special interests to campaigns. The required disclosures had only to be filed, not published for the general public, and reporters or reformers seeking them often ran into delays and obstacles. Further neither an enforcement mechanism nor specific penalties for violations were included in the 1925 law, so parties and committees often simply ignored the requirements. The spending limits were equally ineffective and did very little to curb the flow of campaign money. Because the limits applied only to each individual committee, parties could simply create several committees for the same race and thus spend multiples of the limits. Money could also be shuffled around or contributed in multiple small amounts to evade disclosure. All in all, no one ever went to jail for violating the Federal Corrupt Practices Act during the nearly 50 years it was in effect, and only two representatives were expelled from office for violations.

REGULATING UNIONS Corporations were not the only major donors to political campaigns. During the 1930s, the ascendancy of President Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal policies brought labor unions into greater political involvement. Further, the growing legion of federal government workers recruited by the New Deal became a natural source for contributors and volunteers for the Democratic Party. Roosevelt’s Republican opponents responded to this growing Democratic power base by seeking to limit the political power of unions. Gaining some Democratic allies, advocates of regulating unions passed the Hatch Act of 1939 (also called the Clean Politics Act), which included provisions that targeted the political activities of government workers. The Pendleton Act of 1883 had prevented government workers from being forced to contribute to political campaigns and forbade them to solicit contributions. However, the Pendleton Act and its later extensions did not cover all federal workers. The Hatch Act made it illegal for any government employee to solicit political contributions, drying up a major source of contributions to state and local party committees (mainly Democrats). The 1940 amendments to the Hatch Act imposed a contribution limit on individuals of $5,000 per year total to all federal candidates and campaign committees. Multistate party committees were also limited to receiving or spending a total of no more than $3 million a year. But while the restrictions on government workers were reasonably effective, the contribution and spending limits, like those in the 1925 law, were ineffective because they could be easily evaded by setting up multiple committees or sending the

14

Introduction to Campaign and Election Reform money directly to state and local party committees, which were not subject to the regulations. Meanwhile, unions outside the government sector were still free to make political contributions, and they increasingly saw a stake in supporting the pro-labor New Deal coalition that Roosevelt had built. One major union, the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), devised a new vehicle for contributing to election campaigns, the political action committee, now familiarly known as a PAC. By bundling together many small contributions, a PAC can gain greater attention from politicians on matters that its members consider to be important. PACs would soon be adopted by corporations and a variety of nonprofit groups as well. During World War II the Republicans had made gains in Congress, and in 1943 they succeeded in passing the Smith-Connally Act (a law giving the president the power to take control of defense plants during strikes or lockouts) over President Roosevelt’s veto. Although the Smith-Connally Act was a wartime measure that expired automatically after the war, in 1946 the Republicans, having gained control of Congress, passed the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 (also called the Labor Relations Act of 1947). A provision of TaftHartley made the ban on political contributions from union treasuries permanent, achieving symmetry with the ban on use of corporate treasury funds, which dated back to 1907. In practice, banning direct political contributions from unions has not hurt their political power very much. A union member who disagrees with the union’s political positions can choose to pay only the portion of his or her dues that is associated with the union’s core functions such as collective bargaining, representing workers in disputes with the employer, and so on. Because most workers do not make this distinction, it has not deprived unions of significant political funds, which can be funneled to candidates through a PAC.

EXPANDING

THE

ELECTORATE

None of the attempts at campaign reform in the late 19th and early 20th centuries touched the fact that only a minority of American adults (mostly white males) could vote. The expansions of the electorate would be achieved only through protracted struggle. Female Suffrage The largest group in the population, women, could not vote in most elections. The unfairness of this situation in a country whose founding document said that “all men are created equal” was remarked upon by many reformers, including Abigail Adams, wife of President John Quincy Adams.

15

Campaign and Election Reform In 1848, the first U.S. women’s rights convention was held, at Seneca Falls, New York. Early leaders such as Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton articulated the connection between the abolition of chattel slavery and the political and legal subordination of women. When slavery was abolished and the vote extended to African Americans following the Civil War, many women activists believed that it was only a matter of a short time before women, too, would be “emancipated.” But because the newly ratified Fifteenth Amendment did not mention sex, and the courts did not find that denying women the right to vote violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, guaranteeing all American women the right to vote seemed to require adding explicit language to the Constitution. Because the conduct of elections is primarily a state responsibility, states were free to give women the vote. By 1890, women had full suffrage—the ability to vote in all elections—only in four western states: Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado. About half the states in the union, however, did allow women limited voting rights. This often meant that women could vote in state and local, but not federal, elections. In more extreme cases, it meant that women could only vote in certain elections, such as those for school boards, since children were considered to be part of the proper “province” of women. In 1890, suffrage activists such as Susan B. Anthony and Carrie Clinton Lane Chapman Catt united two earlier groups to form the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA). Lobbying for a suffrage amendment now became more effective, in part because as more states allowed women to vote for congressional candidates, more representatives had to consider the wishes of their female constituents. In 1914, the attempt at passing a suffrage amendment failed to gain a simple majority, let alone the two-thirds majority needed to pass an amendment on to the states for ratification. But the service of millions of women in war industries and military support functions during World War I provided a powerful new argument for giving women the full rights of citizenship. Finally, in 1920, 14 years after Susan B. Anthony’s death, the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, giving women the right to vote in all elections. The victorious suffrage activists promptly founded the League of Women Voters to help educate newly enfranchised women about political issues. The organization would also become an influential voice for political reform. Although predictions that women’s suffrage would lead to a more enlightened politics (because of the supposed ameliorating influence of the “nobler sex”) did not come to pass, the swelling of the electorate by millions of women did have an effect on political campaigns. Besides now having to take women’s concerns more into account, candidates also needed to run

16

Introduction to Campaign and Election Reform larger campaigns in order to reach a much larger electorate. New technology was employed as the telephone and radio were used to carry political messages. Larger campaigns meant the necessity of securing more and larger campaign contributions. Voting Rights for African Americans African Americans supposedly had been granted the right to vote after the Civil War by the Fifteenth Amendment—and the same Fourteenth Amendment that affirmed their citizenship was also intended to protect them from discrimination by public officials, including in such matters as registration and voting. The reality, particularly in the South, would prove quite different. Following the end of Reconstruction in 1876, southern legislatures, often in the guise of electoral reform, instituted a number of measures calculated to keep African Americans (who were already restricted by regulations called “black codes”) away from the polls. These mechanisms included the poll tax (which also excluded poor whites) and the literacy test. The latter was often combined with a “grandfather clause” that exempted from the literacy requirement all persons who had (or whose ancestors had had) the right to vote before 1866. This in effect exempted all whites. Another tactic was to exclude blacks from the primary election. Since the Democratic Party was so dominant in the South, this meant that even if a black person could somehow vote in the general election, his vote would not really have any effect. If all else failed, there was always physical intimidation or outright violence. Gradually, however, the dormant words of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments began to have their effect. Although in Sproule v. Fredericks (1892) the Supreme Court showed a disinclination to come to terms with the discriminatory effect of southern electoral laws, a group of cases in the 20th century revealed a gradually changing course. In Guinn v. United States (1915) the grandfather clause was declared to violate the Fifteenth Amendment guarantee of suffrage for blacks. The “white primary” was declared unconstitutional in Nixon v. Herndon (1927), which had the important feature of applying the more general principles of the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Fifteenth. The Civil Rights Act of 1957, the first federal civil rights legislation since Reconstruction, gave the attorney general of the United States the power to file suits in federal court against state or local authorities that denied blacks their right to vote under the Fifteenth Amendment. However, there seemed little political will to enforce the act—only four suits were filed in the first three years after its passage. A 1960 federal civil rights act fared little better. As of 1965, only 35.5 percent of eligible black voters were registered to vote in the southern states, about half the percentage of whites.

17

Campaign and Election Reform In the mid-1960s, however, the civil rights struggle that had been waged on a broad front by African-American leaders and citizens and their white supporters bore much more substantial legislative fruit. The federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed racial discrimination in education, public accommodations, and employment. One provision also outlawed the use of literacy tests as a qualification for voting unless they could be shown to be nondiscriminatory. The electoral equivalent of this monumental civil rights law was the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It included a blanket prohibition against any voting qualification, standard, or procedure that had a discriminatory effect against any racial group. In specially designated jurisdictions that had the most explicit record of discrimination, the use of literacy tests was suspended for five years and any new state voting regulations would now have to be approved as nondiscriminatory by a federal court. Federal observers were sent to registration offices and polling places to watch for discrimination. In 1970 and 1975, further amendments to the Voting Rights Act made the ban on literacy tests permanent and extended protection against discrimination to ethnic as well as racial groups. In some cases, ballot materials would also have to be provided in non-English languages. Unlike the previous civil rights legislation, the 1965 act and its amendments were aggressively enforced by the Department of Justice in the late 1960s and 1970s. As a result of this enforcement and registration drives in black communities, the percentage of blacks who were registered to vote increased by more than 50 percent in just a few years. Dividing the Electoral Pie Being able to vote does not guarantee that a group can elect members of its community to office. Congressional races are organized by district, and as long as most whites continued to vote for white candidates, a white majority in a district meant that blacks would probably not be elected. Traditionally the reapportionment, or redrawing of congressional districts after each 10-year census, was done to favor the party in power by trying to arrange district boundaries so voters for that party have a majority in as many districts as possible—or conversely, supporters of the opposing party might be packed into just a few districts. (This practice is called “gerrymandering,” after Massachusetts governor Elbridge Gerry, who approved the first such scheme in 1812.) Starting in the 1960s, courts began to rule that legislative districts could not be drawn in a way that discriminates on the basis of race or ethnicity. In Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960) the Supreme Court ruled that black voters could not be excluded by redrawing the boundaries of Tuskegee, Alabama,

18

Introduction to Campaign and Election Reform because that violated the rights of all citizens to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. In Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) the Supreme Court went farther, agreeing with the argument of political scientist Chandler Davidson that judges had a legitimate interest in making sure that districts were not redrawn in such a way as to minimize or “dilute” the voting power of blacks and other minorities. In Reynolds v. Sims (1964) the equal protection principle had also been extended to requiring that districts have the same population. For example, suppose one legislative district had a population of 400,000 and another had only 80,000, with each district electing one representative. This means that each voter in the more populous district has a 1/400,000 share in the electoral process, while a voter in the district with the smaller population would have a 1/80,000 share. Each of these latter voters could be said to have five times the voting power—or put another way, the votes in the more populous district had been “diluted” to one-fifth strength. This unequal treatment was held to violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. Scholars and advocates such as Laughlin McDonald pushed to extend the application of the Voting Rights Act through their writing and litigation. As part of the interpretation and enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, the Justice Department began to require that past discrimination be remedied by drawing districts in such a way as to increase (or at least preserve) the number of seats held by blacks and other minorities. This has been done by creating districts with enough minority voters so that if they vote more or less as a bloc they can elect a member of their group. Creating such “majority-minority” districts through so-called racial gerrymandering has been controversial, however, especially when the resulting districts had bizarrely distorted shapes. In Shaw v. Reno (1993) the Supreme Court ruled that a North Carolina district was unconstitutional because its drawing was motivated by racial concerns to the exclusion of such factors as compactness, contiguousness, and the historical contours of communities. State reapportionment commissions are now often caught between the need to comply with Justice Department directives and not going “too far” across a poorly defined boundary of acceptability.

REFORM IN THE MODERN ERA As more potential voters entered the electorate, the scope and complexity of election campaigns continued to increase. As the 1950s and 1960s progressed, the existing campaign finance regulations became less effective due to important changes in how campaigns were conducted and how money was spent.

19

Campaign and Election Reform One significant trend was the increasing extent to which candidates operated independently of party leadership. Candidates increasingly established their own committees to raise campaign contributions, and the decentralization and proliferation of the money-raising machinery made it even harder for regulators and watchdog groups to determine whether contributions were proper. Meanwhile, television was becoming increasingly important as a means of communicating with voters. Television changed the way voters perceived candidates. In the first televised presidential debate, the 1960 confrontation between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, the youthful-looking Kennedy was perceived by a balance of television watchers to have bested an older, strained-looking Nixon. However, radio listeners and newspaper readers gave the edge in their assessment to Nixon. Increasingly, though, candidates in order to be competitive had to buy significant amounts of television time. The brief television ads that became a staple of modern campaigning were considerably more expensive than radio or print advertising. Especially before the advent of cable, space on the three broadcast networks was a scarce resource that was sold at a premium. The need for campaigns to be competitive in the television “air wars” in turn raised their need for money. In the 1956 election, out of a total of about $155 million in campaign spending, only $9.8 million (about 6.5 percent) was used for radio and television advertising. Just 12 years later, in the 1968 election, total spending had nearly doubled to $300 million and, at $58.9 million, spending on broadcast media had soared to 20 percent. Additionally, more and more campaigns were hiring expensive professional pollsters, speechwriters, media consultants, and other specialists in an attempt to gain an edge over the opposition. In the early 1960s, President Kennedy formed the Commission on Campaign Costs and charged it with determining how the high cost of campaigning and the resulting distortions in the political system might be brought under control. In 1962, the commission’s report offered far-reaching proposals for reform, including providing public funding for candidates through a system of matching funds. However, Congress did not respond to these recommendations. Even when Senator Russell Long (Dem.Louisiana) managed to get a bill creating a presidential election campaign fund through Congress in 1966, a coalition of opponents managed to effectively kill it by postponing its effect indefinitely.

THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT

OF

1971

Despite the failure of the Long bill, the high cost of campaigning remained a concern, especially to the politicians themselves. Indeed, the Democrats in particular were concerned that they might no longer be able to compete with

20

Introduction to Campaign and Election Reform the Republicans, who had outspent them by more than two to one in the 1968 presidential election, mainly by attracting more support from big business. In 1971, a Democratic-controlled Congress passed the beginnings of the first comprehensive campaign finance reform since 1925. The Federal Election Campaign Act (which went into effect in time for the 1972 election) attempted to address the main failures of the existing system. It included a limit on how much money wealthy candidates could give to their own campaigns (ranging from $50,000 for the presidential race down to $35,000 for Senate candidates and $25,000 for the House.) Since broadcast media was the fastest-growing campaign expense, limits were placed on how much candidates could spend on television and radio: a maximum of $50,000 or $0.10 times the voting-age population of the relevant district. Further, no more than 60 percent of the media spending could be on broadcast as opposed to print media. Disclosure was also made more effective with a requirement that all contributions of $5,000 or more be reported within 48 hours of receipt. Despite the new limits, the torrent of campaign money continued to grow, to a total of $425 million in 1972. Evidently the system still had sufficient loopholes to allow special interests to make their presence felt. However, when the Watergate scandal broke, with its revelation of secret slush funds used to finance break-ins and electronic surveillance of Nixon’s opponents, Congress stepped up the spending restraints through a series of amendments to FECA. The FECA amendments of 1974 essentially rewrote the law, setting specific limits on the contributions and expenditures allowable for each type of campaign entity—individuals, national party organizations, and political committees. The restrictions on media spending were replaced with limits on the total spending by presidential, Senate, and House campaigns. The restrictions were to be enforced by a new agency, the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The new provisions even included the first actual federal system of public campaign financing, in which candidates who met certain requirements would qualify to have their contributions matched from funds from a voluntary taxpayer check-off. Taxpayers could also deduct part of their small contributions to candidates and certain committees—local and state as well as federal. (This system had originally appeared in the Revenue Act of 1971 and the language was resurrected from the stalled Long bill of 1966.) However just as the 1976 election campaign was well under way and observers were waiting to see whether the new dike against excessive spending would hold, the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in. In its Buckley v. Valeo decision (1976), the Court ruled that because contributions to candidates were only indirectly related to their ability to communicate with voters, limiting

21

Campaign and Election Reform them did not impermissibly infringe on First Amendment free speech rights. The limits on spending by candidates were declared to be unconstitutional. The Court, by a narrow 5-4 majority, ruled that spending was, given modern realities, essential to getting a political message to the public. Thus “a restriction on the amount of money a person or a group can spend on political communication necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached.” The public interest in reining in campaign financing abuses could not be allowed to override a candidate’s right to speak effectively, and effective speech required money. With its spending restrictions gutted, FECA would not be watertight enough to prevent campaign spending from continuing to increase dramatically. The public financing provision did encourage some candidates to accept voluntary spending limits, and with the disclosure requirements and reports now being systematically compiled and made available by the FEC, the public at least had a better idea of how much each candidate was receiving and from what types of sources.

THE ERA

OF

“SOFT MONEY”

After FECA took effect, party leaders began to complain that its restrictions too greatly limited the amount of money they could spend on “party-building” activities such as registration and get-out-the-vote campaigns. Such activities were an obviously important way to support the party’s entire ticket, even though they were not associated with any particular candidate. Further, because the cost of media representation kept increasing, parties had to spend an increasing percentage of the funds they were allowed to give to candidates on media advertising. Increasingly, media “buys” would come from independent committees that were not under the control of the party leadership and (theoretically, at least) not supervised by the candidates. FECA thus seemed to have the unintended consequence of reducing the importance and effectiveness of the political parties. This in turn meant that platforms and issues were likely to diminish in importance compared to “personality politics.” Complaints about a deterioration in the quality of political discourse followed. In 1979, Congress adopted additional amendments to FECA. Many of them amounted to simplifying and streamlining the reporting and disclosure procedures. The complaints about the choking-off of party influence were addressed by creating an exception to the party spending limits. The parties would now be able to spend “federal” (that is, FECA regulated) funds on party-building activities such as get-out-the-vote programs without having to count it within the limit for direct contributions to candidates.

22

Introduction to Campaign and Election Reform One problem was that many states allowed types of contributions (such as from corporations and unions) that were not permitted for federal campaigns. However, in a typical election, a local party organization is working for local and state candidates as well as trying to coordinate with the national party organization to support the party’s federal candidates. Certain costs such as office expenses and administrative costs were necessary for all these levels of campaign but could not be easily parceled among them. Therefore, in a 1976 advisory opinion, the FEC said that a portion of “nonfederal” funds (those not legal under federal law) could be used for such aggregate expenses, with the portion determined by a complicated formula based on the proportion of federal to state elections being held in a given year. The use of nonfederal funds was not allowed for general party-building activities. About two years later, however, when the Republican State Committee of Kansas asked the FEC to approve the use of nonfederal funds for voter registration and get-out-the-vote activities, the FEC relented and allowed such use under a similar proportional scheme. (This decision was controversial even within the FEC, with one commissioner, Thomas E. Harris, warning that party-building activities would now be able to be largely financed using money not regulated by the federal government as long as separate federal and nonfederal accounts were maintained.) This ability to divert contributions outside the purview of federal regulations soon opened the floodgates wide, and the resulting torrent would grow in the coming two decades. Under the new dispensation, a national party committee could solicit unlimited donations and redistribute them to state committees to pay for registration, get-out-the-vote, and other activities in the races where they would do the national ticket the most good and help secure key congressional races. Since state restrictions on campaign finance were often much weaker than federal ones, such “strategic redeployment” met few obstacles. The resulting funds that were no longer subject to federal regulation became known as soft money. In turn, by using soft money to pay for party expenses that previously had to be paid for with hard (regulated) money, a considerable amount of hard money was now freed up to be given directly to candidates. Critics were soon observing that weak oversight and enforcement by the FEC was only adding to the new money glut. The FEC gave parties many possible options for allocating money, and thus parties could pick whichever one was most advantageous in a given situation. Watchdogs trying to track the flow of money were stymied because soft money was not subject to FECA disclosure rules, only to the laws of the state where the money was spent, which were often weak or even nonexistent. Not surprisingly the use of soft money became a growing staple of political campaigns starting in the 1980s.

23

Campaign and Election Reform As a result of pressure from the court in Common Cause v. Federal Election Commission (1987) the FEC did tighten the disclosure rules in 1991, requiring that all party committees using soft money in federal elections file regular reports listing all contributors of $200 or more. The permissible allocation methods and formulas were also tightened. Nevertheless, the flow of soft money continued to increase—in the 1992 election cycle, the two major parties together raised about $83 million in soft money, about four times that raised in 1984.

WHO ARE

THE

CONTRIBUTORS?

By the mid-1990s, both parties had perfected the solicitation and spending of large soft-money donations from corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals. According to the watchdog group Common Cause,2 the 10 largest contributors of soft money from 1989 to 1998 came from the following industries or sectors: Securities: Real Estate: Entertainment and Media: Insurance: Labor Unions: Oil and Gas: Lawyers and Lobbyists: Telecommunications: Transportation: Pharmaceuticals: Tobacco:

$37,434,557 32,279,066 30,799,694 30,020,891 29,460,380 29,336,098 24,063,874 19,134,767 18,026,928 17,991,586 17,789,601

Industry groups generally make contributions because of proposed regulations or other issues (such as favorable tax treatment) affecting their industry. But who are the people who make individual contributions to candidates? According to a 1997 study by the Joyce Foundation of Chicago of individual contributors to the 1996 elections, 95 percent of the contributors were white and 81 percent had incomes of more than $100,000—making them less than ten percent of the population.3 Thus the overwhelming majority of Americans do not make political donations. Donors can have a variety of motivations—to express their opinion on an issue, to gain access or attention from a candidate, or even to socialize with other donors. According to the Joyce survey, only a minority of donors said that their main motivation was to “secure favorable treatment or to advance some economic interest.”

24

Introduction to Campaign and Election Reform PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM Whatever the motivations of group or individual donors may be, the majority of voters believe that donors have access to the government that ordinary people do not. A detailed survey of North Carolina voters, for example, found that 91 percent of respondents agreed that money from campaign contributions influences the public policy decisions their elected officials make, and 72 percent felt that politicians spent more time raising money than working to solve their constituents’ problems. Thirty-two percent of survey respondents agreed that high campaign costs kept average citizens from running for office, while 31 percent agreed that there was a problem with special interest groups giving money to gain influence with candidates. As to what to do about the situation, the largest proportion (29 percent) thought that the most effective measure would be to limit the amount of money candidates can spend in an election. Nineteen percent focused on full, prompt disclosure of all contributions, and nine percent favored providing public financing for candidates who did not accept private contributions from special interests.4 When respondents to a 1996 Gallup poll were asked whether they favored or opposed particular reform provisions, 79 percent favored a limit on spending by House and Senate candidates, with only 19 percent opposed. Eighty-one percent supported a ban on campaign contributions from “business and industry,” 69 percent opposed contributions from labor unions, 71 percent wanted to limit contributions by individuals, and 67 percent favored limiting a candidate’s ability to contribute to his or her own campaign.5 One paradox about campaign finance, however, is that while voters seem to agree that it is a problem, when asked to rank campaign reform among more specific issues such as abortion, social security, or tax reform, they generally place it near the bottom of the list. It is perhaps more a chronic issue than a crisis. After all, interest in the process of politics tends to be the preserve of “policy wonks,” not the average voter, except perhaps when outrage is provoked by revelations such as that the Clinton campaign had allowed large contributors to stay overnight in the White House’s Lincoln bedroom.

THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM DEBATE The debate over campaign finance includes a variety of aspects and issues, but the most basic one is whether campaign contributions and/or expenditures

25

Campaign and Election Reform should be limited at all. If so, what kinds of activities should be regulated or prohibited entirely?

SHOULD SPENDING BE LIMITED? The growth of campaign spending in general and the use of soft money in particular have resulted in a perceived failure of campaign finance reform as embodied in the FECA of 1971. Indeed, by the mid-1990s the situation in some ways seemed almost like that of the early part of the century, with the added dimension of the spending now being on a huge scale. As Larry Makinson, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, lamented: “In the world we live in today, practically speaking, there are no limits on what you can give to a campaign. . . . We are looking at a shrinking pie of reportable money, and it’s frightening.”6 Politicians themselves also complained about their frustration with having to continually play catch-up with the demand for campaign funds. As Representative Charles W. Stenholm (Dem.-Texas), complained: “Going down, having to spend hour after hour on personal calls, I hate doing that. I did it [in 1998] because I had to.”7 Stenholm, who had unsuccessfully attempted to pass new reform laws in the 1980s, added, “I don’t think you can buy public policy. I’m more concerned about the time spent raising money.”8 As the debate on the campaign finance issue heated up in the later 1990s, a number of arguments were raised for and against strict new regulations. Advocates for reform, among them Cass R. Sunstein, offered a variety of important philosophical arguments such as: 1) The need to protect the electoral process from both the appearance and the reality of “quid pro quo” exchanges between contributors and candidates. 2) Political equality, or “People who are able to organize themselves in such a way as to spend large amounts of cash should not be able to influence politics more than people who are not similarly able.” 3) Campaign finance laws might promote the goal of ensuring political deliberation and reason-giving. Politics should not simply register existing preferences and their intensities, especially as measured by private willingness to pay. 4) The sphere of politics must be kept distinct from the market, because the two spheres have quite different understandings. People can purchase things because they want them, and they need not offer or even have reasons for their wants. Markets embody their own conception of equality insofar as they entail a principle of “one dollar-one ‘vote’”; but this is not the conception of equality appropriate to the political sphere.9

26

Introduction to Campaign and Election Reform Opponents of reform legislation have their own philosophical and policy arguments. Libertarian groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union or ACLU (which has litigated against some campaign laws) are critical of most forms of campaign finance regulation, seeing it as a restriction on freedom of speech. In particular, they argue that contribution limits would limit the amount of money that can be spent to put a message across (and thus limit the potential effectiveness of the message). Free speech advocates generally have fewer problems with disclosure regulations, provided that they are not unduly burdensome. Their general attitude is that everyone should be free to speak as long as listeners know for whom they are really speaking. Other opponents of reform suggest that the issue of campaign spending is overblown. Law professor and Cato Institute analyst Bradley A. Smith, for example, notes that “Americans spend two to three times as much money each year on potato chips as on political campaigns.” He also suggests that uniform limits tend to favor incumbents, who already have a number of built-in advantages over their challengers: Contribution limits favor incumbents by making it relatively harder for challengers to raise money to run their campaigns. The need to solicit cash from a large number of small contributors benefits incumbent candidates who have in place a database of past givers, an intact campaign organization, and the ability to raise funds on an ongoing basis from political action committees.10 Similarly, minor parties and independent candidates also complain that having to go through complicated regulatory hoops might easily soak up a disproportionate amount of a small party’s funds, and that major parties would try to set thresholds for public campaign funding that small, new parties would find hard to meet. Political Science professor Steven Schier looks at the matter from another perspective, and believes that it is the major parties that would be the loser under comprehensive campaign reform, and that this would be bad for democracy: The attack on soft money is appropriately an attack on corruption, but it’s also an attack on political parties themselves. Throughout American history, political parties have performed vital services for our democracy. . . . First, strong parties bring people into politics. By distilling the choice among a variety of candidates to a selection between one of two partisan “teams,” parties lower information costs for voters, thus encouraging those with less education and less income to vote. . . .

27

Campaign and Election Reform Strong and stable parties are essential to the stability of democracy itself. Most of the world’s democracies that have survived 25 years or more have had stable party systems with a low number of parties. . . . By encouraging contributions to parties instead of to individual candidates, we can actually limit corruption in American politics. . . . By sending money to the parties, we can create a “buffer” between campaign contributions and the individuals those contributions seek to influence.11 Schier suggests that the proper thing to focus on is further restricting direct contributions to candidates, as well as banning issue ads.

INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES

AND

“ISSUE ADS”

In the 1980s, the two major parties discovered that they could now engage in “independent expenditures” through a multiplicity of committees not connected with the national party committees, but “coordinating” their expenditures with selected candidates. When this was combined with schemes for “bundling” many contributions together and the growing number of political action committees (PACs) funneling money from interest groups, the result was a baffling maze that confused experts and politicians themselves, not to mention voters. Critics were finding that the dike restraining virtually unlimited campaign spending had sprung many leaks, and the FEC was at least ineffectual at plugging them, if not complicit in allowing them. As one critic suggests: Congress made the FEC too weak to enforce the law. The agency can’t conduct random audits or issue injunctions to stop violations in progress. Starting even a small investigation requires the votes of four of the FEC’s six commissioners, as does every step in an inquiry. Defendants can appeal at every turn. If the agency finds a violation, even then its hands are tied: For 30 days the law requires the FEC to ask nicely for a fine, using “informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion.”12 Much of the independent expenditures are used to buy so-called issue ads. A typical television issue ad might sound something like this: “Joe Blow thinks it’s a good idea to make it harder for a woman to exercise her right to choose. He’s backing tough new restrictions on abortion advocated by extreme right-wing fundamentalists. Tell Joe Blow that a woman’s choice is not negotiable.” The ad would then flash a phone number. Although nominally about an issue such as abortion, Social Security, or health care reform, the real purpose of the ad is to portray a candidate as having a position that is extreme and out of touch with the voters. But be-

28

Introduction to Campaign and Election Reform cause the ad does not “expressly advocate” that Joe Blow be defeated in the election, or that viewers should vote for his opponent, the FEC ruled that such ads could be paid for using soft money or, at worst, a proportional mix of soft and hard money. Critics of banning issue advocacy ads suggest that such regulations might actually reduce the diversity of political speech available to voters. During a political campaign, just when the public is most focused on the vital issues of the day, most groups would be unable to discuss them without risking having their speech deemed too political by regulators. Another possibility would be that because of independent advocates being restrained from speaking, only the media would still be free to advocate (such as through editorials), since its speech would still be protected by the First Amendment. Thus the media might end up with too much power over the political process.

FREE ACCESS

TO THE

MEDIA?

Since the cost of broadcast media is such a major factor in campaign costs, some reformers have proposed requiring that the media provide a certain amount of free or subsidized time to candidates. They argue that broadcasters use the public airwaves and should thus be required to contribute to the public interest, particularly when the amount of time devoted to news and public affairs by the broadcasters seems to have declined considerably. (According to a study by the Annenberg School for Communication at Columbia University, in the final three months of the 1998 California governor’s race, local television coverage of the race amounted to only one-third of 1 percent. In 1974, the coverage had been 10 times greater.) According to the Center for Public Integrity, media companies responded to the threat that they might lose political advertising revenues (about $600 million in 2000) with some concerted lobbying: The dirty little secret is that from 1996 through 1998, the NAB [National Association of Broadcasters] and five media outlets—ABC, CBS, A.H. Belo Corp., Meredith Corp., and Cox Enterprises—cumulatively spent nearly $11 million to defeat a dozen campaign finance bills mandating free airtime for political candidates.13 The broadcast industry believes that they should not be singled out to pay for political speech. As one spokesperson noted: “Free political ads are basically picking the pockets of a select group, namely television broadcasters. They [candidates] already get the lowest available rates, and that’s the way we think it should stay.”14

29

Campaign and Election Reform Today the media includes cable and satellite television as well as the Internet. Some reform advocates believe that this wide new spectrum of communication also ultimately derives from the public and that the public has some claim on its use. Like their broadcast counterparts, the “new media” companies on the Internet resist the idea that they should have to subsidize political messages. One interesting idea proposed by political scientist Norman Ornstein is that media companies should be required to provide a certain number of hours to a “time bank.” Political parties and candidates would then be given vouchers that they could use to obtain a share of that time. To promote better political discourse, no ad could be shorter than 60 seconds, and the person appearing and speaking in the ad must be the actual candidate.15

STATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM LEGISLATION Until the 1990s, state campaign regulations (which varied greatly from state to state) were generally weaker than those in the federal system. However, grassroots groups began to put reform initiatives on state ballots even as federal reforms stalled in Congress. For example, the Maine Clean Elections Act, passed in 1996, established public funding for candidates who could demonstrate grassroots support by collecting a modest number of individual $5 contributions. Nick Nyhart, executive director of the reform group Public Campaign, was energized by this development: We’re excited by what’s happening in Maine, because now Clean Money is no longer an abstraction. And this is motivating people across the spectrum who believe in strengthening grassroots politics. Our biggest challenge now is fanning the flames so that Congress starts feeling the heat.16 Around the same time, Florida also established campaign contribution limits. The California Political Reform Act of 1996 (Proposition 208) limited political fund-raising to no more than six months before the election for jurisdictions with a population of less than 1 million and 12 months for those areas with more than 1 million. Fund-raising must be stopped 90 days after the election, and funds can be used only to repay election-related debts. In California and Arkansas, specific limits are set for contributions to local races. The California initiative allows localities to set local spending limits not exceeding one dollar per registered voter. These measures are being challenged in federal court (citing the Supreme Court’s overturning spending limits in Buckley v. Valeo); as of 2003 a district court has upheld the $100 contribution limit in Arkansas.

30

Introduction to Campaign and Election Reform THE BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT

OF

2002

Progress in federal campaign reform has been slow. Besides the growing activity in the states, the 1990s saw a number of high-profile efforts to make campaign finance reform a national issue. In 1992, independent candidate H. Ross Perot captured 19 percent of the popular vote for president with an idiosyncratic populist campaign in which, ironically, his attack on the moneyed interests could be heard only because he was a billionaire who could pay for his own access to the media. At the end of the decade, consumer advocate Ralph Nader took on what he characterized as two major parties that both served global corporate interests, not the needs of the people. Nader, who had little money, ended up with a vote that was many felt was only large enough to tip the election from Al Gore to George W. Bush. Doris Haddock, a self-described “grandma,”decided to walk across the United States, asking thousands of people what they thought was wrong with U.S. politics and promoting campaign finance reform. After striking a chord with so many of her fellow citizens, Haddock concluded: “It is said that democracy is not something we have, but something we do. But right now, we cannot do it because we cannot speak. We are shouted down by the bullhorns of big money. It is money with no manners from democracy, and it must be escorted from the room.”17 None of these efforts had a direct impact on the making of new campaign reform legislation. It proved to be a more mainstream crusader, Senator John McCain of Arizona, who, working with his colleague Russell Feingold of Minnesota and representatives Martin Meehan and Christopher Shays, finally got Congress to pass the first major campaign reform bill in a generation, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002. Although there are adjustments and additions to the hard money limits, the key thrust of this latest round in federal campaign legislation is aimed at soft money. Under the BCRA, national party committees will no longer be able to receive or allocate soft money, although state and local committees will be able to use soft money in their local elections. Additionally, there are restrictions intended to limit the ability of parties to shuffle money around to evade restrictions. For example, independent expenditures and those that “coordinate” between the party and the candidate can no longer be combined. “Get out the vote” campaigns cannot be associated with specific candidates. Federal officeholders can still attend fund-raising meetings, but they cannot explicitly solicit soft money. Given the vagueness of these provisions, a lot will depend on how (and how much) the FEC interprets and enforces them. The problem of issue advocacy advertising is addressed to a limited extent. If an ad mentions or depicts a specific candidate, it must now be paid

31

Campaign and Election Reform for with hard money. Anyone who spends $10,000 or more producing “electioneering statements” must report them to the FEC within 24 hours. Independent expenditures of $10,000 or more must also be reported. It remains to be seen whether the new restrictions on soft money contributions will actually bring the torrent of money into U.S. politics under control, or whether, like other raging rivers, it will simply cut a new channel through the weakest part of its banks. Meanwhile, the very future of the hard-won campaign reform legislation of 2002 has been cast into doubt by the results of the first round of legal challenges. In May 2003 a three-judge federal district court panel upheld (and even broadened) the prohibition on issue ads but said the parties could raise and spend soft money for other purposes, such as get-out-the-vote and other “party building” activities. All major parties in the case immediately appealed to the Supreme Court. These include the authors of the 2002 bill, Senators John McCain and Russell D. Feingold and Representatives Martin T. Meehan and Christopher Shays, who believed the appeals court was wrong in declaring the general ban on soft money to be unconstitutional. Senator Mitch McConnell (Rep.Kentucky), who has been one of the bill’s biggest opponents, filed his own appeal, arguing that the appeals court was wrong in upholding portions of the soft money ban. The Justice Department also filed an appeal defending the BCRA in general. Appeals were also expected from a variety of advocacy groups including the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Most civil liberties and advocacy groups asserted that the BCRA impermissibly burdened free speech and thus violated the First Amendment. The Supreme Court will likely take up the matter in its fall 2003 term. Meanwhile, the strategists of both major parties as well as interest groups began to search furiously for legal ways to put soft money to work in time for the 2004 campaign. In May 2003, attempts by political parties and interest groups to take advantage of the overturning of the BCRA limits suffered a serious blow when the federal appeals panel stayed its ruling pending Supreme Court action. In particular, this meant that restrictions on soft money and issue advertising would likely remain in effect during the crucial early fund-raising for the 2004 campaign.

BALLOT REFORM As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, electoral reform includes not only campaign finance reform but also a number of possible reforms in how people actually vote and how candidates are elected.

32

Introduction to Campaign and Election Reform IMPROVING

THE

VOTING PROCESS

Jury duty and voting perhaps have something in common. The civic rhetoric in both cases stresses participation as a civic duty and privilege. The juror and the voter are both hailed as essential to maintaining the rule of law. However, jurors and voters both seem in practice to be treated quite shabbily, subjected to confusing and seemingly arbitrary procedures, and left largely ignorant of how things are really decided. Alexander Keyssar, a historian specializing in social policy, suggests that the problem is that the electoral system is not really designed with the needs of voters in mind: What the confused procedures and mechanics reflect, in fact, is an electoral system that functions to serve the major parties rather than voters. The detailed laws governing election procedures in most states were not designed as a nonpartisan effort to make sure that the “voice of the people” was heard. They evolved instead as the rules of engagement between two hefty adversaries, each seeking to maximize its own turnout and minimize outright cheating by the other party.18 The machinations by both parties revealed in Florida in 2000 seemed to confirm this cynical point of view. For example, in Seminole County, Republican election officials permitted Republican poll workers to correct mistakes in Republican absentee ballots, but the officials did not inform the Democrats that this service might be available. Another example of disparate treatment occurred in connection with Florida’s absentee ballots. Rules requiring that such ballots be postmarked on or before election day were ignored in some Republican-dominated counties but enforced in Democratic ones.19 The infamous “butterfly” ballot that may have cost Gore the presidency was actually designed by a Democratic official. However, the practice of “usability testing,” common in the computer and home appliance industries, which might have revealed the confusing nature of the layout, is not typically employed by election officials. Leaders in minority communities have suggested that many of the problems in Florida in 2000 may have been modern-day versions of the tactics used in the old South to disenfranchise black voters. These include having the old punched-card machines in the populous but poor counties with high minority populations. Another charge is that “purging” of voter rolls, sometimes based upon inaccurate criminal record information, may have been a deliberate attack on minorities. (Another observation is that a disproportionate number of blacks, particularly young males, have been disenfranchised by being convicted of felonies.)

33

Campaign and Election Reform The controversial Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore raised more questions than it answered. The primary justification the Court majority used for stopping the Florida recount is that it would violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. With no clear standards for determining valid votes during the recount, voters in counties that might, for example, count a partly punched chad as a vote would be treated more favorably than those in counties that required that the chad be punched all the way through. Critics expressed a mixture of puzzlement and incredulity with this form of equal protection analysis. The puzzlement came from the fact that the Supreme Court had normally only applied equal protection analysis when there was clear-cut damage to a well-defined group, particularly a “protected group” such as a racial minority. Here, however, there seemed to be a new right for individual voters to have their votes counted uniformly. But given the differences in voting technology used in the various counties, the original votes had already been registered with considerably different degrees of accuracy and reliability. According to constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe: “far more ballots were rejected in the twenty-four punch-card counties (3.9 percent) than in the twenty-four optical-scan counties with second-chance capability (0.6 percent), [and] in the fifteen optical-scan counties without second-chance capability, the rejection rate was highest of all (5.7 percent).”20 Given that, Tribe wonders why the Supreme Court singled out only the recount for equal protection considerations. Further, the Court declared that the Bush v. Gore decision applied only to that election and was not to be considered to be a general precedent. This was highly unusual, since lower courts normally expect to receive guidance on critical issues from the nation’s highest court. It remains to be seen whether the “individualized” equal protection argument from Bush v. Gore is nevertheless used to challenge future elections and to demand greater uniformity in voting technology and procedures. At any rate the situation in Florida (and similar problems found in other areas) spurred an effort to modernize voting equipment, and Congress enacted a modest effort, the Voting Modernization Act of 2002. It is unclear, however, whether enough federal and local money will be available to provide the nation’s polling places with equipment such as touch screen computer systems that give voters positive indication of how they voted and give them the opportunity to make corrections. To the extent that technology is modernized but poorer counties with large minority populations lag behind, new equal protection challenges are likely to be made.

34

Introduction to Campaign and Election Reform Concern with opening the electoral process to more potential voters has also been expressed in proposals to streamline the registration system. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (known as the “motor voter” act), for example, requires states to make voter registration forms available at the same offices where drivers’ licenses are renewed. In general, Democrats tend to support easing voter registration procedures, while Republicans express concerns about increasing the potential for vote fraud by not requiring identification and other documentation from voters. The National Commission on Federal Election Reform, formed in the wake of the 2000 election and cochaired by former presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, has issued a series of recommendations for reforming the electoral system. These include: • standardizing the procedures for statewide voter registration • letting voters who believe they are qualified cast a provisional ballot rather than turning them away from the polls • simplifying and streamlining absentee and overseas voting • requiring that all voting systems meet standards for usability and accuracy • having each state establish statewide standards for counting disputed votes • providing greater federal aid for improving election systems • moving elections to a national holiday, or making Election Day a national holiday, to make it easier for voters to get to the polls • encouraging the media to not project election results while the polls are still open21 Many of these recommendations are relatively uncontroversial in principle, but the details would likely cause considerable debate.

SHOULD TERMS BE LIMITED? Another ballot-related reform that had some vogue in the 1980s is term limits. The argument for term limits by proponents such as political scientist Mark Petracca is that limiting how long someone can stay in office will help prevent politicians becoming too well connected with lobbyists and so well funded and entrenched that no one can oust them. Opponents of term limits believe that the decision of whether to retain someone in office should belong to the voter on Election Day. They also argue that forcing people out of office just when they have learned the ropes may not be the way to promote an effective legislature, and that a

35

Campaign and Election Reform perpetually inexperienced legislature is more likely to turn to lobbyists (and the experts they provide) for advice. Term limits persist in some states (such as California), but the impetus to impose new ones seems to have died out. (Term limits for Congress were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in U.S. Term Limits, Inc., v. Thornton (1995), with the Court saying that only Congress has the power to specify the conditions for serving.)

REFORMING PRIMARY ELECTIONS Although primary elections have been somewhat neglected by reformers, they are quite important, given the dominant two-party system. In recent years, the number of independent or “decline to state” voters has grown considerably, presumably as an expression of dissatisfaction with the major parties. However, in the traditional “closed primary” system, voters who did not register with a political party could not vote in the primary election for any partisan race. (Such voters could still vote for ballot propositions and nonpartisan offices.) In an effort to give independent voters greater participation in the primary election, reformers have passed ballot propositions in a number of states that provide for either an “open primary” or, in the case of California, a “blanket primary.” In an open primary, an independent voter may, upon arrival at the polls, choose a primary ballot for any one party and vote it, without having to formally register with the party. The blanket primary extends this idea by letting any voter vote for any candidate in any primary race, regardless of party. (This means that the voter might choose a Democrat in the primary for governor but a Republican in the race for senator.) Reformers argue that opening the primary election process to independent voters might make the parties more responsive to the majority of voters and less likely to nominate candidates who reflect the efforts of activists with more extreme ideologies. However, most parties (major and minor) oppose the open or blanket primaries because of the potential that a party might end up with a nominee who does not reflect the party’s principles. Democrats might, for example, enter the Republican primary and deliberately vote for a weak candidate whom they feel could be easily defeated in the general election. Small parties in particular fear that some fringe group might come in and, in effect, hijack the party by imposing nominees on it. The Supreme Court has generally agreed with the parties’ concerns and upheld their right to control how their nominee is chosen. Thus, in California Democratic Party v. Jones (2000) the Court ruled that the California blanket primary was unconstitutional.

36

Introduction to Campaign and Election Reform THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE: CHANGE

OR

ABOLISH?

However the voting process might be improved, there is still the question of whether vote tallying can be improved. Even if there had been no disputes surrounding the 2000 election, Bush would have won even though Gore had received about 540,000 more popular votes. Candidates who had lost in the popular vote had been elected president before. In the disputed 1876 election’s popular vote, Democrat Rutherford B. Hayes had fallen about 250,000 votes short of the total amassed by his Republican opponent Samuel Tilden. Yet when the dust had settled, Hayes had been awarded enough Electoral College votes to eke out a 185-184 victory. Disputed votes aside, Hayes had won most of the smaller states, and because each state has at least three electoral votes, the smaller states have a slightly higher proportion of electoral votes in relation to their population. This helped Hayes overcome his disadvantage in the popular vote. In 1888, incumbent Democrat Grover Cleveland won the popular vote by a 90,000 vote margin, but lost the Electoral College tally, with 168 votes to Republican Benjamin Harrison’s 233. However, most of Cleveland’s popular majority came from lopsided victories in southern states. Supporters of the Electoral College system have suggested that the electoral outcome in this case properly reflected Harrison’s more widespread national support. In modern times the closest election (until 2000) came in 1960, when John F. Kennedy won in the popular vote by about 120,000 (only 0.2 percent of the total votes cast). There have been charges that Illinois (with a Kennedy margin of only 9,000 votes) had been “stolen” from Nixon by the actions of the Democratic Party machines in a few districts, but Kennedy’s electoral vote margin of 303-219 indicates that he would have won even without the 22 electoral votes from Illinois. This type of result is caused by the fact that in all but two states, all the state’s electoral votes are given as a block to the candidate who gets a plurality in the state’s popular vote. Some political thinkers defend the Electoral College as preserving federalism, or the balance of power between the states and the federal government. Having an electoral vote contest in each state may help promote regional interests and diversity by requiring that candidates address states individually. People seeking to reform or abolish the institution usually begin with the assertion that it is obsolete and undemocratic. The American Bar Association, for example, is on record as declaring that the institution is “archaic, complex, ambiguous, indirect, and dangerous.”22 Reformers point out that the Electoral College violates the “one person, one vote” principle that the Supreme Court has applied in other areas of the electoral system, such as the drawing of legislative districts. Each state gets both a fixed allotment of electoral votes (two, one for each senator) and an allotment that varies with

37

Campaign and Election Reform population (one per congressional district). Thus, a voter in Alaska, which has three electoral votes, has proportionately more influence than a voter in California or New York. This winner-take-all system in the Electoral College has also essentially locked out third-party candidates. Ross Perot, for example, received about 19 percent of the popular vote in 1992, but did not get a single electoral vote because he did not win the popular vote in any state. Supporters of the Electoral College argue that this reinforcement of the two-party system promotes political stability. Another argument against the Electoral College is that it is arbitrary, in that in many states there is nothing to prevent a so-called faithless elector from voting for someone other than the candidate to whom he or she had been pledged. In fact, only a few individual electors have made such a switch in the nation’s history. Assuming that reforming the Electoral College is desirable, there are several possible routes that could be taken. The simplest method, which could be enacted by initiative in each state, would result in electoral votes being distributed in rough proportion to the state’s popular vote. This could be done by having the electoral vote corresponding to each congressional district awarded to the candidate winning in that district, with the two electoral votes corresponding to the state’s two senate seats being determined by the statewide vote. Alternatively, the electoral votes could be simply parceled out according to each candidate’s percentage of the statewide popular vote. (The Lodge-Gossett Amendment, which would have implemented that system, passed the Senate in 1950 with the required two-thirds majority, but failed in the House.) More radically, the Electoral College could be abolished in favor of a direct popular vote for president. However, this would require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is a steep hill to climb, requiring both a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and the subsequent ratification by three-quarters of the state legislatures. What would be the effects of having a proportional electoral or direct vote for president? John F. Kennedy, a senator at the time of the debate on the 1950 amendment, suggested that the proposed reform would mean sailing into uncharted waters: It is not only the unit vote for president that we are talking about, but a whole solar system of governmental power. If it is proposed to change the balance of power of one of the elements of the solar system, it is necessary to consider all the others. . . . What the effects of these various changes will be on the federal system, the two-party system, the popular plurality system and the large state-small state checks and balances system, no one knows.23

38

Introduction to Campaign and Election Reform According to some experts, these effects might be surprising and unfortunate from some points of view. For example, although the current system weighs votes more heavily in small states, it is actually the voters in large, populous states who have the most influence on the election, because candidates must focus on winning the large number of electoral votes at stake in states such as California or New York. Since large states with populous urban areas tend to favor the Democrats, shifting to a uniform distribution of voting power would likely favor the Republicans. Further, in large states where the race is close, groups of swing voters or key constituencies (such as blacks or Hispanics) have more power because their votes might well make the difference in the all-or-nothing quest for the state’s electoral votes. With direct voting, according to Vernon Jordan, president of the Urban League, “the importance of being black melts away. Blacks, instead of being crucial to victory in major states, simply become 10 percent of the electorate, with reduced impact.”24 Thus, paradoxically, a reform that might be expected to make elections more democratic might actually actually give many voters less influence over the political process. One compromise that might ameliorate these effects is known as the “Bonus Plan.” This plan would award an additional 102 “bonus” electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. The result would be that the winner of the popular vote would be virtually certain of becoming president, but (according to proponents) the influence of the more populous states would still be preserved. Because of this uncertainty and the potential threat to important constituencies, it seems unlikely that the present winner-take-all Electoral College will be changed in the foreseeable future.

ALTERNATIVE BALLOT SYSTEMS Two alternative ways of organizing elections have attracted interest in the political science community, even though most voters have not yet heard of them. Both attempt to address the lack of choices perceived by many voters in a system where there seem to be only two viable candidates in most races. Preference (Cumulative) Voting Preference voting, also called cumulative voting or “instant runoff,” allows the voter to rank the candidates for a given office in order of preference— first place, second place, and so on. When the votes are counted, if one candidate has an absolute majority, that candidate is elected. Otherwise, the candidate with the fewest first-place votes is eliminated, but the secondplace votes on those ballots are added to the respective candidate’s first place

39

Campaign and Election Reform totals. The process is continued until a candidate gets a majority of the votes. For example, consider a race in which four candidates—A, B, C, and D— are running and 100 votes are cast. When the ballots are tallied, it turns out that the first-place votes are: A B C D

31 37 24 8

Thus far B is in the lead, but no one has achieved a majority of 51 of the 100 votes. Therefore, candidate D is eliminated, and the second-place votes on D’s ballots are examined. Suppose these are five for A, two for B, and one for C. These amounts are added to the respective candidates’ first-place votes, giving: A B C

36 39 25

Now B is in the lead and C is now eliminated, and the procedure is repeated. Suppose C’s 25 ballots have 15 votes for A and 10 for B. When these are added in, the totals become: A B

51 49

Thus, A emerges with a narrow victory. One advantage of this system is that voters would feel more confident in voting first for the candidate that truly appeals to them, even if it is a minor candidate. By including a second-place vote for the least undesirable major candidate, the voter can express a true preference without being forced into a “lesser of two evils” choice. Minor candidates (and minor parties) might gain some influence because the support for their candidates (expressed in first-place votes) would become evident even if these candidates do not ultimately win the election. Another practical advantage is that the cost and effort of having a run-off election is eliminated, since there is always a winner in the main election. A possible disadvantage of cumulative preference voting is that sometimes (as in the example just given) the candidate who had initially received the most votes (but not a majority) ends up losing to a candidate who re-

40

Introduction to Campaign and Election Reform ceived more second-place votes from voters for other candidates. It could be argued, though, that the winning candidate will at least have been the first or second choice of most voters. Perhaps the main disadvantage of this system is that it is unfamiliar and hard to explain. Proportional Representation The other alternative that appeals to many people seeking a more responsive politics is proportional representation. In the current system legislative districts (such as for the House of Representatives) have only one seat to vote for, so there can be only one winner. According to Steven Hill, associate director and cofounder of the Center for Voting and Democracy, this winner-take-all system confronts voters and candidates with the following dilemmas: If I win . . . you lose If I have my representation . . . you don’t If I vote for my favorite candidate, who has no chance of winning . . . I’ll help elect my least favorite candidate Do I vote my hopes . . . or do I vote my fears? If I drive away voters from their candidate . . . the only choice left is our candidate If I run to the center to attract swing overs . . . I will alienate my base If I appeal to my base . . . I’ll drive away swing voters If we’re for it . . . then they’re against it If we’re against it . . . then they’re for it.25 Thus, to critics such as Hill, winner-take-all legislative races for singleseat districts encourage bitter partisanship while narrowing the discussion of issues as both parties aim to capture the middle ground. This in turn discourages voters. Also, people living in districts heavily dominated by one party feel less incentive to vote. Proportional representation offers a way in which more voters’ votes in effect “count.” With proportional representation there are several seats for a given district, and they are awarded to the various parties in proportion to each party’s portion of the vote. Thus in a 10-seat district, if the Democrats get 50 percent of the votes, the Republicans get 40 percent, and the Green Party manages to get 10 percent, the Democrats get five seats in the legislature, the Republicans four, and the Greens one. The biggest advantage of proportional representation is that voters for minor parties are no longer in a hopeless position. The government, as in the British parliamentary system, would usually be formed by a coalition of

41

Campaign and Election Reform several parties. The Greens, for example, might be able to promote their ideas by winning concessions from the Democrats in return for joining them to form a majority coalition in Congress. The likelihood of proportional representation being adopted in the near future (at least perhaps beyond the municipal level) seems low. Besides the opposition of the two major parties that currently control the political process, a parliamentary system would be alien to most U.S. voters. Critics also worry that proportional representation and a true multiparty system would lead to gridlock (if no one can form a coalition) or political instability, as party alignments rapidly fluctuate.26

REFORM AS AN ONGOING PROCESS Interest in politics and elections tends to be seasonal, waxing toward election time and waning between elections. It is hard for most people to focus on the political process when there usually seem to be more pressing issues such as a possible war or measures to shore up a failing economy. However, the consequences of how campaigns work will affect how these higher-profile issues will be decided. The effectiveness of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act remains to be seen, and the same can be said for the attempts to modernize voting systems and procedures. Meanwhile, it remains worthwhile for citizens to invest some time in thinking about how the campaign process might be improved and made more accountable to voters, the quality of political discourse enhanced, and voting made more meaningful. As pointed out in Chapter 6, there are many organizations that offer resources to help voters find out how candidates are being funded, and who is contributing the most. Thanks to the World Wide Web, the information that must now be legally disclosed is becoming available in a more accessible and usable form.

1 2

3

E. L. Godkin. The Nation, January 24, 1889. “Wall Street Interests Pushing for Social Security Privatization Gave $53 Million in Political Contributions during Past Decade, According to Common Cause.” Common Cause News February 1999. Available online. URL: http://216.147. 192.101/publications/securities.htm. John Green, Paul Hernson, Lyndal Powell, and Dyle Wilcox. “Individual Congressional Campaign Contributors: Wealthy, Conservative—and Reform Minded.” Joyce Foundation, A summary of the report is available online at the Joyce Foundation Web site: URL: http://www.joycefdn.org/current/news/ 9806_PR_campaigndonors. html. Posted June 9, 1998.

42

Introduction to Campaign and Election Reform 4

5

6

7 8 9

10 11 12

13

14 15

16 17 18

19 20

21

North Carolina Center for Voter Education. “Campaign Reform 2001: Examining Issues.” Available online. URL: http://www.ncvotered.com/downloads/PDF/ 3_01_survey_report.pdf. Downloaded January 19, 2003. Summary of poll conducted November 21–24, 1996. Gallup Organization cited in Public Campaign “Public Support for a Clean Money, Clean Elections Approach.” Available online. URL:http://www.publicampaign.org/pollsumm.html. Downloaded March 4, 2003. Karen Foerstel, Peter Wallenstein, and Derek Willis. “Campaign Overhaul Mired in Money and Loopholes,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 58, May 13, 2000, p. 1084. Foerstel, Wallenstein and Willis, p. 1084. Foerstel, Wallenstein and Willis, p. 1084. Cass R. Sunstein, “Political Equality and Unintended Consequences,” Columbia Law Review, vol. 94, May 1994, p. 1390–1414. Also in Anthony Corrado et al, editors. Campaign Finance Reform: A Sourcebook. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1997, p. 113–120. Bradley A. Smith, “Campaign Finance Reform: Faulty Assumptions and Undemocratic Consequences,” USA Today, vol. 126, January 1998, p. 10ff. Steven E. Schier, “One Cheer for Soft Money,” Washington Monthly, July 2000, p. 21. Joshua Wolf Shenk, “Designed for Impotence: Why the Federal Election Commission Is a Lap Dog for the Political Class,” U.S. News and World Report, vol. 122, January 20, 1997, p. 30ff. Lewis, Charles. “Profiteering from Democracy.” Center for Public Integrity. Available online. URL:http://www.public-i.org/breakingnews_id_mmddyy.htm. Posted August 30, 2000. Lewis. See Norman J. Ornstein et al. “Reforming Campaign Finance.” Brookings Institution. Available online. URL: http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/gs/cf/reformcf. htm. Issued December 17, 1996, revised May 7, 1997. (Later released by the League of Women Voters under the title “5 Ideas for Practical Campaign Reform.”) Marc Cooper. “A New Public-Funding Law Has Prompted Many Reformers to Run for Office: Clean Money in Maine,” The Nation, vol. 270, May 29, 2000, p. 22. Doris Haddock and Dennis Burke. Granny D: Walking Across America in My Ninetieth Year. New York: Villard Books, 2000, p. xi. Alexander Keyssar, “The Right to Vote and Election 2000,” in Jack N. Rakove, editor, The Unfinished Election of 2000. New York: Basic Books, 2001, pp. 90–91. See David Barstow and Don Van Natta, Jr., “How Bush Took Florida: Mining the Overseas Absentee Vote,” New York Times, July 15, 2001, p. 1ff. Laurence H. Tribe. “Freeing eroG v. hsuB from Its Hall of Mirrors” in Ronald Dworkin, editor. A Badly Flawed Election: Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court and American Democracy. New York: New Press, 2002, p. 129 (see throughout for application of equal protection analysis). Jimmy Carter et al. To Assure Pride and Confidence in the Electoral Process: Report of the National Commission on Federal Election Reform. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2002.

43

Campaign and Election Reform 22

23 24 25 26

Quoted in Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., “How to Democratize American Democracy,” in Ronald Dworkin, editor, A Badly Flawed Election: Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court and American Democracy. New York: New Press, 2002, pp. 224–225. Quoted in Schlesinger, Jr., “How to Democratize American Democracy,” p. 224. Quoted in Schlesinger, Jr., “How to Democratize American Democracy,” p. 224. Steven Hill, Fixing Elections: The Failure of America’s Winner Take All Politics. New York: Routledge, 2002, p. 43. For more information on the variations and nuances possible in electoral systems see Douglas Amy, Behind the Ballot Box: A Citizen’s Guide to Voting Systems. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2000.

44

CHAPTER 2

THE LAW AND CAMPAIGNS AND ELECTIONS Because the electoral process is fundamental to the operation of democracy, it involves an interplay of state, local, and federal systems and regulations, as well as sparse but important mention in the Constitution of the United States.

Elections in the Constitution In the United States, the conduct of elections is primarily a state and local process. However, the U.S. Constitution does prescribe certain requirements for federal elections for the executive (president) and legislative (Congress) branches.

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH: HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES The House of Representatives was intended to be the part of the federal legislature that most directly reflected the popular will. Thus its composition is tied by the Constitution to state populations and is ultimately affected by growth or shifts in population.

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 2 (EXCERPTS) Clause 1: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

45

Campaign and Election Reform Clause 2: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers. . . . The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative . . . Note that the qualifications for electors (voters) of the House of Representatives are derived from those set by the states for elections to their own legislatures. Not surprisingly, the framers of the Constitution built upon the state electoral system, adding only the time of elections (every two years) and specific qualifications for membership in the House (age and residency). The mechanism for apportioning (distributing) House seats among the states requires an enumeration (census) every 10 years, with states to receive a number of representatives proportional to their population. (Note that in these excerpts from the Constitution text set in roman indicates language that was removed or revised by subsequent amendments.) The actual drawing of congressional districts reflecting the states’ allocation of representatives would, starting in the mid-20th century, become a political and legal battleground over the question of equal and fair treatment of various groups within the population, particularly the access of minorities to the political process and their ability to choose representatives reflecting their community.

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH: SENATE The Senate was intended to reflect the power of the states as a counterbalance to the popular vote. Its composition is thus independent of population and is fixed at two members per state.

46

The Law and Campaigns and Elections ARTICLE 1, SECTION 3 (EXCERPTS) Clause 1: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote. Clause 3: No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. The qualifications for being a senator are similar (but a bit stricter) than for being a representative. Notice that in the original language senators were not chosen directly by the people of their states but by the state legislature. This was changed by the Seventeenth Amendment (ratified 1913), which specifies that senators, like members of the House, be chosen directly by the people. The qualifications for the electors (voters) are again tied to those for the state legislature. The Constitution goes on to specify how procedures or regulations for federal elections are to be established.

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 4 (EXCERPTS) Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators. This little paragraph is the basis for the power of Congress to regulate federal elections. The legislature of each state still has the primary responsibility for regulating federal elections, but Congress can create uniform regulations as it sees fit, subject, of course, to the constitutional scrutiny of the courts. Note that ultimately Congress is the final judge of the “elections, returns, and qualifications of its members” (Article 1, Section 5, clause 1).

47

Campaign and Election Reform

EXECUTIVE BRANCH: PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT Article 2 of the Constitution deals with the electoral procedure for the executive branch, namely the president and vice president.

ARTICLE 2, SECTION 1 Clause 1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows: Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. Clause 2 creates the Electoral College, that transient institution that actually elects the president and vice president every four years. The number of electors (and thus electoral votes) of each state is equal to the state’s total representation in Congress (two senators plus a number of representatives proportional to population.) The procedure for the electoral vote was originally specified in Clause 3, but was superceded by the Twelfth Amendment (ratified 1804). In the original system the person who received the most votes would become the president, and the second-place finisher would become vice president. To allow for partisan reality, this was amended to have separate ballots for the two offices, though normally each elector was pledged to vote for a party’s candidates for both offices. As threatened to happen in the 2000 election, it is possible for no candidate to receive sufficient electoral votes to become president. In that case: if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each

48

The Law and Campaigns and Elections state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice . . .

The Right to Vote A number of amendments either directly affect the electoral process or specify rights that must be protected in elections as in all other matters of law. The right to vote might be said to flow from these guarantees as interpreted by the courts.

FIRST AMENDMENT Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. For electoral disputes, the relevant portions of the First Amendment usually involve speech and assembly. Electoral laws that unduly burden the ability of candidates, parties, or the public to express their views on political issues will likely run afoul of the First Amendment. Many provisions of campaign reform laws (such as restrictions on who can contribute and how much, or how much candidates can spend) are attacked on First Amendment grounds. The right of assembly is considered to be a broad right of “association,” and restrictions on the operation of political parties (including especially their primary elections) are often attacked as violations of freedom of association.

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT The Fourteenth Amendment was passed following the Civil War. It asserts the supremacy of the rights of citizens under the Constitution over any conflicting legislation that might be passed by the states. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

49

Campaign and Election Reform “Due process of law” means that the specified procedures of the law must be applied and afforded to all persons, avoiding arbitrary action. “Equal protection of the law” means that all persons (regardless of characteristics such as race) must be treated the same. The Fourteenth Amendment (particularly the equal protection clause) would be increasingly brought into play to secure voting rights and equal representation for minorities. Because the Fourteenth Amendment is addressed to the states it requires that states’ actions under their own laws meet the standards of due process and equal protection. Further, the phrase “privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States” has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include many of the rights guaranteed in the first 10 amendments, including freedom of speech and association. Disputes over how electoral laws affect voters, candidates, and political parties often end up as legal questions about the application of the First and Fourteenth amendments.

FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT The Fourteenth Amendment specified that all persons “born or naturalized in the United States” were citizens. Theoretically, that included blacks and other racial minorities, who would thus be afforded equal protection of the laws. However, to make this more explicit, the Fifteenth Amendment specifically guarantees the voting rights of the former slaves (and all citizens, regardless of race). Note, however, that gender is not included in the amendment’s language, and women were unsuccessful in using either amendment in the courts to obtain the right to vote. Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

OTHER AMENDMENTS The following features of the electoral system have also been changed through constitutional amendments: • • • • •

direct election of senators (Seventeenth Amendment) women guaranteed the right to vote (Nineteenth Amendment) presidents limited to two terms (Twenty-second Amendment) electors provided for the District of Columbia (Twenty-third Amendment) poll taxes forbidden (Twenty-fourth Amendment)

50

The Law and Campaigns and Elections • new rules for presidential succession (Twenty-fifth Amendment) • minimum voting age lowered to 18 (Twenty-sixth Amendment) In conclusion, the U.S. Constitution affects electoral procedures in two primary ways: First, it establishes basic parameters for federal elections, such as qualifications and terms for office and the composition of voting constituencies. Second, by guaranteeing certain rights to all citizens, it provides an avenue for legal action by reformers who can try to show that current electoral practices violate those rights.

Federal Political Reform Legislation Concern with political corruption in the late 19th century led to agitation for reform. A number of federal laws have attempted to reduce political corruption by regulating the allowable political activities of groups such as corporations, labor unions, and government workers; limiting the amount and types of campaign contributions; and requiring disclosure of contributions and expenditures. Important legislation has also secured voting rights, particularly for minorities.

PENDLETON ACT (1883) The Pendleton Act (also called the Civil Service Act) established the federal civil service, in which employment was on the basis of merit (including passage of examinations) rather than appointment. This meant that an increasing number of federal positions could no longer be awarded by the party in power to its supporters (political patronage). In addition, it became illegal for civil service employees to either solicit campaign contributions or to be coerced into making contributions.

TILLMAN ACT (1907) Concern about corporate influence on politics grew in the latter part of the 19th century. The Tillman Act was the first federal legislation that tried to regulate federal political campaigns. It prohibited campaign contributions by corporations and national banks. This prohibition would remain in effect for the rest of the century but would be undermined by the development of indirect methods of contribution—political action committees (PACs) and independent “soft money” expenditures.

51

Campaign and Election Reform FEDERAL CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT OF 1910 Also called the Publicity Act, this law responded to the growing demand for disclosure of political contributions. It required that national party committees (and multistate campaign committees) report their receipts and expenditures—but only for House races, and only after the election in question. In 1911, amendments were passed that extended the disclosure requirements to candidates in Senate races, included primary elections, and required reporting of receipts and expenditures both before and after the general election. The law included the first spending limits—set at a total of $5,000 for House campaigns and $10,000 for Senate campaigns, or the amount established by state law, whichever was less. However, the Supreme Court in Newberry v. United States (1921) ruled that it was unconstitutional for Congress to regulate party primaries.

FEDERAL CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT OF 1925 The 1925 act kept the basic framework of the 1910 law. The reporting requirements were extended to multistate political committees as well as candidates, required quarterly reporting of all contributions of $100 or more—even in nonelection years—and increased the maximum spending limits for Senate races to $25,000. (The regulations concerning primary elections were dropped because of the Supreme Court ruling in Newberry v. United States, which stated that Congress could not regulate party primary elections.) In general, the 1925 act was ineffectual—the disclosures did not actually have to be made available to the public, and there was neither an enforcement mechanism for the spending limits nor penalties for violating them.

HATCH ACT OF 1939 The Hatch Act (also called the Clean Politics Act) expanded the prohibition of political solicitation to cover federal workers, who had not been included in the Pendleton Act. It also included new, explicit prohibitions against political fundraising by federal employees. Amendments to the Hatch Act passed in 1940 added a limit of $5,000 to individual contributions to federal candidates and national party committees. The total amount that could be received or spent by a multi-state party committee was capped at $3 million. However, there was no limit on the number of separate committees that could be formed to allow for multiples of that limit.

SMITH-CONNALLY ACT (1943) This measure, also called the War Labor Disputes Act of 1943, was passed over President Franklin Roosevelt’s veto. With regard to political activity, it

52

The Law and Campaigns and Elections prohibited labor unions from using their treasuries to make contributions to federal candidates. A wartime measure, the Smith-Connally Act expired six months after the end of World War II.

TAFT-HARTLEY ACT (1947) Also called the Labor Relations Act of 1947, this law included a provision making permanent the prohibition on political contributions by unions, limiting them in the same way corporations had been limited since 1907. However, corporations and unions can make contributions from voluntary funds that are kept separate from the general treasury.

VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 This act, and its amendments in 1970 and 1975, banned all practices that had the effect of discriminating against racial or ethnic minorities. Jurisdictions that had a history of significant discrimination (as in many southern states) were essentially placed under federal supervision, and any changes or additions to state electoral regulations had to pass muster in federal court. Literacy tests were banned (at first temporarily, then permanently).

LONG ACT (1966) This bill, passed by Congress in 1966, would have set up the first system for public financing of presidential candidates through a taxpayer check-off system. It was essentially blocked from implementation by opponents in Congress.

FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT (FECA) OF 1971 Signed into law in 1972, this comprehensive campaign finance law is still in force today as amended in 1974 and by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Its key provisions include: • limits on contributions by a candidate or his or her immediate family: $50,000 for president and vice president; $35,000 for Senate; $25,000 for house candidates • limit on media (newspapers, radio, television) spending to $50,000 or $0.10 times the voting-age population of the district for which the election is being held, whichever is greater

53

Campaign and Election Reform • no more than 60 percent of media spending could be used for television or radio • quarterly disclosure of receipts and expenditures by every candidate and political committee, plus additional reports during election year • all contributions of $5,000 or more must be reported within 48 hours of receipt It must be noted that the spending limits were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo (1976).

REVENUE ACT OF 1971 As a companion to FECA, the Revenue Act established a system of public financing for presidential elections through a voluntary taxpayer check-off. There were also individual tax credits for a portion of small contributions to federal, state or local candidates. (These were increased and sometimes eliminated by succeeding amendments.) The receipt of public funding for presidential candidates was conditioned on their compliance with the various limits and requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act.

FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1974 Although in the form of amendments to FECA of 1971, the provisions of this extensive law amounted to a considerable expansion of the original law. The specific limits on media expenditures were replaced by strict general expenditure limits. Senate candidates were limited to $100,000 or $0.08 times the voting-age population in their state for primary elections, and $150,000 and $0.12, respectively, for the general election. House candidates were limited to a total of $70,000 each for the primary and general election, except for states that had only a single district, which followed the Senate limits. Presidential candidates were limited to $10 million for the primary (plus per-state limits equal to that state’s limit for Senate candidates) and $20 million for the general election. All limits were indexed for inflation to the Consumer Price Index. Various limits were also imposed on total spending by party national committees. The contribution limits from the 1971 act were retained, with the addition that an individual was limited to contributing no more than $1,000 per candidate per election (primary, runoff or general), with an aggregate limit of $25,000.

54

The Law and Campaigns and Elections Presidential candidates were offered public matching funds if they met certain fundraising requirements, and parties could receive public funding for their national convention. (Minor parties could receive smaller amounts depending on their vote in a previous election.) To enforce this elaborate new scheme the Federal Election Commission (FEC) was created. It was given considerable powers to investigate abuses, subpoena witnesses and issue reports, but in practice its sanctions could often be delayed or avoided by the major parties. Finally, all the spending limits, as with those in FECA of 1971, were rendered inoperative by the Supreme Court’s Buckley v. Valeo decision. The Supreme Court also rejected limits on a candidate’s contributions to his or her own campaign, unless they were accepted voluntarily in return for federal matching funds.

LATER FECA AMENDMENTS FECA was amended several times. The 1976 amendments were designed to bring the law into compliance with Buckley v. Valeo. In addition, disclosure was now required for independent expenditures of more than $100 (those not by or in coordination with a candidate). Expenditures not used to explicitly advocate the election or defeat of a specified candidate were exempt from disclosure, creating a loophole into which large amounts of money would be poured for funding such activities as “party-building” and “get out the vote.” The 1979 amendments eased and streamlined many of the reporting requirements imposed by the 1976 amendments. Candidates and committees with small overall expenditures (under $5,000) were exempted from reporting. Expenditure by state and local party committees on party-building and “get out the vote” in connection with the presidential election was made unlimited.

NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT OF 1993 The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, commonly known as the Motor Voter Act, was designed to make voter registration easier and more accessible, in the hope of increasing voter turnout and broadening the electorate to all segments of the population. It requires that state motor vehicle offices (and certain other state agencies such as welfare and services for the disabled) provide voter registration forms and assistance. It also requires states to develop and accept mail-in voter registration forms.

BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 2002 Debated in Congress for several years as the McCain-Feingold bill, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) attempts to address a 55

Campaign and Election Reform number of perceived funding abuses and weakness in FECA, notably the growth of unregulated “soft money”—independent expenditures not directly associated with a candidate. Structured as an amendment to FECA, important provisions of the BCRA include: • “Soft money” can no longer go to national party committees, but it can go to state and local party committees (but not for use in federal elections). • Federal officeholders can no longer specifically solicit soft money contributions, either for themselves or on behalf of a committee, although they can still attend and speak at meetings where solicitation is done by others. • Parties cannot combine independent expenditures and those coordinated with candidate committees. • A wider variety of broadcast ads must now be counted against the hard money limits—including so-called issue ads that clearly identify or depict specific candidates. • There are stricter requirements for using soft money for voter registration and “get out the vote” campaigns. For example, they cannot be identified with a specific federal candidate. • Maximum individual contribution per candidate per election for both House and Senate races is raised to $2,000. Total individual contribution to a national party committee is raised to $25,000. Both limits are indexed for inflation. • Persons spending $10,000 on producing or airing “electioneering statements” must report them to the FEC within 24 hours and file a new report for each additional $10,000 spent. • Independent expenditures of more than $10,000 must be reported within 24 hours (expenditures of more than $1,000 must be reported if made in within 20 days of the election). • Contribution limits for Senate candidates are raised if their opponent is spending large amounts of personal funds on the campaign. In May 2003, the first legal test of the BCRA resulted in a lengthy (1,638 pages) and rather convoluted ruling by a three-judge federal appeals court panel. The court majority upheld the prohibition on parties and party committees spending soft money on activities directly related to electing federal candidates. The court also upheld the ban on interest groups using soft money for so-called issue ads that mentioned the names of candidates near election time.

56

The Law and Campaigns and Elections However, the court ruled that the parties could spend soft money on party-building and get-out-the-vote activities, which had also been banned by the BCRA. The parties are now faced with the decision of whether to resume such expenditures at the risk that the Supreme Court might eventually reverse the appeals court’s decision. In May 2003, the federal appeals panel stayed its ruling, allowing the BCRA provisions on soft money to remain in force until the Supreme Court makes its decision.

STATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REGULATIONS Most states have their own regulations for state election campaigns. The specific provisions are too numerous to list here, but handy summary charts of the key features of state regulations are available on the Federal Election Commission web site at http://www.fec.gov/pages/cflaw2000.htm. The site for the Campaign Finance Information Center, at http://www. campaignfinance.org/states/index.html, includes an interactive map of the United States. Clicking on a state gives a summary including the relevant regulatory agency, regulations, and data.

COURT CASES There have been numerous court cases dealing with many aspects of elections and election campaigns, including voting rights, party activities, and campaign finance. As an aid in categorization, the featured cases and some related cases are listed here under general topics. Note that some cases are listed under more than one topic.

Cases by Topic Apportionment (Districting) Colegrove v. Green, Reynolds v. Sims, Shaw v. Reno, Wesbury v. Sanders Association, Freedom of (First Amendment) Brown v. Socialist Workers ’74 Campaign Committee, California Democratic Party v. Jones, Democratic Party of the United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette, Smith v. Allwright, Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut, Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party

57

Campaign and Election Reform Campaign Finance Regulations Brown v. Socialist Workers ’74 Campaign Committee, Buckley v. Valeo, Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley, Day v. Holahan, First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, Landell v. Sorrell, McConnell v. FEC, Shrink Missouri Government PAC v. Maupin Corporations First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti Equal Protection of the Law (Fourteenth Amendment) Bush v. Gore, Nixon v. Herndon, Shaw v. Reno, Smith v. Allwright Federal Authority to Regulate Elections Newberry v. United States, United States v. Classic Labor Unions United Public Workers v. Mitchell, United States v. Congress of Industrial Organizations Minor Parties and Independents Arkansas Educational Television v. Forbes, Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party Political Parties California Democratic Party v. Jones, Democratic Party of the United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette, Smith v. Allwright, Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut Poll Taxes Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections Primary Elections California Democratic Party v. Jones, Democratic Party of the United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette, Newberry v. United States, Nixon v. Herndon, Smith v. Allwright, United States v. Classic, Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut Speech, Freedom of (First Amendment) Arkansas Educational Television v. Forbes, Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley, Day v. Holahan, McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, Shrink Missouri Government PAC v. Maupin Term Limits U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton Votes, Counting of Bush v. Gore Voting Rights for Minorities Guinn v. United States, Nixon v. Herndon, Shaw v. Reno, Smith v. Allwright, Gomillion v. Lightfoot, Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections

58

The Law and Campaigns and Elections GUINN V. UNITED STATES, 238 U.S. 347 (1915) Background In 1910, the state of Oklahoma added a “grandfather clause” to its voting regulations. This provision read as follows: No person shall be registered as an elector of this State or be allowed to vote in any election herein, unless he be able to read and write any section of the constitution of the State of Oklahoma; but no person who was, on January 1, 1866, or at any time prior thereto, entitled to vote under any form of government, or who at that time resided in some foreign nation, and no lineal descendant of such person, shall be denied the right to register and vote because of his inability to so read and write sections of such constitution. Although this language makes no explicit mention of race, since only whites were allowed to vote before 1866 (before the Fifteenth Amendment was passed), the effect of the language is that whites and their descendants (including newly arrived immigrants) were exempt from meeting the literacy requirement. Blacks, on the other hand, were forced to take the test, and through a combination of lack of education and trickery on the part of the election officials, were unlikely to gain the right to vote. Several Oklahoma election officials were convicted for violating a federal statute that prohibited anyone from depriving (or conspiring to deprive) citizens of their rights under the Constitution—in this case, the right to vote under the Fifteenth Amendment. The conviction was appealed, and the case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court. Legal Issues Generally the Constitution gives states primary control over the electoral process. However, the Fifteenth Amendment guarantees all otherwise eligible citizens the right to vote regardless of “race, color or previous condition of servitude.” The issue is whether the Fifteenth Amendment prohibits a state from imposing a scheme that has the indirect effect of disenfranchising most blacks. Decision The Court opinion, written by Chief Justice Edward Douglass White, forthrightly rejected the Oklahoma grandfather provision. The Court could find no other reason for the peculiar use of the 1866 cutoff date except to predate the Fifteenth Amendment and thereby bypass its effect.

59

Campaign and Election Reform Impact This case is straightforward but interesting in a couple of respects. While upholding the effectiveness of the Fifteenth Amendment, the Court did not have recourse to the Fourteenth Amendment, which would also seem to preclude setting up a scheme that would treat one group of citizens differently from another. The Fourteenth Amendment was not yet a major weapon in the arsenal for dismantling barriers to voting for minorities. Also, the Court found no constitutional problem with the literacy test itself, seeing it as an ordinary and proper exercise of the state’s power to regulate elections. Literacy tests would be used for another 50 years as an effective barrier to keep blacks out of the voting booth. However, their use in most parts of the South would be banned by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and this ban would be upheld as a proper use of the Fifteenth Amendment in South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966).

NEWBERRY V. UNITED STATES, 256 U.S. 232 (1921) Background Truman H. Newberry, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Michigan, was convicted for violating an early federal campaign reform statute, the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, that prohibited exceeding a spending limit for a primary election. He appealed the conviction to federal court. Legal Issues Under Article 1, section 4, of the U.S. Constitution “The times, place and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulation, except as to the places of choosing Senators.” This constitutional language seemed to give Congress great latitude in regulating elections for members of Congress, but Newberry argued that “elections” here referred only to the final election, not primary elections where parties choose their nominees. (The Constitution, it must be remembered, is silent on the subject of political parties and their procedures.) Decision In a narrow 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court overturned Newberry’s conviction, but only four justices agreed with Newberry’s argument that the constitutional power of Congress to regulate the election of its members did

60

The Law and Campaigns and Elections not extend to primary elections. (The opinion supporting Newberry’s position stated that primary elections “are in no sense elections for office, but merely methods by which party adherents agree upon candidates.” Impact The Newberry decision would seem to preclude federal regulation of primary elections, which were increasingly the method by which the candidates for the final ballot were selected. However, the Newberry decision would be overturned in United States v. Classic (1941).

NIXON V. HERNDON, 273 U.S. 536 (1927) Background As part of a strategy for keeping African Americans from access to political power, a number of southern states instituted so-called white primaries. By excluding black voters from the primary election for the dominant Democratic Party, white primaries effectively rendered any black votes in the general election meaningless, because the Democratic nominee who had been selected in the whites-only election almost invariably won the office. To challenge this system, the plaintiff, “a Negro, a citizen of the United States and of Texas and a resident of EI Paso, and in every way qualified to vote,” sued the Judge of Elections in EI Paso for $5,000 damages, alleging that he had been unlawfully denied the right to vote in a Democratic primary election. Texas had passed a statute in 1923 stating that “in no event shall a Negro be eligible to participate in a Democratic party primary election held in the State of Texas.” The plaintiffs’s suit was dismissed in the lower court and then appealed to the Supreme Court. Legal Issues The defendant argued that the Court had no jurisdiction over the Texas law, because it involved a “political” matter not subject to judicial review. The plaintiffs argued that the Texas law violated both the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (which guarantees equal protection of the laws) and the Fifteenth Amendment, guaranteeing citizens the right to vote regardless of race. Decision Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for the majority, quickly dismissed the idea that political matters were not subject to judicial hearing. He pointed

61

Campaign and Election Reform out a number of settled cases in which political action could cause damage to an individual that could be the subject of a lawsuit. Holmes further noted that “If the defendants’ conduct was a wrong to the plaintiff the same reasons that allow a recovery for denying the plaintiff a vote at a final election allow it for denying a vote at the primary election that may determine the final result.” Moving on to the constitutional question, Justice Holmes said that it was unnecessary to even apply the Fifteenth Amendment’s guarantee of voting rights to racial minorities. This is because the Fourteenth Amendment “not only gave citizenship and the privileges of citizenship to persons of color, but it denied to any State the power to withhold from them the equal protection of the laws. . . .” Under equal protection, the laws cannot treat whites and blacks differently, and blacks cannot be excluded from elections that are open to white voters. Impact This decision outlawed white-only primary elections. Although Nixon deals with constitutional rights of voters and not regulation of elections, it also marks a milestone on the road from Newberry (1921), which had suggested that primary elections were not subject to regulation, and United States v. Classic (1941), which clearly viewed primary elections as an integral part of the electoral process. Unwilling to give up, Texas Democratic officials had a statute passed that gave the executive committee of the Democratic Party the right to set qualifications for voting in its primaries. The party promptly enacted a whiteonly rule, and Nixon promptly sued again. In Nixon v. Condon (1932), the Supreme Court overturned the new law, saying that the state had simply tried to use an agency (the executive committee) to accomplish a purpose that was forbidden under the Fourteenth Amendment. In Smith v. Allwright (1944) the Court would hold that restricting party membership to whites and thus denying blacks access to a primary election was also a violation of the Fifteenth Amendment. Finally, the attempt of segregationists to get around Nixon by having an unofficial white-only “straw poll” before the official primary would be ended by Terry v. Adams (1953).

UNITED STATES V. CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299 (1941) Background A group of Louisiana election officials were convicted of violating a federal law against ballot tampering and reporting false vote counts in a primary election for Congress.

62

The Law and Campaigns and Elections Legal Issues The district court, in accordance with the position of four justices in Newberry v. United States (1921), overturned the conviction, ruling that Congress had no power to regulate party primary elections. The prosecutors appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Decision The Supreme Court ruled that the power of Congress to regulate federal elections did extend to primary elections, overturning Newberry v. United States (1921). By the 1940s, the integral role of primary elections in the process of choosing legislators had become so clear that the majority of the Court could no longer see a way in which Congress could carry out its constitutional responsibility to oversee federal elections without including primary elections. Impact Beyond the immediate issue, United States v. Classic set an important precedent, that the federal interest in ensuring the integrity of the electoral process must sometimes require the extension of federal power into electoral processes that had traditionally been the purview of state or local authorities.

COLEGROVE V. GREEN, 328 U.S. 549 (1946) Background Traditionally, congressional districts have been drawn along geographical and historical lines, reflecting the earliest settlements and centers of political power. Although the early districts might have been roughly equal in population, as urban populations grew some districts became much more populous than others. The political clout of rural districts often inhibited any redrawing of districts to reflect the changes in population. This meant that a person living in a city might share a congressional representative with 600,000 fellow voters, while the 150,000 people living in a rural district also have one representative in Congress. Legal Issues To challenge such disparities in the weight of votes, three Illinois voters, from the state’s more populous districts sued the state’s governor, secretary of state, and other officials, claiming that the current apportionment of districts, which had not been substantially changed since after the 1900 census,

63

Campaign and Election Reform violated the 1901 State Apportionment Act as well being inconsistent with the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution because voters in populous districts were being treated differently (being given less representation) than those in less populous areas. Decision Speaking for the majority, Justice Felix Frankfurter declared that the Court should not intervene in matters of districting: We are of opinion that the petitioners ask of this Court what is beyond its competence to grant. This is one of those demands on judicial power which cannot be met by verbal fencing about ‘jurisdiction.’ It must be resolved by considerations on the basis of which this Court, from time to time, has refused to intervene in controversies. It has refused to do so because due regard for the effective working of our Government revealed this issue to be of a peculiarly political nature and therefore not meet for judicial determination. In other words, the separation of powers means that the judicial branch should not become involved in how the political branch chooses to arrange to constitute itself. The Constitution gives Congress the power to determine how representatives should be chosen (and thus how congressional districts should be constituted), and the plaintiff’s only remedy therefore lies with Congress (or possibly through amending the Constitution). Justice Hugo Black vigorously dissented, pointing out that: The 1901 State Apportionment Act if applied to the next election would thus result in a wholly indefensible discrimination against petitioners and all other voters in heavily populated districts. . . . The probable effect of the 1901 State Apportionment Act in the coming election will be that certain citizens, and among them the petitioners, will in some instances have votes only one-ninth as effective in choosing representatives to Congress as the votes of other citizens. Such discriminatory legislation seems to me exactly the kind that the equal protection clause was intended to prohibit. Impact As with many other aspects of Supreme Court jurisprudence, this initial refusal to become involved in a question would not be the end of the story. In Baker v. Carr (1962), the Supreme Court would declare that “malapportioned” districts were subject to judicial scrutiny, and eventually even malapportioned districts in state legislatures would be struck down in Reynolds v. Sims (1964).

64

The Law and Campaigns and Elections UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS V. MITCHELL, 330 U.S. 75 (1947) Background The federal Hatch Act precludes government employees from “taking any part in political management or political campaigns.” Among other cases that came to the Supreme Court for review, an employee of the U.S. mint was fired for having served as a poll worker and paymaster for a political campaign in violation of the Hatch Act. Legal Issues The basic issue is whether the First Amendment right to engage in political activity can be limited by Congress in the case of government workers, in order to prevent the corrupting entanglement of government employment with politics. Decision As stated in the syllabus, the Court ruled that: (a) Congress has the power to regulate, within reasonable limits, the political conduct of federal employees, in order to promote efficiency and integrity in the public service. Ex parte Curtis, 106 U.S. 371; United States v. Wurzbach, 280 U.S. 396. (b) The fundamental human rights guaranteed by the First, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments are not absolute, and this Court must balance the extent of the guarantee of freedom against a congressional enactment to protect a democratic society against the supposed evil of political partisanship by employees of the Government. (c) The Hatch Act permits full participation by federal employees in political decisions at the ballot box, and forbids only the partisan activity deemed offensive to efficiency. (d) It does not restrict public and private expressions on public affairs, personalities, and matters of public interest, not an objective of party action, so long as the government employee does not direct his activities toward party success. In other words, Congress had a legitimate objective in protecting democratic society against corruption, and the Hatch Act provisions did not

65

Campaign and Election Reform impair the basic First Amendment rights of employees, who were free to speak out on issues or candidates (as well as to vote, of course). They were only restricted from engaging in specifically partisan activity. Impact The Hatch Act restrictions on political employment of government employees were upheld. (For a later ruling affirming this position, see CSC v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548 [1973].) Whether the restrictions were reasonable or desirable would remain a political question. Generally, Democrats have argued for easing Hatch Act restrictions because government workers and their unions tend to support the Democratic Party, while Republicans have argued for maintaining restrictions. The Hatch Act was amended in 1993 to allow for more partisan political activity.

UNITED STATES V. CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, 335 U.S. 106 (1948) Background The Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) was indicted for distributing a special issue of its newsletter containing an article endorsing a particular candidate in a federal congressional election. This was a violation of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925 as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (the Taft-Hartley Act), which forbids labor unions from contributing to federal election campaigns. The defendants argued that the prohibition against union contributions to elections violated their free speech rights under the First Amendment. The district court agreed and threw out the indictment. The government appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Legal Issues The constitutional issue is whether prohibiting campaign contributions by unions violates the First Amendment. A related question is whether contributions amount to “speech” protected by the Constitution. Decision The Court agreed with the dismissal of the indictment, ruling that the distribution of free copies of the newspaper to people outside the union did not amount substantially to a contribution to the political campaign. The Court

66

The Law and Campaigns and Elections declined to express an opinion as to the constitutionality of the law against union contributions, although Justice Wiley Blount Rutledge, who concurred with the decision, also expressed a strong desire to rule that the contribution ban violated the First Amendment. Impact This case left the question open until a time when a more substantial use of union funds was involved in a campaign. That time came with United States v. Auto Workers (1957), where the union was charged with paying for television ads supporting a candidate. In this case the Court sustained the indictment, saying that such activity clearly amount to “expenditures” within the meaning intended by Congress. Again, however, the constitutional issue was bypassed. In effect, therefore, the ban on political contributions from a union’s general funds was upheld, and the Court remained disinclined to consider the First Amendment issue. (Coerced or insufficiently voluntary contributions by unions were ruled illegal by the Court in Pipefitters v. United States (1972).)

GOMILLION V. LIGHTFOOT, 364 U.S. 340 (1960) Background The Alabama state legislature redrew the boundaries of the city of Tuskegee from a neat square to a weird-looking polygon. Suddenly all but a few of the city’s black voters were no longer considered to be within the city boundaries and were thus ineligible to vote in city elections. A group of these voters filed a class action suit against the mayor and other city officials. The suit charged that they had been arbitrarily deprived of city services (such as police and fire protection) as well as the right to vote in local elections. Legal Issues The plaintiffs claimed that the city’s action violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the Fifteenth Amendment, which guarantees citizens the right to vote regardless of race. The city argued that the plaintiffs had no standing to sue because the federal courts had no jurisdiction over the decision of a municipality to redraw its boundaries. The district court agreed with the city and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs appealed, but the Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s action, saying that the ordinance in question did not “on its face” specify any form of racial discrimination. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

67

Campaign and Election Reform Decision The unanimous Court, led by Justice Felix Frankfurter, began by noting that [the state’s] Act 140 was not an ordinary geographic redistricting measure even within familiar abuses of gerrymandering. If these allegations upon a trial remained uncontradicted or unqualified, the conclusion would be irresistible, tantamount for all practical purposes to a mathematical demonstration, that the legislation is solely concerned with segregating white and colored voters by fending Negro citizens out of town so as to deprive them of their pre-existing municipal vote. Frankfurter went on to note that “a statute which is alleged to have worked unconstitutional deprivations of petitioners’ rights is not immune to attack simply because the mechanism employed by the legislature is a redefinition of boundaries.” Having established its jurisdiction, the Court concluded that: The Fifteenth Amendment forbids a State from passing any law which deprives a citizen of his vote because of his race. When a State exercises power wholly within the domain of state interest, it is insulated from federal judicial review. But such insulation is not carried over when state power is used as an instrument for circumventing a federally protected right. Impact In Gomillion, the Supreme Court asserted the important general principle that a law that has a discriminatory effect and deprives citizens of the right to vote on the basis of race cannot stand, regardless of whether the law avoids any specific mention of race.

REYNOLDS V. SIMS, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) Background A group of Alabama voters sued, claiming that maintaining state legislative districts with unequal populations violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Their case was heard by the Supreme Court together with several other cases that had also been turned down by lower courts. Legal Issues In Wesbury v. Sanders, decided earlier the same year, the Supreme Court had ruled that congressional districts must be made equal in population. In the

68

The Law and Campaigns and Elections case of Congress, however, there is already a “hook” for federal involvement in the constitutional power of Congress to make regulations involving its membership and electoral process. The question was whether the “one man, one vote” rule would also extend to state legislative districts, because of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws, which was being increasingly applied to state as well as federal jurisdictions. (The Court had already made this extension in Gray v. Sanders (1963), requiring that everyone must have an “equal vote” in a Georgia state primary election that previously had been weighted by voting on a county-by-county basis.) Decision The Court ruled that the equal protection clause did require that state legislative districts be apportioned equally with regard to population. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, is summarized in the syllabus as follows: 1. The right of suffrage is denied by debasement or dilution of a citizen’s vote in a state or federal election. 2. Under the Equal Protection Clause a claim of debasement of the right to vote through malapportionment presents a justiciable controversy; and the Equal Protection Clause provides manageable standards for lower courts to determine the constitutionality of a state legislative apportionment scheme. 3. The Equal Protection Clause requires substantially equal legislative representation for all citizens in a State regardless of where they reside. Impact Many states had copied the model of the federal government in having a state assembly corresponding to the House of Representatives and a state senate corresponding to the federal Senate. At the federal level, this embodies the framers’ compromise between the democratic impulse (direct popular vote) and the restraining impulse of having a body that also took geography and other interests into account. After the Reynolds decision, states could still have a bicameral legislature (two houses), but both houses would now have to be chosen using districts equal in population. More subtly, the Reynolds case represents the culmination of an evolution in which the right of the individual voter to a full, undiluted vote as a requirement of equal protection under the federal constitution takes precedence over other considerations (whether benign or otherwise) that states might want to employ in districting. This is encapsulated in the Court’s opinion as follows:

69

Campaign and Election Reform Undoubtedly, the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society. Especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized. This was further confirmed in Lucas v. 44th General Assembly of Colorado (1964), where Justices Potter Stewart and Thomas Clark in dissent complained that reducing everything to “one man, one vote” denied considerations of regional balancing that had been long part of the U.S. political tradition. At any rate, henceforth most of the redistricting plans done after each 10-year census now would be challenged if the resulting districts were not virtually equal in population.

WESBURY V. SANDERS, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) Background A group of voters in a Georgia congressional district that had two to three times the population of some of the smaller districts sued, claiming that having congressional districts of unequal population violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, because their votes were proportionately “weighted” much less than those of voters in smaller districts. The district court, while acknowledging that the district in question was “grossly out of balance with that of the other nine congressional districts of Georgia” nevertheless rejected the voters’ claim, relying upon the Supreme Court’s opinion in Colegrove v. Green (1946), in which the majority had declared that legislative districting was a political matter into which courts should not pry, out of respect to a separate but equal branch of government. The plaintiff voters appealed to the Supreme Court. Legal Issues In Baker v. Carr (1962) the Supreme Court had already reversed Colegrove to the extent of deciding that the apportionment of districts was indeed “justiciable” and subject to the scrutiny of the courts, and that voters had standing to sue in such cases. This ruling was based on the constitutional power of Congress to regulate its manner of election, including districting. Districting was therefore not solely a state action, and in conflicts between the power of Congress and the states the federal courts must necessarily become involved. The next question was whether districts with great disparities in population violated the equal protection clause and was therefore unconstitutional.

70

The Law and Campaigns and Elections Decision Justice Hugo Black’s majority opinion did indeed declare such districting to be unconstitutional: “We hold that, construed in its historical context, the command of Art. I, 2, that Representatives be chosen ‘by the People of the several States’ means that as nearly as is practicable one man’s vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another’s.” In reviewing the Framers’ intentions in designing the U.S. government, Black pointed out that although the Senate was intended to give equal representation to states that could vary greatly in size and population, the House was intended to represent “the people” and to do so in equal proportions (hence the constitutional requirement for a regular census). Impact This watershed case highlighted the principle “one man, one vote” as a standard required by the Constitution and required regular redistricting of Congress to keep up with population changes. This would have the effect of shifting political power to a considerable extent from the less populated rural areas to the highly populated cities, particularly when Reynolds v. Sims (1964) extended the “one person, one vote” principle to state legislative districts.

WRIGHT V. ROCKEFELLER, 376 U.S. 52 (1964) Background A New York City congressional districting plan arranged Manhattan into four districts. One district, represented by black representative Adam Clayton Powell, was 86 percent black and Puerto Rican, while the remaining three districts had relatively small numbers of these groups (5, 28, and 29 percent, respectively). A group of voters sued the state, claiming that racial considerations had been impermissibly used to draw the districts to minimize the number of black representatives, and that they had been deprived of their rights to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment and their right to vote under the Fifteenth Amendment. The Appeals Court rejected this claim, saying not only that the plaintiffs had not shown that there was a “state contrivance” to segregate voters on the basis of race but that: (a) Where the evidence was “equally, or more, persuasive” that racial considerations had not motivated the State Legislature than that such considerations had motivated the Legislature, the findings of the District Court that the appellants had failed to prove their case will not be disturbed.

71

Campaign and Election Reform (b) The high concentration in one area of colored and Puerto Rican voters made it difficult to draw districts to approximate an equal division of these groups among the districts, even assuming that to be permissible. The plaintiffs then appealed to the Supreme Court. Legal Issues The factual issue was whether the state had intentionally discriminated on the basis of race in how they allocated voters in the four districts, or at any rate, created districts that amounted to a form of racial segregation. If this was shown, then under Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960), the districting would be unconstitutional. Decision The Court majority, led by Justice Hugo Black, “accept[ed] the findings of the majority of the District Court that appellants failed to prove that the New York legislature was either motivated by racial consideration or in fact drew the districts on racial lines.” Since the plaintiffs had not proved the factual basis for their claim, the districts in question were not unconstitutionally drawn. Impact In Gomillion, the exclusion of blacks was nearly complete, and there was no other plausible justification for redrawing the city boundaries. In Wright, however, the purpose and effect of the distribution of minorities in the four districts was less clear. The Court set a fairly high threshold for showing that a districting plan was impermissibly based on race.

HARPER V. VIRGINIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS, 383 U.S. 663 (1966) Background In addition to literacy tests, another common tactic used by those who wanted to keep minorities (and poor whites) away from the polls has been the poll tax, a fee that voters must pay for access to the ballot box. Several Virginia residents sued to have their state’s poll tax declared unconstitutional. Since the Supreme Court had upheld poll taxes in a previous decision, Breedlove v. Suttles (1937), the district court rejected the complaint. The case was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

72

The Law and Campaigns and Elections Legal Issues In the early years of the United States, property or means requirements for voting were not uncommon, but the rise of populist sentiment resulted in most such requirements (for white males) being reduced or eliminated by the mid-19th century. The ratification of the Twenty-fourth Amendment in 1964 had banned the use of poll taxes in federal elections. The issue in Harper is whether the Constitution permitted the use of poll taxes in state elections. Decision The lead opinion, by Justice William O. Douglas, first distinguished the poll tax from literacy tests. In Lassiter v. Northampton Election Board (1959), the Court had upheld literacy tests but only if they were not administered in a way that “on its face showed discrimination.” (Eventually the use of such tests would be banned by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 because of their inherently discriminatory effect against minorities.) Here, the Court noted that literacy tests at least bore some relationship to qualifications to vote, since the ability to read and write obviously helped make voters better informed. A poll tax, however, had no relationship to a voter’s ability to vote. Therefore, Justice Douglas concluded: that a State violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth nor to paying or not paying this or any other tax. Our cases demonstrate that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment restrains the States from fixing voter qualifications which invidiously discriminate. Impact This ruling suggests that while the states retain some power to establish qualifications for voting, any such qualifications must be clearly related to the act of voting itself or will otherwise be seen as arbitrary and discriminatory.

WILLIAMS V. RHODES, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) Background In general, the states have established a variety of requirements that must be met for an independent or third-party candidate to get on the ballot. In

73

Campaign and Election Reform 1968, former Alabama governor George Wallace ran for president as the candidate of the newly formed American Independent Party. Wallace was able to get on the ballot in every state except Ohio. Ohio had unusually stiff requirements for candidates who were not Democrats or Republicans. Such candidates had to obtain signatures of 15 percent of the number of voters in the previous gubernatorial election. (There was no provision at all for independent candidates not affiliated with a party.) Wallace met this requirement, but not in time for the deadline of February 7 of the election year. (By contrast, Democrats and Republicans did not need to obtain signatures as long as they had received at least 10 percent of the votes in the previous election.) The Ohio American Independent Party and the Socialist Labor Party sued to overturn the state’s ballot access requirements as unconstitutional and to force the state to put their candidates on the ballot. The district court agreed that the requirements were unconstitutional but refused to order that the candidates’ names be put the ballot (only a space for write-in votes would be provided). Both sides appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Legal Issues The two minor parties argued that having different, stricter ballot access standards for minor parties than for the two major parties violated their (and their potential voters’) rights to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. The state argued that establishing ballot access requirements was within their constitutional power, as given in Article 2, Section 1, which provides that each state “shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.” The state further argued that such matters were a “political question” into which the courts should not intrude. Decision Justice Hugo Black disagreed with the state and declared that its ballot access rules were unconstitutional. The key points, summarized in the syllabus are as follows: 2. State laws enacted pursuant to Art. II, § 1, of the Constitution to regulate the selection of electors must meet the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 3. Ohio’s restrictive election laws, taken as a whole, are invidiously discriminatory and violate the Equal Protection Clause because they give the two old, established parties a decided advantage over new parties.

74

The Law and Campaigns and Elections (a) The state laws here involved heavily burden the right of individuals to associate for the advancement of political beliefs and the right of qualified voters to cast their votes effectively. (b) The State has shown no “compelling interest” justifying those burdens. In his opinion, Judge Black noted that Ohio’s requirements made it “virtually impossible for any party to qualify on the ballot except the Republican and Democratic Parties.” Impact The key here is found not in a right of someone to run for office but in the right of candidates (and voters) to the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and in the right of individuals to freely associate in political parties to further their objectives. If a system of ballot rules virtually precludes alternate parties getting on the ballot, voters who want alternatives are unable to effectively pursue them or vote for them. It should be noted that the Ohio requirements were unusually burdensome. The Court later showed that a more modest threshold could be required for qualifying third-party or independent candidates for the ballot. In Jeness v. Fortson (1971), the Court upheld a Georgia requirement that independent candidates obtain signatures equal to 5 percent of the number of people voting for the relevant office in the previous election. In this case Georgia, unlike Ohio, did provide for independent candidates and did not set an earlier filing deadline for candidates not affiliated with a major party. Similarly, in Munro v. Socialist Workers Party (1986), the state of Washington’s requirement that a minor party candidate receive at least 1 percent of the vote in the primary election to be placed on the ballot in the general election was also upheld. The Court said that states were not required to make a showing that eliminating the requirement would lead to ballot overcrowding and voter confusion. Justices Thurgood Marshall and Walter Brennan, dissenting, disagreed and said that the state should have been required to show a compelling interest in restricting ballot access, and that its rules were narrowly tailored to meet its legitimate objectives.

BUCKLEY V. VALEO, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) Background The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 set up a rather complicated system of limits and requirements involving different types of political contributions and expenditures by different types of organizations. For example, an

75

Campaign and Election Reform individual could contribute up to $25,000 a year but no more than $1,000 for any one candidate in any particular election. There are separate limits for political committees and for a person spending money on his or her own campaign. Candidates, political parties, and various civil liberties groups ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the American Conservative Union banded together and challenged the new law in court, primarily based on its impact on First Amendment free speech rights. Lower courts upheld most of the provisions of FECA, and plaintiffs then appealed to the Supreme Court. Legal Issues The principal issue in this complex case is whether imposing bans or limits on campaign contributions or expenditures violates the protection of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Obviously political campaigning involves a great deal of speech and other forms of expression, much of it in the form of paid advertising in the broadcast media and the press. Defenders of the reform law try to make a clear distinction between the speech and the money that pays for it. They argue that under FECA no one is told what they can or must say, only how (and how much) they can pay. The plaintiffs argue that in today’s reality the ability to carry on effective political discourse is inextricably bound up with money. If you limit the funds available to candidates, you limit how effective their messages can be, and you limit the quality of the overall political discourse. (Critics would argue that the growing quantity of political speech has not often led to increased quality in this realm.) Decision The opinion, which is “per curiam” (unsigned), begins with a statement of the central importance of political discourse: The Act’s contribution and expenditure limitations operate in an area of the most fundamental First Amendment activities. Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution. The First Amendment affords the broadest protection to such public expression in order ‘to assure [the] unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people . . .’ This freedom of expression is accompanied by the right of association, which is needed for “the effective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones.”

76

The Law and Campaigns and Elections The Court then considered actions that have both a speech and a nonspeech component, such as the burning of draft cards (United States v. O’Brien, 1968). In that case, the Court ruled that while burning a draft card certainly expressed political sentiments, it also had a “non-speech element” that the government had a legitimate interest in regulating, and that preventing the particular action of burning a draft card was only an “incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms.” However, the Court said that the expenditure of money (the nonspeech component) did not have only an incidental relationship to the political speech protected by the First Amendment. The regulations indeed had the purpose of equalizing the speech available to various parties in the political debate, by restricting the amount of money that they could spend on speech. Another possible defense of the regulations was that they were a proper exercise of Congress’s power to regulate the “time, place, and manner” of speech, providing that it did not discriminate on the basis of the content of the speech. But this settled principle of First Amendment law does not apply, because the regulations limit more than how the speech can be carried out, because “a restriction on the amount of money a person or a group can spend on political communication necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached.” Because of this unacceptable restriction on the candidate’s freedom of speech, the Court ruled that FECA limits on expenditures by candidates, independent political committees and overall expenditure ceilings were unconstitutional. But the Court made a crucial (and controversial) distinction between contributing to a campaign and that campaign’s spending money. The Court found that limiting contributions was compatible with the First Amendment because “a limitation upon the amount that any one person or group may contribute to a candidate or political committee entails only a marginal restriction upon the contributor’s ability to engage in free communication.” That is, making an unlimited contribution is not essential to the contributor communicating his or her political ideas. Impact Buckley has been one of the most contentious modern Supreme Court decisions. At first glance it might seem that campaign finance reform had been left largely intact, since all the contribution limits had withstood constitutional scrutiny. But as a practical matter the removal of the expenditure limits has meant that money has continued to flow in an increasing torrent, including unregulated “soft money,” with no way to turn off the spigot at the candidate’s end.

77

Campaign and Election Reform Critics of Buckley have suggested that the Court was unnecessarily absolutist in its interpretation of the First Amendment and did not take changes in U.S. political life into account. Just as the Court has expanded the permissible powers of government in the economic area (such as antitrust) in response to the threat of unbridled private economic power, the critics suggest that the Court should have seen a need to regulate the political “marketplace of ideas” to prevent those with the most money from monopolizing discourse. The distinction that the Court attempted between contributions and expenditures has also been criticized as being muddled or naive. Finally, the simple equation of “more speech” with “better speech” has been questioned in this age of 10-second sound bites. Nevertheless, Buckley has remained virtually intact for more than 25 years, and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which itself is undergoing court challenge, was framed to avoid a collision with Buckley.

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON V. BELLOTTI, 435 U.S. 765 (1978) Background A group of banking associations and corporations challenged a Massachusetts law prohibiting corporations from making contributions or expenditures “for the purpose of . . . influencing or affecting the vote on any question submitted to the voters, other than one materially affecting any of the property, business or assets of the corporation.” The plaintiffs had wanted to contribute to a campaign against a proposed state constitutional amendment that would have provided for a graduated income tax on individuals. The state law, however, explicitly defined taxes (income, property, or sales) as not being issues for which corporations could make political contributions. The Massachusetts Supreme Court upheld the state law as constitutional, and the corporations appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Legal Issues The corporations argued that the state law prohibiting their political expenditures violated their First Amendment rights as well as their due process and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. This of course provokes the question of whether corporations, which are legal entities, have such rights, and to the same extent that individual human citizens do. Decision The Massachusetts Supreme Court had found that corporations do have rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, but that these rights

78

The Law and Campaigns and Elections were limited to matters touching on their direct economic interest. This is because the First Amendment is applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment (the incorporation doctrine), and the state court found that the Fourteenth Amendment protected a corporation’s property rights, not the “liberty” rights that are asserted for individuals. Therefore they concluded that the state law, which contained a provision allowing corporations to make contributions for issues directly affecting their property, did not infringe the constitution. The Supreme Court disagreed. The majority opinion by Justice Lewis Powell said that asking whether corporations had First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights as extensive as those of natural persons was asking the wrong question. Rather, the question was “whether [the state law] abridges expression that the First Amendment was meant to protect.” The Court viewed the First Amendment as requiring that the public be exposed to a full spectrum of points of view, and the speech of commercial interests is part of that spectrum. The Court noted that the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw. A commercial advertisement is constitutionally protected not so much because it pertains to the seller’s business as because it furthers the societal interest in the “free flow of commercial information.” In addition to depriving the public of this robust discourse, the state law impermissibly restricted speech on the basis of the corporate identity of the speaker. The dissenting opinion, led by Justice Byron White, argued that allowing corporations to engage in political speech about issues that do not directly affect their business implied forcing shareholders who did not necessarily agree with those beliefs to subsidize that speech and be identified with it. (This is analogous to the question of whether union members can be forced to pay for political speech as opposed to the union’s core “business” of collective bargaining. Unions have been required to make their political funds voluntary.) Finally, in his separate dissent, Chief Justice William Rehnquist quoted the earliest major Supreme Court case dealing with corporations, Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819). There, Chief Justice John Marshall described the legal status of a corporation as follows: A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those

79

Campaign and Election Reform properties which the charter of creation confers upon it, either expressly or as incidental to its very existence. These are such as are supposed best calculated to effect the object for which it was created. Under this definition, giving corporations limited speech rights that only affect their economic interests would seem appropriate. However, the status and role of the corporation has expanded considerably in the past two centuries. Impact While corporate contributions to political campaigns can be restricted (as in the regulations upheld in Buckley v. Valeo), corporations cannot be prohibited from expressing their view on political issues. Critics of the excesses of corporate power disagree with this type of expansive protection for commercial speech.

CITIZENS AGAINST RENT CONTROL V. CITY OF BERKELEY, 454 U.S. 290 (1981) Background The city of Berkeley, California, adopted an ordinance that limited total contributions by an individual in support of or opposition to a city ballot measure to a total of $250. An association formed to oppose a city rent control measure raised contributions that included nine that exceeded the $250 limit. The association sought and obtained a temporary restraining order prohibiting enforcement of the contribution limit ordinance. The trial court later declared the ordinance unconstitutional, but on appeal the California Supreme Court upheld the ordinance, saying that the city had a legitimate, compelling interest in preventing powerful special interests from overwhelming the ballot initiative process. Legal Issues The question was whether imposing a contribution limit for ballot measures violated the right to free speech under the First Amendment. Decision The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Warren Burger, began by recalling the important role that voluntary associations played in the birth of American democracy—for example, the colonial Committees of Corre-

80

The Law and Campaigns and Elections spondence and the writers of the Federalist Papers. The Court noted that the First Amendment has been consistently interpreted as “protecting a marketplace for the clash of different views and conflicting ideas.” In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the Supreme Court had upheld contribution limits for federal candidates, but the Court had also noted that “[T]he concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment, which was designed “to secure the ‘widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources’” and “‘to assure unfettered interchange . . .’” The Court declared that “to place a Spartan limit—or indeed any limit— on individuals wishing to band together to advance their views on a ballot measure, while placing none on individuals acting alone, is clearly a restraint on the right of association.” Buckley, however, had sustained limits on contributions to candidates. The Court now distinguished between contributing to a ballot measure and to a candidate. In the latter case, the state has a legitimate interest in preventing a “political quid pro quo from present and future officeholders.” However, in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti the Supreme Court had ruled that it was not permissible to give a corporation less political free speech than an individual. The same would be applied to unincorporated associations such as Citizens Against Rent Control. Impact The Court’s decision in this case suggests that a limit on contributions by individuals involving ballot initiatives would be acceptable, at least if not unreasonably low. But the Court has found a close association between freedom of speech and freedom of association. Speech is after all a social activity, and political activity usually involves groups.

DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. WISCONSIN EX REL. LA FOLLETTE, 450 U.S. 107 (1981) Background The rules of the Democratic Party specified that only persons “willing to affiliate publicly with the Democrats” (that is, registered Democrats) were eligible to participate in the process of selecting delegates to the party’s National Convention. The state of Wisconsin, however, had instituted an “open primary,” in which voters belonging to any (or no) party could, if they wish, choose among the candidates running for the Democratic nomination.

81

Campaign and Election Reform Although the actual delegates would be chosen after the primary, they were required to vote for the winner of the primary. As a result, non-Democrats could potentially influence or even determine the allegiance of the Wisconsin delegation. The national Democratic Party ruled that the Wisconsin delegation would not be seated for the 1980 National Convention because of the violation of party rules against participation by non-Democrats. The state of Wisconsin sued in the Wisconsin Supreme Court to force the Democratic Party to seat the delegation. The Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed with the state’s position, and the party appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Legal Issues The conflict here is between the state’s power to regulate the electoral process and the right of a political party to freedom of association. The party argued that its freedom of association under the First Amendment would be impaired if it were forced to allow nonmembers to participate in its nomination process. Decision The majority opinion, written by Justice Potter Stewart, upheld the position of the Democratic Party, saying that it had a right to select who it would associate with under the First Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment enforced this right against the state. The Court ruled that any compelling interest of the state in such matters as encouraging voter participation applied to the open primary itself, which was constitutional. However, the state could not force the party to accept the results of that primary. Impact The protection of the rights of political parties to association are generally given a high value, except where they touch upon the suspect category of race. Political expression is closely tied to the ability to voluntarily and freely associate. (Somewhat similarly, in Cousins v. Wigoda (1975) the Supreme Court had held that the state could not force the Democratic Party to seat two delegations that had been rejected by its Credentials Committee, although the case was not fully resolved.)

BROWN V. SOCIALIST WORKERS ’74 CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE, 459 U.S. 87 (1982) Background Although the Ohio Socialist Workers Party (SWP) did not advocate violent revolution and functioned within the normal political system, district court

82

The Law and Campaigns and Elections findings concluded that its members had experienced considerable government and private harassment. For example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) conducted a systematic program in which it sent anonymous threatening letters to party members and their families, and even visited landlords and urged them not to rent to party members. People whose affiliation to the SWP was exposed faced harassment and threats of physical violence from members of the general public. The Ohio Campaign Expense Reporting Law required that each candidate file a statement identifying each contributor, the recipient of each expenditure, and a description of the “object or purpose” of each disbursement. A group of SWP officials sued to block this requirement, arguing that forced disclosure would, given the prevailing atmosphere, put contributors in danger and greatly discourage future contributions. The district court agreed that the party members’ experience of harassment and threats gave credence to their argument that forced disclosure would violate their right to function as a political party. The state government appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Legal Issues The general validity of federal campaign disclosure requirements was upheld by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo (1976). The issue in the present case, involving a state campaign reform law, was whether disclosure could be required if it exposed contributors to substantial danger and harassment because they belonged to a group holding beliefs that were unpopular with much of the majority. Such exposure in turn might compromise the contributors’ (and the party’s) right to free expression and free association under the First Amendment. The government’s defense looked to the strong public interest in reducing corruption and improving the quality of the political process by making information about contributors and contributions available to the voters. The question was whether this interest, clearly acknowledged in Buckley, can justify the burden placed on the rights of association of party members. Decision The majority opinion, written by Justice Thurgood Marshall, began by noting that “The Constitution protects against the compelled disclosure of political associations and beliefs. Such disclosures ‘can seriously infringe on privacy of association and belief guaranteed by the First Amendment,’” quoting Buckley v. Valeo. In NAACP v. Alabama (1958) the Court had ruled that the civil rights organization could not be forced to hand over a list of its members. There the Court had stated that “Inviolability of privacy in

83

Campaign and Election Reform group association may in many circumstances be indispensable to preservation of freedom of association, particularly where a group espouses dissident beliefs.” While Buckley had upheld disclosure requirements, it had also noted that the state’s interest in compelling disclosure was less with minor parties than with major parties. Since minor parties were unlikely to win the election, contributions to them were unlikely to result in political corruption. Rather, the contributions were made out of a desire to promote the parties’ ideas. Buckley therefore allowed minor parties to avoid disclosure requirements if they could make a reasonable showing that they had been harassed or threatened in the past, or if new parties were likely to face such actions in the future. Given that the SWP had shown such evidence to the satisfaction of the district court, the Supreme Court upheld the exemption of the SWP from forced disclosure under the Ohio law. The Court therefore concluded that: The First Amendment prohibits a State from compelling disclosures by a minor party that will subject those persons identified to the reasonable probability of threats, harassment, or reprisals. Such disclosures would infringe the First Amendment rights of the party and its members and supporters. In light of the substantial evidence of past and present hostility from private persons and Government officials against the SWP, Ohio’s campaign disclosure requirements cannot be constitutionally applied to the Ohio SWP. Impact The general use of campaign finance disclosure laws has been solidly upheld since Buckley v. Valeo. However, if compelled disclosure threatens the basic First Amendment rights of minor parties and their supporters, such disclosure cannot be required. This case also illustrates the attempt of the courts to show some understanding of the special circumstances faced by minor parties and political groups that are out of the mainstream.

TASHJIAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF CONNECTICUT, 479 U.S. 208 (1986) Background In another case involving a political party’s right of free association, the Republican Party of Connecticut adopted a rule that allowed registered independent voters to vote in its primaries for federal and statewide offices. However, Connecticut had a statute that required that voters in a party’s

84

The Law and Campaigns and Elections primary be members of that party. The party challenged this law on the grounds that it deprived them of the right to associate with individuals of their own choosing. The district court and the court of appeals affirmed the party’s position, and the state then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Legal Issues This case pitted the right of a political party to associate with nonmembers (by allowing them to participate in its primary) against the state’s asserted interest in regulating elections. Decision The Court’s ruling as described in the syllabus is that: The freedom of association protected by those Amendments includes partisan political organization. [The state law] places limits upon the group of registered voters whom the Party may invite to participate in the “basic function” of selecting the Party’s candidates. The State thus limits the Party’s associational opportunities at the crucial juncture at which the appeal to common principles may be translated into concerted action, and hence to political power in the community. The fact that the State has the power to regulate the time, place, and manner of elections does not justify, without more, the abridgment of fundamental rights, such as the right to vote or, as here, the freedom of political association. The Court ruled that the state’s justifications for its rules, such as that they prevent a “raid” by nonmembers on a party’s nomination process, or that they make the primary election more manageable, are insufficient to override the party’s right to determine how it will associate in furthering its political objectives. The dissent, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, argued that since persons could register with a party up to the day before the primary, the state law did not really impair the ability of the party to reach out to independent voters. Further, Scalia argued that merely voting in a party’s primary is not really a meaningful form of association. Impact A number of reforms (such as open primaries or, in this case, closed primaries) have been instituted in an attempt to redress perceived flaws in the electoral system. However, the freedom of association of political parties must be respected.

85

Campaign and Election Reform SHAW V. RENO, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) Background As a result of the 1990 census, North Carolina became entitled to an additional seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. The state created a reapportionment plan that included one majority-black congressional district. The U.S. Attorney General objected that having only one majority black district was insufficient, so the state revised the plan to create two such districts. The resulting districts seemed bizarrely shaped, snaking across the state. A group of white voters sued, claiming that this constituted impermissible “racial gerrymandering” that ignored all other considerations such as historical boundaries or compactness. The district court rejected the voters’ claim along the lines of Justice Byron White’s opinion in United Jewish Organizations v. Carey (1977), basically saying that no invidious discrimination had been shown and that the voting strength of whites had not been diminished. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Legal Issues The Supreme Court had ruled in a number of cases (including United Jewish Organizations) that some degree of race consciousness was permissible and even necessary to comply with the 1965 Voting Act and to redress historic wrongs against minorities. The question in Shaw was whether there were limits to how far a state could go in redrawing boundaries, and whether race could be not just a consideration in the process but virtually its sole criterion. Decision In a narrow 5-4 decision the majority, in an opinion written by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, said that the claim of the white voters could be heard. They could sue only the state, which had actually drawn the boundaries, not the federal government, which had demanded the extra majority-minority district. The Court did not determine the merits of the appellants’ case, but ordered it returned to the district court. Impact Although the Court did not decide on the merits, O’Connor’s opinion strongly suggested that there were indeed limits to the process of racial gerrymandering. O’Connor pointed out that when the resulting districts are so “extremely irregular” and “bizarre,” presumably race must have been the overwhelming consideration, trumping compactness, contiguity, and historical geography.

86

The Law and Campaigns and Elections The states were in effect put on notice that when the results are so extreme they will be subject to close scrutiny by the courts, and the states will need a “compelling justification” for such plans to be acceptable. Critics expressed concern that with states caught between the Voting Rights Act and the courts’ scrutiny, all progress in improving minority representation might grind to a halt. Further potential trouble for race-conscious districting lies in the composition of the Court as revealed in the various concurring opinions. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have said that under the Fourteenth Amendment race can never be used by the government, even to remedy past discrimination, and Justice William Rehnquist seems unsympathetic to the use of race-based remedies. The four dissenters in Shaw, Justices David Souter, Byron White, Harry Blackmun, and John Paul Stevens basically said that the white voters had no case, while Justices O’Connor and Kennedy joined with Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist in crafting a compromise position that suggested closer scrutiny and possible limits for such plans. Thus a small change in the composition of the Court could lead to a virtual end to race-based redistricting. Meanwhile, several later cases suggested the Court’s continued suspicion of racial gerrymandering. In Johnson v. Grandy (1994), the Court ruled 7-2 that minorities were entitled only to “roughly proportional” representation in districts, not a specially created majority. In Miller v. Johnson (1995) the Court ruled 5-4 (with the same lineup of justices as in Shaw) that a meandering Georgia congressional district was unacceptable because race had been used as the “predominate factor” in drawing its boundaries. In the late 1990s, the Court acquired two relatively liberal justices (Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer) and heard more redistricting cases. The Shaw case came back up from the lower court to which it had been remanded (it was now known as Shaw v. Hunt). The lower court had applied the Supreme Court’s ruling in the original case and concluded that the districts were acceptable because they were “narrowly tailored” to the objectives of the Voting Rights Act. However, the Supreme Court by a 5-4 ruling rejected one of the districts in question as showing the use of predominately racial criteria that were not justifiable by any compelling interest shown by the state. Finally, in Bush v. Vera (1995) the Court struck down three Texas majority-minority districts on similar grounds.

DAY V. HOLAHAN, 34 F. 3D 1356 (8TH CIR. 1994), CERT, DENIED, 513 U.S. 1127 (1995) Background A 1993 Minnesota campaign finance law included a provision intended to help candidates who agreed to spending limits counter excessive expenditures

87

Campaign and Election Reform by opponents who had not agreed to the limits. The law raised the expenditure limits on a candidate by “the sum of independent expenditures made in opposition to a candidate plus independent expenditures made on behalf of the candidate’s major party political opponents . . .” In addition, such a candidate, if eligible for public campaign matching funds, would if otherwise qualified receive further public funding equal to half of the independent expenditures that had been made against the candidate. This law was challenged by a candidate on First Amendment grounds, and the case was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Legal Issues Given the protection the First Amendment affords to political speech, is it permissible for the government to help one candidate because the other has spent too much? The opponents of the law argued that in effect the government was punishing the “excessively spending” committee for exercising speech through campaign expenditures, and that contributions to its candidate would be discouraged because they in effect would also help the opposing candidate. (Buckley v. Valeo [1976] had ruled it unconstitutional to limit expenditures directly.) Decision The Eighth Circuit Court struck down the regulation on First Amendment grounds. The court noted that in the case of someone making independent expenditures on behalf of a candidate, “The knowledge that a candidate who one does not want to be elected will have her spending limits increased and will receive a public subsidy equal to half the amount of the independent expenditure, as a direct result of that independent expenditure, chills the free exercise of that protected speech.” Further, the law is impermissibly “content-based” because it treats speech according to its support or opposition to a candidate. (The court also expressed doubt whether the state’s interest in encouraging candidates to participate in the public funding system was sufficiently compelling to justify the infringement on speech rights, but noted that even before the regulation was enacted nearly 100 percent of candidates were already participating in the system.) Finally, the court also overturned the $100 contribution cap for candidates complying with the public funding system as being so low that it did not allow “meaningful participation in protected political speech and association.” Impact The Supreme Court declined to hear the state’s appeal in this case, which seems to suggest that the high court did not feel there was a compelling case

88

The Law and Campaigns and Elections to be made for the Minnesota system. However, in Vote Choice, Inc. v. Di Stefano (4 F.3d 26 [1st Cir. 1993]) the First Circuit upheld a system in which candidates who accepted spending limits received an increased contribution limit and more public funding. The distinguishing feature of this scheme may be that people who contribute to one candidate are not directly triggering increased funding for his or her opponent. Meanwhile, the Eighth Circuit Court, in Carver v. Nixon, 72 F.3d 633 (8th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 2579 (1996) struck down a Missouri system that set contribution limits that varied from $100 to $300 depending on the office for which the election was being held and the size of the relevant district. Although unlike Day the limits in this case involved direct contributions to candidates rather than to committees, the court concluded that these limits were also too low to allow for effective speech. The Supreme Court, which had upheld a $1,000 cap on contributions in Buckley, has not indicated what the lowest acceptable figure would be. The latest word, in Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (2000) was that the acceptable limits need not be pegged to the dollar amounts in the Federal Election Campaign Act as approved in Buckley.

MCINTYRE V. OHIO ELECTIONS COMMISSION, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) Background The community of Westerville, Ohio, was having an upcoming election in which voters would decide on a referendum imposing a school tax. At a public meeting, Margaret McIntyre distributed leaflets opposing the measure. The leaflets were not signed, and when she distributed them an official of the school district told her that they did not conform to an Ohio election law banning such unsigned leaflets. The school official eventually filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission charging Ms. McIntyre with violating election law. The commission fined her $100. Although Ms. McIntyre died shortly thereafter, her estate filed an appeal based upon the importance of the issue. Her appeal was rejected by the lower court, upheld by the state appeals court, but turned down by the Ohio Supreme Court, which found the restrictions to be “reasonable” and “nondiscriminatory.” The case was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Legal Issues McIntyre’s lawyers argued that she had a First Amendment right to create and distribute such anonymous leaflets. The state of Ohio, while not

89

Campaign and Election Reform generally opposing the distribution of such material, argued that it did have an interest in banning it in connection with elections, as specified in the law in question. By banning anonymous election material, the state could prevent the distribution of scurrilous or defamatory material for which no one could be held accountable. Decision The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, declared that the ban on anonymous election pamphlets violated the First Amendment. Such writing is part of “core political speech” and any restrictions on it must be subject to “exacting scrutiny.” A general desire by the State to prevent fraud or libel cannot allow a blanket ban on all anonymous election material. (In Talley v. California [1960] the Court had already overturned general bans on all anonymous printed material.) Impact The U.S. political tradition of anonymous pamphleteering (as around the time of the Revolution and during the debate over the Constitution) is highly regarded. Today, with easy access to computers, printers, and the Internet, it is even easier for a wide variety of people to communicate anonymously if they wish, and this right has been generally protected. (Note that “pure speech” like this can not be forced to be disclosed, but contributions, even though related to political speech, can. See Buckley v. Valeo [1976]).

SHRINK MISSOURI GOVERNMENT PAC V. MAUPIN, 71 F.3D 1422 (8TH CIR. 1995) CERT DENIED Background An initiative passed by the voters of Missouri included a provision requiring candidates after an election to return either to contributors or to the state nearly all of the unspent money left over from the campaign. This was commonly known as a “spend down” provision because it encouraged candidates to spend as much of their money as possible toward the end of a campaign. Legal Issues Supporters of this initiative argued that it would stop candidates from amassing large “war chests” and carrying them over from one election to the next. This would arguably reduce the advantage that incumbents traditionally have in most elections. Preventing the retention of contributions might

90

The Law and Campaigns and Elections also reduce corruption by making it impossible for contributors to provide a lasting quid pro quo in exchange for favorable action. Opponents challenged the provision in court as impermissibly restricting the right of contributors to contribute to a candidate’s future political speech. The district court ruled that the spend-down provision violated the First Amendment. The case was appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Decision The Eighth Circuit ruling affirmed the appeals court. The spend-down provision impermissibly burdened speech, in effect by requiring that the candidate receiving the contribution speak now rather than at some future time. It thus “limits the quantity of a candidate’s speech in future elections,” and “the state makes no attempt to show how the spend-down provision is narrowly tailored to serve [its] interests.” Impact The Supreme Court declined to review this case. As with Day v. Holahan, the general conclusion may be drawn that most attempts to “micromanage” the behavior of candidates and committees by rewarding some types of contributions and expenditures while punishing others is likely to place an unacceptable burden on First Amendment speech rights.

U.S. TERM LIMITS, INC. V. THORNTON, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) Background Arkansas passed an amendment to its state constitution that prevented any candidate from appearing on the ballot if that candidate had already served three terms in the House of Representatives or two terms in the Senate. A candidate challenged these term limits. Legal Issues The challenge to the term limits is based on the fact that the Constitution, in Article 1, defines the qualifications for candidates to Congress, and that, as the plurality opinion in the Arkansas Supreme Court expressed, states have no authority “to change, add to, or diminish” the age, citizenship, and residency requirements for congressional service enumerated in the Qualifications Clauses, U.S.Const., Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and Art. I, § 3, cl. 3.

91

Campaign and Election Reform The state had argued that it was not changing the qualifications for holding office, only specifying the qualifications for appearing on the ballot, something broadly within the state’s powers. The state also argued that even if it were changing the qualifications, the Tenth Amendment gave the states the right to do so as one of their “reserved powers.” The states appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Arkansas ruling. Decision The Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, noted that Congress itself could not change or add to the qualifications for office given in the Constitution (Powell v. McCormack). Nor did states have the power to alter these qualifications. Since states had never exercised this power, it could not be an existing power at the time the Tenth Amendment was enacted. Further, the fact that the Constitution spelled out the requirements for serving in Congress implied that the framers had intended that the list be exhaustive. Also, allowing states to impose differing qualifications for serving in Congress would be “inconsistent with the Framers’ vision of a uniform National Legislature representing the People of the United States.” Finally, the Court dismissed the idea that the state was not setting qualifications for serving in Congress, but merely for appearing on the ballot. The fact that such a candidate could still appear as a write-in candidate makes only a trivial difference. What matters is that if allowed to stand, the Arkansas law would make “a fundamental change in the constitutional framework” of the United States. Term limits cannot be imposed on congressional elections. Impact The idea of term limits was somewhat popular with reformers in the 1980s, and some states have enacted them at the state level. Their vogue may have passed, and at any rate imposing them at the federal level would now require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

TIMMONS V. TWIN CITIES AREA NEW PARTY, 520 U.S. 351 (1997) Background “Fusion” is the practice of minor parties coendorsing major party candidates such that the candidate would appear on the ballot once for each party. Most

92

The Law and Campaigns and Elections states prohibit this practice. A candidate, Representative Andy Dawkins, was running unopposed as a Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) candidate in the Minnesota primary election. The New Party also nominated Dawkins, and neither he nor the DFL objected to the coendorsement. However, Dawkins had already filed as a candidate for the DFL, and because Minnesota bans fusion tickets, it did not accept his petition to be listed on the ballot also as a candidate for the New Party. A Minnesota chapter of the New Party challenged this antifusion law, and a lower appeals court agreed that it was unconstitutional because it unduly “[kept] the New Party from developing consensual political alliances and thus broadening the base of public participation in and support for its activities.” The district court found in favor of the antifusion rule, but the circuit court of appeals declared it to be unconstitutional. The state appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Legal Issues The general conflict is between a party’s right of free association and the state’s interest in an orderly election process that does not confuse voters. The New Party argued that its First Amendment right of free association was impaired if it could not engage in coendorsement, or “fusion,” with other parties. Decision In Timmons, the majority opinion, by Justice William Rehnquist, began noting that while fusion candidacies were common in the 19th century, this was because each party typically printed its own ballot, and voters voted the “party line” by choosing to drop a particular party’s ballot into the box. There were often many smaller parties that wanted to support the same candidate, and they could do so by including the candidate on their ballot. However, the institution of the “Australian,” or secret, ballot meant that a single ballot was now provided by the state, with candidates and their parties grouped under each office. Fusion became less necessary and today is commonly found only in New York. The discussion then moved to the protection of the right of association. The Court had shown considerable regard for the rights of association for political parties in cases such as Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut (1986), where it ruled that the state could not stop a party from allowing independent voters to vote in its primary. However, this and other cases had dealt with “core” First Amendment activity. Here the Court found that fusion did not reach within this core, because without it, parties could still endorse or support whatever candidates they wished—it merely keeps a candidate from appearing more than once on the ballot.

93

Campaign and Election Reform Therefore, although there might be some good arguments for permitting fusion, “the Constitution does not require States to permit fusion any more than it requires them to move to proportional representation elections or public financing of campaigns.” Impact The Supreme Court has left the question of listing candidates under more than one party as a “political question” that can be decided either way by the various states. The Court’s action suggests that it does not see a need or constitutional justification to radically change the rules governing how elections or ballots work.

ARKANSAS EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION COMMISSION V. FORBES, 523 U.S. 666 (1998) Background Arkansas Educational Television Commission (AETC), a state-owned public broadcasting service, sponsored a debate between candidates for the Third Congressional District. They decided to limit participation in the debates to major party candidates or other candidates “who had strong popular support.” Ralph Forbes, an independent candidate who had qualified to appear on the ballot, was not invited. Forbes challenged his exclusion on First Amendment grounds. Although the district court dismissed his suit for failure to state a cause of action, the court of appeals overruled the lower court and ordered it to try the case. At trial, AETC staff members testified that Forbes had been excluded because he lacked a campaign organization, had little evidence of voter support, and was not regarded as a serious candidate by the media. The district court entered a judgment in favor of AETC, but again, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals court reversed and found for Forbes. AETC then appealed, and the case was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. Legal Issues AETC was a publicly owned television outlet. The question was whether its status meant that it had to include all ballot-qualified candidates in debates in order to avoid violating the First Amendment. First Amendment jurisprudence had concluded that in a “public forum” such as a city park, if some speakers were allowed to use the forum, other speakers could not be excluded on the basis of the content of their speech. That is, speech could be regulated as to “time, place, and manner” but the regulation must be “viewpoint neu-

94

The Law and Campaigns and Elections tral.” Forbes argued that AETC should similarly be treated as a public forum. AETC disagreed, saying that it was, like other media, entitled to use its judgment to decide what candidates or viewpoints should be presented. Decision The Court’s opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, began by determining whether the AETC candidate debate constituted a public forum. It noted that: Having first arisen in the context of streets and parks, the [public forum] doctrine should not be extended in a mechanical way to the different context of television broadcasting. Broad rights of access for outside speakers would be antithetical, as a general rule, to the editorial discretion that broadcasters must exercise to fulfill their journalistic purpose and statutory obligations. The Court acknowledged that: candidate debates are of exceptional significance in the electoral process. Deliberation on candidates’ positions and qualifications is integral to our system of government, and electoral speech may have its most profound and widespread impact when it is disseminated through televised debates. Thus, the special characteristics of candidate debates support the conclusion that the AETC debate was a forum of some type. The Court concluded that the debate was not a “traditional public forum”— a place such as a park that had long been used as a place of public meetings and discussion. It was not a “designated public forum” where the government opens a venue for general discussion to a particular class of speakers. Rather, the debate was an event to which the station was inviting speakers who met certain qualifications. It was a “nonpublic forum.” AETC was free to exercise its journalistic judgment about who to include in that forum. The record showed that AETC did not discriminate against Forbes because of his views, but because they had concluded that he was not a viable candidate. The Court further noted that if all public broadcasters were open to claims of viewpoint discrimination, they would not be able to function, and courts would be endlessly involved with suits by people who felt they were unfairly excluded. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, saying that he did not agree that all candidates had to be invited to the debate, but that AETC had been arbitrary and had not applied coherent standards to its decision to exclude Forbes, who had shown evidence of popular support in other races.

95

Campaign and Election Reform Impact Third party candidates, including most recently Ralph Nader, have fought to be included in the presidential debates, which are often sponsored by or held at public institutions. With the exception of Ross Perot in 1992, such candidates have been excluded, usually for failure to meet various criteria such as standing in the polls. The AETC decision suggests that such candidates will not be able to get help from courts other than perhaps the “court” of public opinion.

BUSH V. GORE, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) Background In the closest presidential election race in U.S. history Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore became locked in a battle whose outcome would turn on the capturing of Florida’s 25 electoral votes, which as with most states are awarded on a winner-take-all basis. By the morning after Election Day, the race was too close to call, and after the original ballot counting was complete, Bush was leading by only 1,784 votes statewide out of about 6,000,000 cast. A number of complaints were soon raised by the Democratic Party about the voting procedures used at the polls. For example, it charged that the socalled butterfly ballot used in West Palm Beach County confused many voters by having candidates listed on alternate sides of the sheet with arrows pointing to a row of dots down the middle. Indeed, it is likely that several thousand voters who had intended to vote for Gore had mistakenly voted for Patrick Buchanan, at the opposite end of the political spectrum. Additionally, the punched-card voting systems used in many counties often resulted in partially punched “chads” leading to “undervotes” (votes not counted by the machines) and other problems. Gore protested the election results in four heavily Democratic counties (Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia)—the first three had used the punched-card systems, and the fourth, using an optical system, had also reported counting problems. Manual recounts began in all but Miami-Dade. Bush sued in federal court, arguing that the use of differing standards during recounts in various counties would violate the voters’ First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection) rights. Meanwhile, county officials and party operatives argued over what standards to use in the ongoing recounts. Florida secretary of state Katherine Harris announced that she would not (and could not) extend the statutory deadline of November 14 at 5 P.M. for the final certification of each county’s vote for president.

96

The Law and Campaigns and Elections Gore then went to state court, asking for an extension of the certification period, and the federal district court turned down Bush’s request to stop the recounts. On November 14, a Florida state judge turned down Gore’s request for an extension of the recount, but said that Harris needed to exercise her discretion about whether to accept late returns from the recount. The next day, after rejecting advice from the counties, Harris decided to not to accept further recounts. On November 16, the Florida Supreme Court issued a unanimous order allowing the recounts to go forward in Palm Beach and Broward Counties. The next day, the Florida Supreme Court enjoined the state from certifying the election results until it ruled on Gore’s lawsuit. Battles continued on many fronts (including the status of overseas ballots that had not been postmarked upon mailing), and a state court judge ruled that the butterfly ballots could not be revoted (rather than just recounted) because Congress had set a uniform day for the presidential election. On November 21, the Florida Supreme Court issued its decision on Gore’s suit. Emphasizing the importance of the right to vote (and the implication that one has a right to have one’s vote properly counted) the court allowed the recount to go ahead, with a final deadline of November 26. Bush then filed an emergency petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to overturn the Florida ruling. When the recount ground to a halt for various reasons, Gore sued Harris, and the Florida Supreme Court ruled that 9,000 Miami-Dade ballots that the machines had registered as “nonvotes” be immediately recounted by hand. The votes were to be counted if, following the Election Code, there was “clear indication of the intent of the voter” but giving no more specific standards. Bush filed an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay of the recount, and the stay was granted by a 5-4 vote. Legal Issues The primary issue was whether the use of recounts in different counties under varying standards violated the voters’ right to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. Besides the standards problem, if there were recounts only in certain counties and not others, it was argued that some voters were more likely to be properly counted than others. Decision Five justices signed an opinion saying that the failure of the Florida Supreme Court to establish a uniform standard did violate the equal protection clause

97

Campaign and Election Reform of the Fourteenth Amendment: “Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, Florida may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another.” The Court pointed out that because of the way in which overvotes or undervotes are tabulated (or not tabulated) by the machines, voters who are in a county that has a manual recount may have their vote counted even though the machine had not registered it, and vice versa. The Court also said that the Florida Supreme Court, by allowing partial recounts received before the deadline, would also be treating voters differently depending on whether their recount had been completed in time. The case was not remanded to the Florida Supreme Court for creation of such a standard because the time for a “safe harbor” (not challengeable by Congress) certification of Florida’s electors had almost run out. Three of the justices in the majority wrote a concurring opinion that said that the Florida Supreme Court had also violated Article II of the U.S. Constitution (which specifies the procedure for presidential electors) by impermissibly “making new law” affecting that process. The four dissenting justices (Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, David Souter, and John Paul Stevens) issued separate opinions. Two of them agreed that there were some equal-protection problems, but that the case should have been remanded to the Florida Supreme Court. All of the dissenting justices rejected the conclusion that Article II of the Constitution had been violated. Impact Bush v. Gore touched off a political firestorm. In his dissent, Justice Stevens concluded by saying that “Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.” Many Gore supporters complained that the Supreme Court had essentially arbitrarily given the election to Bush, either because the majority of the Court were Republicans or perhaps because some of the older judges were waiting for there to be a Republican president before retiring, thus ensuring a conservative successor. Legal scholars also had many concerns about the decision. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court had taken the Florida Supreme Court to task for failing to come up with a specific and uniform standard for counting votes, but if the Florida court had done so, the U.S. Supreme Court then could have accused them of “making new law” in violation of Section II of the Constitution.

98

The Law and Campaigns and Elections The equal-protection situation is even more problematic. Although the Court majority insisted that Bush v. Gore was a special situation and that its ruling should not be taken as a precedent, the application of equal protection requirements to the mechanics of counting (or recounting) votes might open many close elections to challenge. It should be noted that many states (and Congress) have appropriated funds for modernizing election systems, such as by replacing punched-card systems with presumably more reliable electronic ones.

CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. JONES, 530 U.S. 567 (2000) Background In 1996, California voters approved an initiative measure that created a “blanket primary.” In this form of primary election, voters can vote for candidates of any party for any office. (In the usual “open primary,” voters can choose any party, but then receive a ballot only for that party.) The Democratic Party, Republican Party, and two minor parties filed a suit to overturn the blanket primary system. Legal Issues The parties argued that the state could not force them to nominate their candidates through the blanket primary system. In Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut, the Supreme Court had ruled that the state could not prevent the parties from allowing independent voters to vote in their primaries. The parties argued that their First Amendment right of association included the right to determine how they would select the candidates to represent the party in the general election. The state argued that a primary election was not a private function carried out by the political parties, but a public exercise vital to the selection of public officials. The state should have the right to determine how the election would be conducted. Decision The Court’s opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, began by agreeing that the states “have a major role to play in structuring and monitoring the election process, including primaries.” However, the primaries are not solely public affairs; they are also the internal process by which parties select their nominees, and the parties have First Amendment rights that must be respected.

99

Campaign and Election Reform The Court went on to describe how parties formed early in the history of the American republic and that the nomination process is integral to parties associating (banding together) and developing their political beliefs. In Tashjian and Democratic Party of United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette the Court had ruled in a way that protected parties’ right to association in the formation of their political expression. Now the Court found that California’s blanket primary violates the principles set forth in these cases. Proposition 198 [the blanket primary initiative] forces political parties to associate with—to have their nominees, and hence their positions, determined by—those who, at best, have refused to affiliate with the party, and, at worst, affiliated with a rival. (The Court noted that this is different from a closed primary, where a voter can “jump” to another party, but once there, must stick to voting for that party’s nominees.) Further, the Court noted that the impact of the blanket primary is even greater on small parties such as the Libertarian Party and the Peace and Freedom Party, where the total votes cast in the party primaries by nonmembers was often more than double the number of party members. Small parties could thus be easily overwhelmed by outsiders. Any justification presented by the state for this process (such as producing more moderate candidates who are representative of the populace) cannot be substituted for the party’s right to determine who will represent it. The blanket primary was thus ruled to be unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Impact The Supreme Court continues to have a high regard for the associational rights of parties, and will interfere with the party machinery only in exceptional cases (such as, in the past, exclusion of nonwhites from membership).

LANDELL V. SORRELL (2ND CIR.: 2002) Note: this case is still in progress and may be appealed. Citation is not yet available. Background Vermont had passed a sweeping campaign finance reform law that included various mandatory limits on candidate expenditures. It was challenged in the lower court, which declared that the mandatory expenditure limit was unconstitutional. (In Buckley v. Valeo [1976] the U.S. Supreme Court had de-

100

The Law and Campaigns and Elections clared contribution limits, but not expenditure limits, to be constitutional under the First Amendment.) Legal Issues Given the Supreme Court’s decision in Buckley, is there still a way to justify the imposition of expenditure limits by the state? Decision The Second Circuit decided that the Supreme Court had not made an absolute prohibition of spending limits; rather, it had decided that Congress had not provided a sufficiently compelling state interest, narrowly tailored to meet the objective of reducing political corruption. The circuit court decided that Vermont had shown that spending limits would insulate the political process “from the corrupting influence of excessive and unbridled fundraising” while employing only contribution limits would “continue to impair the accessibility [that] is essential to any democratic political system.” The court therefore found the spending limits to be constitutional. Impact This decision has been withdrawn (as of October 3, 2002) pending further review by the court. If it is appealed to the Supreme Court, it may represent the first direct challenge to the fundamental parameters defined by Buckley v. Valeo.

MCCONNELL V. FEC (U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR D.C., CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-582; 2003) Background When the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) was passed by Congress and with the ink scarcely dry on the president’s signature, individuals and groups ranging from the National Voting Rights Institute to the Cato Institute and the National Rifle Association filed suit to block this sweeping new campaign finance reform legislation. Legal Issues The case of McConnell v. FEC is actually the consolidation of 10 separate suits raising a variety of issues of interest to the various advocacy groups involved. Senator Mitch McConnell (Rep.-Kentucky) spearheaded the legal attack by raising the broadest issues.

101

Campaign and Election Reform McConnell’s first argument is that prohibiting “issue ads” by interest groups targeting candidates within 60 days of a general election (or 30 days of a primary) violates the First Amendment, which after all is supposed to especially protect “core political speech” and which states “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” He also argues that banning broadcast media (but not print advertising) is treating different forms of speech arbitrarily and that because the definitions of what kinds of speech are prohibited are vague, the law also violates the guarantee of due process and equal protection of the laws under the Fifth Amendment. Additional arguments include the assertion that forcing disclosure of spending on electioneering communications violates the First Amendment by placing an undue burden on free speech and that treating corporations and other organizations differently from individuals also violates the equal protection clause. Many of the other groups filing suits against the BCRA made similar arguments based on free speech or the right to equal treatment, but two approaches were unusual. The National Voting Rights Institute, which supports campaign finance reform, objected that the BCRA’s higher limits for individual contributions gave the wealthy an unfair advantage over candidates who had to rely upon many smaller contributions. Two AfricanAmerican congressmen, Bennie Thompson (Dem.-Miss.) and Earl Hilliard (Dem.-Ala.), argued that the BCRA restrictions were unfair to minority candidates in poor districts who needed to raise money from outside their district. Decision By a vote of 2-1, the district court voted to uphold the disclosure provisions of the BCRA, chiding the plaintiffs for arguing in favor of “robust speech” protected by the First Amendment, but ignoring the First Amendment interest that citizens have in knowing who is behind the political speech. The court overturned the prohibition on the national parties raising soft money. However, they not only upheld the BCRA’s prohibition of issue ads but significantly broadened it to prohibit such ads at any time, not just near an election. Further, the court said that ads that mentioned a candidate or officeholder and that appeared to advocate for or against that candidate could be banned even if they did not contain specific language such as “vote for” or “oppose.” A number of other issues, including whether higher individual contribution limits unfairly disadvantaged poorer people or candidates, were not addressed.

102

The Law and Campaigns and Elections Impact This divided and complex opinion was immediately appealed to the Supreme Court, but as of early May 2003 the decision has been stayed (suspended) from taking effect. The Supreme Court will probably not hear arguments in the case until fall 2003, and it may not issue a decision until the eve of the 2004 primary election season. Meanwhile, the parties must decide whether to resume raising soft money. Many party strategists believe that besides the permitted party-building and get-out-the-vote activities, the money could also be used for ads that could effectively promote or oppose issues without mentioning candidates.

103

CHAPTER 3

CHRONOLOGY Following are some significant events in the history of campaign and election reform, including events relating to the expansion of the franchise and voting rights.

1787 ■

The new Constitution of the United States is adopted in Philadelphia. Unlike the Congress under the old Articles of Confederation, the new national legislature will consist of a Senate representing the states and a House of Representatives elected directly by the people on a district basis. The determination of who will be eligible to vote for Congress is left to the states; there will be no national standard. The election of the president will be done indirectly, through the Electoral College, in which each state has a number of electors equal to that state’s total number of representatives and senators. The electors will presumably be chosen by the state legislatures, not directly by the people.

1790s ■

At first most states give the vote only to white males who own a substantial amount of property. As states such as New Hampshire, Kentucky, and Vermont enter the union, however, they bring more liberal voting eligibility, eliminating taxpaying and property-owning requirements and generally extending suffrage to all white males.

1796 ■

George Washington declines to serve a third term, establishing a precedent. Meanwhile, John Adams receives more electoral votes than his rival Thomas Jefferson. Under the rules of the time, Adams therefore becomes president and Jefferson vice president. Since Jefferson and Adams belong

104

Chronology to different parties (called “factions” at the time), this prompts a call for reform of the Electoral College system to allow for party slates.

1798 ■

The Alien and Sedition Laws are passed by Congress, which is under the control of Adams’ Federalist Party. Contrary to the First Amendment to the Constitution, a provision of the new law makes it a crime to speak or write anything that defames the president or Congress. Jefferson and his faction oppose the law.

1800 ■

The Electoral College system is again challenged when Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr receive the same number of electoral votes. The Democratic-Republican Party had designated Jefferson as its presidential candidate and Burr as vice president, but the electoral system did not provide for a separate vote for vice president.

1801 ■

To resolve the tie in the Electoral College, the House of Representatives elects Thomas Jefferson as president after an excruciating 35 ballots.

1804 ■

The Twelfth Amendment to the constitution is ratified. It provides that electors will cast separate ballots for president and vice president. In effect, this acknowledges the reality of political parties that nominate specific candidates for each office.

1812 ■

The Massachusetts legislature creates an oddly shaped congressional district in order to maximize the vote for the dominant party. A newspaper cartoon by Elkanah Tinsdale shows the district drawn in the shape of a salamander. Because the arrangement had been approved by Governor Elbridge Gerry, Tinsdale calls the district a “gerrymander” and the term catches on.

1824 ■

The presidential election results in the electoral vote are split among four candidates: Andrew Jackson (99), John Quincy Adams (84), Henry Clay (37) and William H. Crawford (41). Since no one has a majority, the

105

Campaign and Election Reform House of Representatives must decide, with each state’s representatives having one vote. Adams wins with the vote of 13 of the 24 states. Because Jackson had won both the electoral and popular vote, many of his supporters cry foul, and the Electoral College system is criticized.

1831 ■

The Anti-Masonic Party introduces the use of a convention for nominating presidential candidates. The convention is soon adopted by major parties in place of the earlier procedure using a caucus of that party’s congressional representatives.

1832 ■

Andrew Jackson wins the presidency, having introduced a populist tone that appealed to many of the voters who had been enfranchised through the elimination in many states of property, tax, and other requirements for voting. In areas such as New York City, electoral corruption had also been growing, with votes often being bought outright.

1839 ■

The first federal campaign finance reform bill is introduced by Whigs in the Senate. The measure would have prohibited campaign contributions by federal employees to federal or state officials, but it fails.

1845 ■

Congress specifies that all states will choose their presidential electors on “the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, every fourth year.” This in effect sets a uniform day for federal elections.

1848 ■

A number of prominent women abolitionists extend their activism into a new realm when they meet in Seneca Falls, New York. In addition to demanding the right to vote for women, they also call for equal access to education, business, the professions, and the courts.

1856 ■

The issue of whether noncitizens should be able to vote in state elections (such as in Wisconsin) becomes more prominent when it is raised by the nativist American (or “Know-Nothing”) Party, which opposes alien suffrage and demands stricter controls on immigration and naturalization.

106

Chronology 1867 ■

■

Congressional reconstruction legislation following the Civil War requires that before a former Confederate state can reenter the Union it must give blacks the right to vote and must also ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits states from abridging “the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” The first piece of federal legislation related to campaign contributions is the Naval Appropriations Bill of 1867, which includes a provision prohibiting naval officers and government officials from soliciting money from works in navy yards.

1869 ■

The National Woman Suffrage Association is established. Elizabeth Cady Stanton becomes the organization’s first president, and Susan B. Anthony becomes vice president. That same year another group, the American Woman Suffrage Association, is founded by Lucy Stone. This group focuses on winning voting rights state by state rather than at the federal level as with the national group.

1870 ■

The Fifteenth Amendment is ratified. It specifies that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

1872 ■

■

In an act of civil disobedience, Susan B. Anthony casts a vote in the presidential election. She is arrested two weeks later and is convicted of illegal voting. Anthony refuses to pay the fine, hoping that the judge will imprison her, allowing for an appeal to higher courts. However the judge refuses and the case is dead. Congress enacts a requirement that a secret (or “Australian”) ballot be used in all elections for the House of Representatives.

1874 ■

Congress specifies a uniform day for electing members of the House of Representatives: “the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every even numbered year.” This means that in presidential election years the election of representatives and of presidential electors will coincide.

107

Campaign and Election Reform 1876 ■

■

In the presidential election, Democratic candidate Samuel Tilden is the apparent popular and electoral vote winner, but Republicans challenge the results on the basis of conflicting returns in three southern states. The following January, an electoral commission established by Congress votes along party lines (8-7) to give the presidency to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes. The underlying political compromise results in federal troops being withdrawn from the southern states, the effective end of Reconstruction, and the resurgence of white domination. In United States v. Reese and United States v. Cruikshank, the Supreme Court throws out indictments under federal laws, enforcing the Fifteenth Amendment guarantee of the vote for blacks in the South. This result encourages the growing efforts of many southern whites to disenfranchise blacks.

1877 ■

In the Compromise of 1877 southern Democrats agree to accept the electoral commission’s award of the presidency to Republican Samuel Hayes in exchange for the withdrawal of the federal troops that had been enforcing the rights of blacks in the South, including the right to vote.

1883 ■

Congress passes the Pendleton, or Civil Service Reform, Act. Its key campaign reform provision prohibits forcing public employees to contribute to political campaigns on pain of losing their jobs (a common practice of the time).

1887 ■

In a delayed reaction to the disputed election of 1876, Congress passes the Electoral Count Act, which specifies that if there are conflicting slates of state electors, the two houses of Congress will vote separately to decide which electors to accept. (The law also provides that Congress cannot intervene if the state legislature had already decided which slate to accept. Speculation about the applicability of this law will surface following the disputed 2000 election.)

1888 ■

Benjamin Harrison defeats incumbent President Grover Cleveland. Reports of vote-selling at the polls encourage the adopting of the secret ballot.

1889 ■

The Australian, or secret, ballot is gaining growing acceptance, with the majority of states adopting it in the next few years. Meanwhile, a number

108

Chronology of new states entering the Union, such as Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Washington, enact constitutions that allow women to vote in some local elections (such as for school boards).

1890 ■

■

Mississippi enacts what will become a typical southern strategy to disenfranchise blacks: It requires payment of a two-dollar poll tax and, starting in 1892, requires that voters be able to read or understand the state constitution. Wyoming becomes the first state to permanently enact full voting rights for women in all elections. (Colorado will follow in 1893.)

1892 ■

In Sproule v. Fredericks, the Supreme Court upholds provisions of the Mississippi constitution designed to disenfranchise blacks. The Court holds that post–Civil War federal provisions for black suffrage are no longer in effect, and says that in any case there had been no showing that the Mississippi provisions actually discriminated on the basis of race.

1894 ■

The National Municipal Reform League is created to reform city government and to reduce the influence of urban political machines.

1895 ■

South Carolina introduces a literacy test with a “grandfather clause” that exempts persons who could vote in 1867, as well as their descendants. This has the effect of allowing illiterate whites to vote while disenfranchising most blacks. Similar laws are soon enacted throughout the South.

1903 ■

In Giles v. Harris, the Supreme Court upholds provisions of the Alabama constitution against claims that they discriminated against blacks.

1904 ■

■

The Supreme Court’s acceptance of provisions designed to disenfranchise blacks continues in its decision in Giles v. Teasley. President Theodore Roosevelt is accused of having received large corporate contributions in exchange for favors.

109

Campaign and Election Reform 1905 ■

The National Publicity Law Association (NPLA) is founded. Including such prominent leaders as William Jennings Bryan, Charles Evans Hughes, and Samuel Gompers, its objective was to enact a federal law requiring disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures.

1907 ■

Although he had himself benefited considerably from corporate largesse, President Theodore Roosevelt advocates for campaign finance reform, including a prohibition against corporate contributions to candidates for federal office, a disclosure requirement, and even a proposal for public funding of federal elections. In response, Congress passes the Tillman Act, which prohibits candidates for federal office from receiving contributions from corporations.

1910 ■

■

Congress passes another part of Roosevelt’s agenda, the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, which for the first time requires candidates to reveal their sources of funding. Blatant electoral corruption is revealed in Adams County, Ohio, when 1,679 voters are convicted of having sold their votes.

1911 ■

The House of Representatives fixes its size at 435 members and provides that congressional districts will be reapportioned every 10 years using the decennial census data.

1913 ■

The Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is ratified. It requires that U.S. senators be elected directly by popular vote rather than by state legislatures.

1914 ■

Congress aligns the time for election of U.S. senators with that of election of members of the House of Representatives (and, every four years, with presidential electors).

1915 ■

In Guinn v. United States the U.S. Supreme Court declares that Oklahoma’s “grandfather clause,” which had exempted many whites from vot-

110

Chronology ing requirements, was unconstitutional. However, many other effective bars to black suffrage remain in effect.

1920 ■

The long battle for women’s suffrage culminates with the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees women the right to vote in both federal and state elections. A new organization, the League of Women Voters, takes on the task of encouraging women to vote and informing them about candidates and political issues.

1921 ■

The Supreme Court in Newberry v. United States rules that federal regulations for disclosure of (and limits on) contributions did not extend to primary elections where the parties’ nominees were chosen. The Court holds that such laws interfere with a party’s right to control its nomination process.

1925 ■

In response to revelations of corruption (such as the Teapot Dome scandal and practices of the 1920 Warren G. Harding campaign) Congress passes amendments to the Federal Corrupt Practices Act. They require congressional candidates to disclose contributions and expenditures. However, the law has two major loopholes: It excludes primary elections and it allows for contributions being made on behalf of a candidate as long as the candidate does not have explicit “knowledge and consent.” Since Congress itself, not an independent agency, is in charge of enforcement, there is little motivation to enforce the law.

1935 ■

In Grovey v. Townsend, the U.S. Supreme Court declares whites-only primary elections to be unconstitutional.

1937 ■

In Breedlove v. Suttles, the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of poll taxes, a provision often used to exclude blacks from voting.

1939 ■

Congress passes the Hatch (Political Activities) Act. Reinforcing existing civil service provisions, the Hatch Act prohibits solicitation of campaign contributions from federal employees and prohibits federal employees from participating in campaigns (such as by fund-raising or circulating

111

Campaign and Election Reform petitions) or running for office themselves. Federal contractors are also barred from making campaign contributions. A $5,000 limit is placed on individual contributions to a federal candidate or political committee. However, contributors can give $5,000 each to multiple committees, often working for the same candidate.

1941 ■

In United States v. Classic, the U.S. Supreme Court reverses its earlier decision in Newberry v. United States and says that Congress does have the authority to regulate campaign finances in party primaries. Congress will not actually pass such regulations until 1971.

1943 ■

Congress passes the Smith-Connally Act. This wartime industrial regulation prohibits federal candidates from receiving direct contributions from labor unions. (Corporations were already banned from making such contributions, and union political fund-raising had been on the increase since the mid-1930s.)

1944 ■

■

As a way of getting around the Smith-Connally restrictions, a new mechanism for funneling campaign contributions, the political action committee (PAC), is pioneered by the Congress of Industrial Organizations. The Supreme Court in Smith v. Allwright again declares the “white primary” to be unconstitutional. Since the Democrats had virtually total dominance in the South, the exclusion of blacks from the Democratic primary had effectively denied them any say in who would be elected to federal, state, or local office.

1946 ■

In Colegrove v. Green, the Supreme Court declines to involve itself in charges of unfair malapportionment (gerrymandering) of legislative districts. The Court declares that apportionment is a political question and beyond the purview of the judiciary.

1947 ■

■

Congress passes the Taft-Hartley Act. It makes permanent the wartime prohibition on federal candidates receiving contributions from labor unions. A term limitation for members of Congress proposed by Senator W. Lee O’Daniel of Texas is overwhelmingly defeated.

112

Chronology 1951 ■

The Twenty-second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution legally enacts the custom (violated only by Franklin Roosevelt in 1940) of limiting persons to two terms as president. Persons are now limited to being elected to two full terms (and no more than half a term through succession), for a total of 10 years.

1955 ■

Congress passes the Federal Voting Assistance Act, creating the Federal Voting Assistance Program to help members of the U.S. armed forces to register and vote.

1957 ■

As agitation for civil rights grows in the South, Congress passes the first civil rights bill since the 1870s. The law provides only for litigation, not federal enforcement action, to secure voting and other rights.

1959 ■

The Supreme Court rejects a challenge to a literacy test in Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Election, finding that no actual discrimination had been proven.

1960 ■

■

■

Congress passes regulations requiring election officials to keep registration and voting records for 22 months following an election to facilitate possible challenges. Federal judges are empowered to step in and appoint new registrars if a pattern of discrimination is found. In Gomillion v. Lightfoot, the Supreme Court rules that gerrymandering a district to minimize black representation violates the voting rights guaranteed by the Fifteenth Amendment. The first televised presidential debate, between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, highlights the growing importance of television for political communication. Spending on broadcast media will increase greatly in the coming decades.

1961 ■

The Twenty-third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is ratified. It provides that the District of Columbia will have electoral votes equal to what it would have were it a state, but no more than the least populous state.

113

Campaign and Election Reform

■

President John F. Kennedy appoints a bipartisan commission to study campaign financing.

1962 ■

In Baker v. Carr, the U.S. Supreme Court, reversing its earlier decision in Colegrove v. Green, rules that federal courts can step in when malapportionment of a legislative district is severe enough to deprive persons (such as minorities) of the equal protection of the law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

1964 ■

■

■

■

The Twenty-fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is ratified. It prohibits requiring the payment of poll taxes as a condition for voting in any federal election. Thus the legal barriers erected to keep minorities from voting in the South continue to be dismantled. Congress passes the landmark Civil Rights Act, which includes limitations on the use of literacy tests for voter registration. In Reynolds v. Sims, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that state legislative districts must be periodically reapportioned so as to be as nearly equal as possible in population in order to uphold the principle of “one person, one vote.” In Wesbury v. Sanders, the U.S. Supreme Court further applies “one person, one vote” to the drawing-up or reapportionment of congressional districts.

1965 ■

Congress passes the Voting Rights Act, which seeks to enforce the guarantee of voting rights to blacks and other minorities in the Fifteenth Amendment and the guarantee of equal protection of the law in the Fourteenth Amendment. Any practice that serves to discriminate against African Americans and prevents them from registering or voting is prohibited. The use of literacy tests (which had been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court in Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections) is suspended. Various states and jurisdictions in the South that had shown patterns of discrimination will be required to submit their redistricting plans for review by the U.S. Department of Justice, which is given broad authority to intervene to stop discrimination.

1966 ■

In Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, the U.S. Supreme Court declares the use of a poll tax as a condition for voting in state elections to be

114

Chronology

■

unconstitutional. (The Twenty-fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution had already banned requiring payment of poll taxes for voting in federal elections.) Congress passes the Long Act, which provides for public financing of campaigns through payments to qualifying political parties. The law is never implemented and is shelved by Congress the following year.

1967 ■

■

■

■

The Twenty-fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is ratified. It provides for the assumption of presidential power by the vice president when the president is incapacitated and unable to perform the duties of the office. The amendment also provides for succession by the vice president if the president dies or resigns, and for the appointment of a new vice president, to be approved by a majority vote in both houses of Congress. For the first time the Clerk of the House of Representatives, W. Pat Jennings, fulfills the requirements of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act that a report on campaign finances be issued, including a list of violators. However, the latter is ignored by the Justice Department and no enforcement action is taken. Congress passes legislation requiring that all congressional districts have a single member, with the number of districts thus equal to the number of members to which a state is entitled. While essentially ratifying existing practice, this stymies efforts toward proportional representation, a reform offered as an alternative to “winner-take-all” elections. The impact of the Voting Rights Act is felt in the South, where more than 50 percent of eligible African Americans are now registered to vote in those areas covered by its special provisions.

1968 ■

Congress passes the Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act, which expands the Federal Voting Assistance Program.

1969 ■

■

The House of Representatives passes a proposed constitutional amendment that would replace the Electoral College system with direct popular election of the president and vice president. The amendment dies in the Senate. In Allen v. State Board of Elections, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that gerrymandering to reduce the proportion of minority voters (vote dilution) can violate the rights of minority voters.

115

Campaign and Election Reform

■

Maine adopts a hybrid system in which two of its presidential electors are to be chosen by statewide vote but the remainder are to selected by a vote in each congressional district. Only a few states eventually adopt this alternative to the “winner-take-all” system.

1970 ■

Congress amends the Voting Rights Act to extend the vote to persons at least 18 years of age (the minimum age in most states had been 21). Residency requirements for voting are also limited to 30 days. In Oregon v. Mitchell, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that Congress lacks the authority to set the voting age for state elections.

1971 ■

■

The voting age question is settled by the ratification of the Twenty-sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which gives the vote in both federal and state elections to persons 18 years of age or older. Congress passes the first significant campaign reform legislation in more than a generation. The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) supercedes the Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925. The new law sets limits on contributions to federal candidates, requires disclosure of contributions and limits spending on press and media advertising. Congress also passes the Revenue Act, providing for public funding of presidential campaigns.

1972 ■

■

The Watergate break-in and subsequent cover-up, with the revelation of secret campaign “slush funds,” spurs Congress to tighten the provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act. Seattle becomes the first major city to enact comprehensive campaign reform, including contribution limits, disclosure rules (expanding on state rules), and public financing of campaigns.

1973 ■

In U.S. Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers, the Supreme Court upholds Hatch Act provisions that prohibit federal employees from engaging in political activity.

1974 ■

Corrupt practices in the 1972 presidential campaign of Richard Nixon (discovered in the wake of the investigation of the Watergate break-in) spur

116

Chronology

■

Congress to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act. General spending limits are imposed on presidential and congressional campaigns as well as on party primary campaigns. Contributions by individuals, political action committees, and party organizations are also limited. Public campaign financing is implemented through voluntary check-offs on tax returns. The Federal Election Commission is established to enforce the provisions. In Richardson v. Ramirez, the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the right of states to deny the vote to convicted felons.

1975 ■

Congress amends the Voting Rights Act to add language groups (such as Hispanics) to racial and ethnic minorities as groups whose voting rights are to be especially protected. The ban on the use of literacy tests is made permanent.

1976 ■

■

■

In Buckley v. Valeo, the U.S. Supreme Court deals a partial blow to the Federal Election Campaign Act. Limits on contributions are upheld, but limits on spending are overturned as being a violation of free expression guaranteed by the First Amendment, the Court noting that there is a close connection between the ability to spend money on media and the effectiveness of political expression. Congress responds to Buckley by modifying contribution limits and providing for spending on behalf of candidates by political action committees, which is unlimited but must be properly accounted for and disclosed. The method of choosing members of the Federal Election Commission is also modified to satisfy the Court’s objections. In the 1976 presidential campaign, the Democratic Party changes its candidate selection process by providing for state delegations being selected proportionally rather than by a “winner-take-all” system.

1979 ■

Congress amends the Federal Election Campaign Act to ease restrictions. The allowable value of “in kind” contributions such as use of a home or vehicle is raised from $500 to $1,000. The threshold for reportable contributions is raised from $100 to $200. State and local party organizations are allowed to spend unlimited amounts on voter registration and “get out the vote” drives. This creates the concept of “soft money” and the distinction between helping the party and helping specific candidates is soon blurred.

117

Campaign and Election Reform

■

Another attempt at a constitutional amendment providing for direct election of the president and vice president fails in the Senate.

1982 ■

Congress amends the Voting Rights Act to change the way in which the court will determine whether unlawful discrimination has occurred. Instead of having to show that there was a specific intent to discriminate against minorities, plaintiffs will only have to show that the actual result of an electoral practice is to weaken the voting strength of a protected group.

1984 ■

■

Congress passes the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act, which requires that accessible polling places be provided by states. The Democratic Party consolidates its presidential primary process by having a number of states (mostly in the South) hold their presidential primaries on the same day, which is dubbed “Super Tuesday.” While shortening the primary process, Super Tuesday also has the effect of giving proportionately greater influence to the states holding the early primaries.

1985 ■

Tucson, Arizona, begins a program of matching public funds for qualifying local candidates.

1986 ■

■

In Thornburg v. Gingles, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that under the Voting Rights Act, states drawing or redrawing legislative districts must avoid not only intentional discrimination against minorities but also discriminatory effects. As a result many states begin to try to create certain districts that maximize minority voting strength. Congress passes the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, which replaces the 1955 Voting Assistance Act and the 1975 Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act. The new program is administered by the military, and provides for a simple means of absentee registration for members of the military and the merchant marine, their families, and civilians living overseas.

1990 ■

The passage of the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) poses new issues for local election officials, who become responsible for providing accessible voter registration and polling facilities.

118

Chronology 1992 ■

■

■

In a setback for the reform movement, Washington passes a statewide ballot measure prohibiting public financing of state and local campaigns. Washington, D.C., passes a ballot initiative imposing a $100 maximum contribution limit for district-wide campaigns and $50 for ward elections. The U.S. District Court overturns the initiative, saying that the low limits are likely unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Buckley v. Valeo. In the 1992 election, the two major parties raise about $83 million in soft money, about four times the amount raised in 1984.

1993 ■

■

■

In Shaw v. Reno, the U.S. Supreme Court responds to what critics consider an overreaction to the “discriminatory effect” test in Thornburg v. Gingles. In question are legislative districts whose bizarre geography suggests that they were drawn only in order to ensure the election of minority candidates. The Court rules that creating such districts solely for racial purposes violates the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights of nonminority voters. Congress passes amendments easing Hatch Act restrictions on political activity by federal employees, who can now run for nonpartisan offices, sign ballot petitions, or serve as a poll worker or poll watcher for a party. Congress passes the National Voter Registration Act, better known as the “Motor Voter” act, to take effect in 1995. It requires states to make voter registration available to people who are getting or renewing driver’s licenses, applying for federal welfare benefits (such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children), applying for disability benefits, or visiting a military recruiting office. States are also required to accept mail-in registrations and are forbidden to remove registered voters who fail to vote or who move within the jurisdiction.

1994 ■

State campaign finance reform initiatives pass in Missouri, Montana, and Oregon.

1995 ■

In a well-publicized encounter, President Bill Clinton and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich shake hands and agree to establish a bipartisan commission for electoral reform. The commission is never formed.

119

Campaign and Election Reform

■

■

An attempt to amend the Constitution to limit service in Congress to 12 years is rejected by the House of Representatives. The U.S. Supreme Court rules in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton that states cannot impose term limits on members of Congress, because that would add to the qualifications specified in the Constitution.

1996 ■

■

■

■

Maine passes the Clean Elections Act, which provides for public funding for candidates who can gather a modest number of $5 contributions. California, Colorado, and Arkansas pass similar state campaign reform initiatives. Westminster, Colorado, passes a referendum that requires that city council members receiving a contribution of more than $100 must abstain from debate and from voting on any issue affecting the contributor. The use of political action committees (PACs) and so-called leadership PACs, associated with high-profile political leaders, continues to increase. June 25: The Senate fails to halt a filibuster on the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, an ambitious bipartisan attempt to regulate “soft money” and other campaign abuses, effectively killing it for the session.

1997 ■

■

■

The Shays-Meehan bill (the House counterpart to McCain-Feingold) passes, but McCain-Feingold is again stalled in the Senate. A variety of different term limits proposals are rejected by the House of Representatives. Charges of fund-raising violations by both parties in the 1996 presidential election lead to controversy. These include allegations that President Clinton let big contributors stay overnight in the White House and that Vice President Al Gore may have made fund-raising calls from the White House in violation of federal law. Contentious (and partisan) hearings also look into charges that Clinton received illegal contributions from foreign nationals, particularly Asians.

1998 ■

In Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes, the Supreme Court rules that a public broadcaster can exclude a candidate from an election debate if in its editorial judgment the candidacy is not significant.

2000 ■

June 26: In California Democratic Party v. Jones, the Supreme Court rules that California’s “blanket primary” (which allowed a voter to vote in any

120

Chronology

■

■

■ ■

■

■

■

party’s primary for any office) is unconstitutional because it violates the parties’ right of association. July 1: President Clinton signs legislation requiring tax-exempt political groups to report contributions. November 7–8: Americans vote in what turns out to be the closest presidential election in the nation’s history. On election night, the media first call Florida for George W. Bush, but the state then becomes “too close to call.” November 12: A partial recount of the Florida presidential vote begins. November 21: The Florida Supreme Court orders election officials to delay certification of the vote. December 8: The Florida Supreme Court orders a recount in several counties. December 9: The U.S. Supreme Court issues an emergency order, stopping the Florida recount. December 12: In the controversial conclusion of Bush v. Gore, the U.S. Supreme Court overrules the Florida Supreme Court by a 5-4 majority, preventing further recounts. The majority opinion states that allowing recounts with differing standards violates voters’ right to equal protection under the law.

2001 ■

April 2: The Senate passes the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill by a vote of 59 to 41. It will be reconciled with House legislation to become the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

2002 ■

■

■

■

February 14: The House passes the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (formerly the McCain-Feingold and Shays-Meehan bills) by a vote of 240 to 189. March 27: President Bush signs the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002 into law. July: The Federal Election Commission issues the first regulations interpreting the BCRA’s soft-money provisions. Reformers consider the regulations to be too weak and susceptible to loopholes. September 10: In something of a repeat of the election snafus of 2000, the primary election in Florida is marred by considerable confusion and voting machine failures as precinct workers attempt to follow the new rules and procedures implemented during the past two years. Gubernatorial candidate Janet Reno asks for a recount, citing supporters in MiamiDade County whose votes may not have been properly counted.

121

Campaign and Election Reform

■

■

■

■

■

September 12: Florida officials say that state law does not permit a recount because the vote totals for Reno and her opponent, Bill McBride, are not within .5 percent of each other. October 16: Senators John McCain (Rep.-Arizona), Russell Feingold (Dem.-Wisconsin) and Richard Durbin (Dem.-Illinois) introduce the Political Campaign Broadcast Activity Improvements Act. It would require that television and radio stations provide a minimum of two hours a week of candidate or issue coverage during the period before each national election. It also provides for “broadcast vouchers” to be provided to qualifying candidates, funded by a use tax on the broadcast spectrum. December 4: A panel of three federal judges hears oral arguments on the constitutionality of the 2002 campaign finance law. December 9: In an interpretation of the new campaign finance law, the Federal Election Commission adopted a regulation that would not deem outside expenditures made prior to 120 days before an election to be an impermissible “coordination” between the outsider and the campaign. Critics charge that this ruling provides a major conduit for soft money. December 18: The Federal Election Commission reports that the Republican and Democratic parties together raised about $1.1 billion in regulated “hard money” contributions.

2003 ■

■

■

■

February: The Santa Clara County (California) Board of Supervisors debates whether to buy new electronic touch-screen voting machines. Critics argue that the operation of the machines cannot be verified because they leave no paper record of the voting. As a result, an election could be “stolen” by an unscrupulous programmer. May 2: A badly divided three-judge federal district court panel overturns part of the soft money ban in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. However, they approve and even strengthen the ban against issue ads that actually support or oppose candidates. Appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court are quickly drafted. May 8: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rules that California can require that groups campaigning for or against ballot measures disclose their contributions and contributors. However, the court will let a lower court decide whether groups that are not primarily involved in campaigning must make disclosures if they take a stand on a ballot issue. May 19: A federal appeals court panel temporarily stays the court’s earlier ruling that limits and prohibitions on political fund-raising and advertising were unconstitutional. As a result, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 remains in effect until the Supreme Court rules on the case.

122

Chronology

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

June 12: The Supreme Court rules that a Georgia redistricting plan that had been drawn up by Democrats to maximize their electoral chances did not impermissibly dilute minority voting strength. Republicans had joined some minority activists in opposing the plan. June 16: The Supreme Court rules that subjecting nonprofit advocacy groups (such as antiabortion groups) to campaign contribution regulations does not violate the First Amendment. July 24: California lieutenant governor Cruz Bustamante announces that the state’s first-ever statewide recall election will be held on October 7. The election centers on two questions: whether Governor Gray Davis should be removed from office, and if so, who should be the new governor. With only 75 days until the election and relatively strict limits on large contributions, serious candidates will be forced into a fund-raising frenzy. July 29: A state election panel rejects San Francisco’s plan to hand-count the ballots for the first city election to be run under the voter-approved instant runoff (preference) system. The city had been unable to get state and federal approval in time for a computerized vote-counting system for the unusual ballot. Backers of the instant runoff system will go to court to try to force its implementation. Citing the primacy of the right to vote for officeholders, a federal judge rules that California voters must be allowed to vote for their choice of replacement governor even if they do not vote on whether Governor Gray Davis should be recalled. September 8: In a unusual special session, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the legal challenge to the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. A number of political leaders and advocacy groups are challenging soft money and advertising restrictions on First Amendment grounds. September 15: A three-judge panel of the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals postpones California’s gubernatorial recall election, which had been scheduled for October 7. The court agreed with plaintiffs that having some voters use error-prone punch-card systems violates equal protection requirements. The decision, however, is stayed for one week pending a possible appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. September 23: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturns an earlier decision by a three-judge panel and reinstates the October 7 date for the California gubernatorial recall election. The justices have apparently agreed that the impact of postponing the election outweighs the prospective harm that might be suffered by some voters whose votes are miscounted.

123

CHAPTER 4

BIOGRAPHICAL LISTING This chapter presents brief biographical sketches of persons who have played an important role in campaign and election reform as political leaders, advocates, or scholars. Douglas J. Amy, a distinguished political scientist and advocate for reform of the electoral system. Amy is a graduate of the University of Washington, where he also earned a master’s degree. He received his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst in 1981. During much of the 1980s Amy focused his research on environmental policy and mediation, but he then became interested in the structure of the electoral system in the United States. His book Real Choices, New Voices: The Case for Proportional Representation Elections in the United States describes the advantage of multiseat elections in which a variety of parties could win seats in proportion to their support. This would provide access and encouragement for a diversity of voices that are shut out by the current ubiquitous winner-take-all single-seat districts. Amy’s book Beyond the Ballot Box (2000) provides a detailed framework for understanding the advantages and disadvantages of many possible variations of voting systems. Amy has written numerous articles and appeared in a variety of forums, including public affairs programs on C-SPAN and other outlets. He is currently a professor of politics at Mount Holyoke College. Susan Brownell Anthony, pioneer campaigner for women’s voting rights during the latter part of the 19th century. Born in 1820 in Adams, Massachusetts, to a family of strong-minded Quakers who were active in opposing slavery and reforming working conditions, Anthony grew up in an atmosphere that encouraged activism. She was a precocious student who was largely self-taught, since formal education was generally not accessible to women. As a young woman, Anthony quickly became involved in the day’s chief reform issues, including temperance (antialcohol) and other “antivice” efforts, as well as the abolition of slavery. She came into contact

124

Biographical Listing with a number of other emerging reform and feminist leaders, including Amelia Bloomer, Lucretia Mott, Lucy Stone, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton (who would become an especially close colleague). Anthony’s interest in women’s rights grew when she found that temperance and abolition meetings often refused to let women speak. When the abolitionist cause triumphed after the Civil War, Anthony tried in vain to have women’s rights as well as African-American suffrage guaranteed by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. In 1869, Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton founded and served as leaders of the National Woman Suffrage Association, with the objective of securing passage of a sixteenth amendment guaranteeing women the vote. In 1872, Anthony was arrested for illegally voting in an attempt to test whether the Fourteenth Amendment covered women. After an essentially rigged trial, she was fined $100 and refused to pay. After a long career she died in 1906, more than a decade short of the final triumph of her cause. In 1979, she was honored by becoming the first actual woman to be shown on a circulating U.S. coin. Perry Belmont, an early 20th-century political reformer who helped pass some of the first campaign finance legislation. He was born in New York City to a banking family and graduated from Harvard College, where his studies had focused on history and political economy. He also attended the University of Berlin and received a bachelor of laws degree from Columbia. After practicing law for five years, he then entered Congress. Sharing the concern of many progressive politicians about the excessive influence of corporate money in politics, Belmont founded the National Publicity Law Organization in 1905. Its objective was to pass a federal “publicity” (that is, disclosure) law that would reveal the source of political contributions. Largely as a result of his agitation, Congress in 1910 passed the Publicity Act, which required candidates and parties to disclose their sources of campaign funds. The reform effort bore further fruit in 1925 with the passage of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, which added limits on contributions. However, Belmont was dissatisfied by the lack of enforcement and effectiveness of the legislation and publicized the campaign finance issue with two books, The Return to Secret Party Funds (1925) and The Survival of the Democratic Principle (1926). James Coolidge Carter, a pioneer in the reform and modernization of city government. He was born in Lancaster, Massachusetts, in 1827 and attended Harvard College and its Dane Law School, beginning his law practice in 1853 in New York City. His legal career culminated in his becoming president of the American Bar Association (1894–95); he was also president of the New York Bar for many years. After becoming involved in the litigation concerning the activities of “Boss” Tweed and the Tammany Hall political machine, Carter became interested in working for municipal

125

Campaign and Election Reform reform. In 1875, Governor Samuel Tilden appointed him to head a commission to develop a new model for municipal government in New York. Carter became the first president of the National Municipal League in 1894, and served until 1903. As part of municipal reform, that organization advocated at-large city elections that would promote the needs of the whole community rather than the ward or district election system. James Earl Carter ( Jimmy Carter), president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, but earned his lasting reputation through his work for human rights and political reform after his defeat in the 1980 election by Ronald Reagan. A U.S. Naval Academy graduate and early nuclear submarine officer, Carter entered Georgia politics and became the state’s governor in 1970. He rose rapidly in the post-Watergate atmosphere of reform, and his “outsider” status helped propel him to the presidency in 1976. Carter combined a liberal domestic social agenda with an emphasis on international cooperation and peacemaking, but rampant inflation and the Iranian hostage crisis frustrated both his domestic and foreign policy efforts. After leaving the presidency, Carter worked on a number of initiatives for helping the poor in developing countries and monitoring elections and human rights efforts in countries struggling to establish democracy. Turning to the problems of democracy in the United States itself, in 2000 Carter, along with former president Gerald Ford, formed the National Commission on Federal Election Reform. Analyzing the voting problems that had plagued the 2000 election, the commission developed a number of recommendations for simplifying and improving voting and voting registration as well as voting technology and procedures. Carter was awarded the Nobel Prize in peace in 2002. Carrie Clinton Lane Chapman Catt, women’s suffrage advocate and successor to Susan Brownell Anthony. Born in 1859, Catt graduated from Iowa State College in 1877 and began a successful career as a school administrator. After the death of her first husband, she became increasingly involved in women’s rights and joined the Iowa Suffrage Association and the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA). Susan B. Anthony recognized her skill as an administrator and advocate for a constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote. In 1900, Anthony retired and Catt became president of NAWSA. With the aid of money inherited from her second husband, Catt organized efforts in New York that eventually led to women in that state gaining the vote in 1917. Catt and other NAWSA leaders were able to persuade President Woodrow Wilson to support the suffrage amendment, which was ratified as the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920. After achieving the vote, Catt focused on helping women to use it effectively, playing a key role in founding the League of Women Voters.

126

Biographical Listing Richard Henry Dana III, a political reformer whose efforts focused on instituting the “Australian,” or secret, ballot. He was born in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1851 to a politically active family, and graduated from Harvard College in 1874. He graduated from Harvard Law School in 1877 and was admitted to the bar. Observing the typical elections of his time, Dana became increasingly concerned about the cronyism and patronage that seemed to be the rule. He believed that such practices were facilitated by the voting practices of the time, in which voters often voted orally or with ballots that were clearly identifiable as to what party each person was voting for. This enabled party bosses to pressure or intimidate voters who were not following the party line. Dana drafted legislation that established the secret ballot in Massachusetts, which was in place in time for the 1889 election. Dana also pushed for civil service reform, writing the Massachusetts Civil Service Reform Act, edited the Civil Service Reform Record, and also served as president of the National Civil Service Reform League. Interestingly, however, Dana opposed women’s suffrage, believing it would be too disruptive to society. Chandler Davidson, an influential researcher whose books have explored the struggle for minority voting rights and political representation, particularly in the South. His academic abilities were recognized early: After graduating from the University of Texas at Austin with a B.A. degree in English and philosophy, he spent a year at the University of Poitiers in France as a Fulbright scholar. Davidson then received a Woodrow Wilson graduate fellowship and earned a Ph.D. from Princeton University in 1969. His first book, Biracial Politics (1972), explored the complex shifts in political power and racial politics in the South since the 1950s. His 1984 book, Minority Vote Dilution, described the efforts of entrenched white politicians to draw districts in ways that minimized the power of the newly enfranchised black voters. Davidson’s arguments were cited in the Supreme Court’s Thornburg v. Gingles decision in 1986, which held such tactics to be unconstitutional. During the 1990s, Davidson edited or coedited a number of collections of essays on minority politics, including Controversies in Minority Voting: The Voting Rights Act in Perspective (1992) and Quiet Revolution in the South: The Impact of the Voting Rights Act, 1965–1990 (1994). These books were also cited in Supreme Court voting rights cases. Davidson has also served as a consultant or expert witness in dozens of voting rights and other civil rights cases, as well as consulting for the U.S. Department of Justice. Lani Guinier, an innovative though controversial scholar and activist who has sought new ways to promote fair representation for all groups in the political system, particularly minorities. She was born Carol Lani Guinier in New York City in 1950. In the later 1960s, she became involved as a

127

Campaign and Election Reform young activist with the struggle to pass and enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965. She attended Harvard-Radcliffe College on a scholarship, earning her B.A. degree, then went to Yale Law School (earning her J.D. degree in 1974), having become inspired to pursue a career in civil rights litigation. At Yale, Guinier met Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham, forging ties that would later result in Guinier’s nomination to the nation’s top civil rights post. During the late 1970s and 1980s, she gained experience through a variety of posts including law clerk, assistant in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division and assistant counsel to the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. Guinier became interested in the relationship between electoral systems and minority representation, and her 1988 appointment as a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School gave her a platform for speaking and writing about her ideas. Because majority-rule systems mean that the minority always loses out, Guinier advocated a form of weighted, proportional voting that would allow blacks and other minorities to secure more effective representation. In 1993, when President Clinton nominated Guinier to the post of assistant attorney general for civil rights, conservative critics seized upon Guinier’s writings, portraying them as a radical, racially motivated form of “quota politics.” As the pressure against the nomination built, Clinton eventually asked her to step down, an action that would embitter many people in the civil rights community. After the political storm died down, Guinier gained increasing respect as she quietly and effectively continued her advocacy. She has described her ideas in a number of books and articles including her book The Tyranny of the Majority (1995). John Sidney McCain, Republican senator from Arizona, emerged in the later 1990s as a voice for campaign finance reform, playing a major part in the passage of the bipartisan McCain-Feingold bill, which was signed into law as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. McCain was born in 1936 to a U.S. Navy family in the Panama Canal Zone (his grandfather had been admiral in charge of aircraft carriers in World War II, and his father would also be an admiral during the Vietnam War). McCain followed the paternal footsteps into the U.S. Naval Academy, graduating in 1958. In the Vietnam War, he served as a naval aviator, flying bombers off aircraft carriers. In 1967 he was shot down by an enemy missile. Badly injured in the crash, he became a prisoner of the North Vietnamese. He would endure repeated beatings and torture during five and a half years of imprisonment. Upon return to the United States in 1973, he was awarded numerous medals, including the Distinguished Flying Cross. In 1982, he began his political career by being elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from a district in Phoenix, Arizona. He generally followed the conservative Republican line on issues, although he also

128

Biographical Listing showed that he could disagree with the Reagan administration on matters such as sanctions against apartheid South Africa. In 1986, McCain switched to the Senate, where he became known as a fighter against “pork” (projects given in exchange for legislative votes), playing an important role in the passage of the line-item veto, which allowed the president to reject particular items without having to veto the budget as a whole. In the mid-1990s, McCain expanded his reform efforts to focus on campaign finance. In 1995, together with Senator Russell Feingold (Dem.-Minnesota) he sponsored a bill that would regulate the flow of unregulated “soft money” from national parties to candidates under the pretext that the money would not be used to help elect them. In 1989 McCain had overcome a campaign finance problem of his own, his association with the “Keating Five”—senators accused of protecting savings and loan executive Charles Keating from regulators in exchange for hefty campaign contributions. The Senate Ethics Committee accused McCain of poor judgment, but cleared him of actual wrongdoing. In 1999, with the reform bill known as McCain-Feingold stalled in Congress, McCain entered the Republican presidential primary but was overwhelmed by the campaign of George W. Bush, which had much greater funding and the backing of the party establishment and many corporate interests. In 2000, McCain, Feingold, and Representatives Christopher Shays (Rep.-Connecticut) and Marty Meehan (Dem.-Massachusetts) persevered in their efforts, resulting in the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Laughlin McDonald, lawyer who has argued key voting rights cases before the Supreme Court, helping to expand the effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. McDonald was born in South Carolina and graduated from Columbia University in 1960. After graduating with a J.D. degree from the University of Virginia Law School, McDonald went on in the late 1960s to work as a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Southern Regional Office. During the 1970s, he taught at the University of North Carolina Law School and practiced law privately, before rejoining the ACLU as director of the Southern Regional Office. Besides litigating, McDonald provided important testimony in congressional hearings that were considering expanding the Voting Rights Act of 1965. His books and articles chronicling and analyzing voting rights litigation include Litigation under the Voting Rights Act (1986) and The Rights of Racial Minorities (second edition, 1993). In 2002 he published an article that criticizes the use of so-called ballot security measures as a disguised way of discouraging and disenfranchising minority voters. Ralph Nader, first came to prominence as a consumer advocate, but in the 1990s turned his attention to political reform, running for president on

129

Campaign and Election Reform the Green Party ticket in 2000. Born of Lebanese immigrant parents, Nader graduated from Princeton University in 1955 and received a law degree from Harvard in 1958. As a student and then a practicing lawyer, Nader became interested in the connection between automobile-related personal injury cases and defects in manufacture and design. In 1965 he published Unsafe at Any Speed, a devastating critique of the automobile industry’s lack of concern for safety, targeting in particular the General Motors Corvair. The resulting public outcry led to the passage of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966. Nader soon broadened his concerns to a wide variety of consumer products, putting together a team of lawyers nicknamed “Nader’s Raiders” who litigated and agitated for safety regulations. In the mid-1970s, Nader went after the nuclear power industry through his Critical Mass Energy Project. Increasingly, Nader saw corporate power itself and its effect on the political process to be the core issue. Nader organized groups such as Public Citizen and Congress Watch to expose the influence of corporate contributions on policy and legislation. In 1996, Nader made his first run for president as an independent candidate, fighting unsuccessfully to be included in the presidential debates that were firmly under the control of the two major political parties. Nader ran again in 2000 under the Green Party ticket, but after the extremely close race between George W. Bush and Al Gore, Nader was bitterly attacked by many Democrats who felt he had tipped the election to Bush. Nader remains unapologetic, insisting that on the important issues such as corporate power and economic globalism there is no real difference between the major parties. Henry Ross Perot, mercurial computer billionaire and political reformer/gadfly who ran the most successful independent presidential campaign in modern times, as well as founding the Reform Party. Perot graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy, and later joined IBM, becoming one of its top salespersons. Convinced that he could do for software what IBM had done for hardware—create and sell complete, integrated data processing systems—Perot founded Electronic Data Systems (EDS) in 1962. By 1970, Perot had earned his first $1 billion. Charismatic, often domineering, and abrasive, Perot ran his company along military lines, rewarding performance but punishing dissidents. Perot also earned a reputation for taking bold, unconventional steps to deal with a variety of issues, as when he first collected gifts and supplies for American prisoners of war in Vietnam and then attempted to buy their freedom by offering $100 million to the North Vietnamese. In 1992, Perot decided to challenge the two major political parties by running as an independent candidate for president, founding a reform movement called United We Stand and combining a populist, antiestablishment stance with “can-do,” problem-solving,

130

Biographical Listing antibureaucratic rhetoric. Because of his vast personal resources, Perot was able to afford media access far beyond anything traditionally available to third-party candidates. His double-digit standing in the polls forced the major parties to include him in the presidential debates, but the winnertake-all electoral system ensured that he had no real chance of capturing the White House. After reaching a high point of 19 percent in the 1992 popular vote, Perot played a major part in organizing the Reform Party and ran as its presidential candidate in 1996. However, Perot’s showing this time was disappointing (he had been hurt by being excluded from the debates, as well as by a perception by many voters that he was an interesting gadfly but too eccentric to be entrusted with high office). The Reform Party imploded in 2000 in a battle between the party regulators and supporters of Patrick Buchanan, who attempted what was essentially a “hostile takeover” of the party. Since then, Perot has faded from public view. Mark P. Petracca, a tireless crusader for term limits for public officials. Born in Quincy, Massachusetts, in 1955, he graduated from Cornell University in 1977 with a bachelor’s degree in government, then received his master’s degree from Cornell in 1979 and his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Chicago in 1986. He has held a variety of faculty positions and is currently with the Department of Political Science at the University of California, Irvine (UCI). During the 1980s and early 1990s, Petracca became a strong advocate for limiting the terms of federal and state legislators. Since the Supreme Court ruled that term limits for Congress were unconstitutional, Petracca advocated for a constitutional amendment allowing them. Since then, however, interest in term limits has subsided somewhat, and Petracca has been engaged in a more broadbased study of the imbalances of power in U.S. democracy and possible measures for dealing with them. At UCI, he received the 2002–03 Distinguished Faculty Lectureship Award for Teaching. Frances Fox Piven, a distinguished scholar and advocate for electoral reform, particularly the effective guarantee of the right to register and vote. Born in 1932 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, she earned her B.A. degree at the University of Chicago in 1953, continuing there for an M.A. degree in city planning (1956) and a Ph.D. in social science (1962). She went on to write numerous books dealing with the social and political situation of the poor, working class, and minorities, starting with Regulating the Poor, coauthored with Richard Cloward (1971). Her interest and concern with flaws in the electoral system led to her publishing Why Americans Don’t Vote (1988), coauthored with Richard Cloward, and a later edition, Why Americans Still Don’t Vote (2000). Theodore Roosevelt, president of the United States from 1901 to 1909; he played an important role in the political reform movement of the early

131

Campaign and Election Reform 20th century. Roosevelt, a sickly child who made a concerted effort to toughen himself through outdoor activities such as hunting, was a Harvard graduate and a prolific writer of books on naval and political history as well as outdoor life (a staunch conservationist, he was key in the establishment of the national park system). During the mid-1880s, Roosevelt began his political career as a reform-minded Republican New York state legislator. He frequently attacked corruption, especially tackling New York’s notorious Tammany Hall political machine. As a commissioner for the federal civil service starting in 1889, Roosevelt attacked the abuses that had considerably undermined the antipatronage provisions of the 1883 Pendleton Act. During the 1890s, he also served as president of the New York City police commission and learned more about conditions in the city’s slums. He then returned to federal service as assistant secretary to the navy, which position he resigned to take a post of lieutenant colonel, during which he led the famous “Rough Riders” against Spanish positions in Cuba. The resulting popularity helped propel Roosevelt to the governorship of New York in 1899, but state political boss Tom Platt successfully got the reform-minded Roosevelt out of his hair by encouraging his nomination as vice president on the McKinley ticket in 1900. Roosevelt became president in 1901 after McKinley’s assassination. He was reelected in 1904, but critics accused him of having received large contributions from corporations in exchange for favors. Stung by the criticism and pursuing his reformist impulses, Roosevelt began to pursue “trust-busting,” or the breaking up of the large industrial monopolies that had been built by tycoons such as John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie, and he pushed for laws forbidding corporate political contributions and requiring the disclosure of other contributions. (This would bear fruit with the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907.) Dissatisfied with the continuing influence of corporations on the Republican Party, Roosevelt ran again (this time unsuccessfully) for the presidency in 1912 on the Progressive (“Bull Moose”) ticket. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, along with Susan B. Anthony, a leading pioneer advocate for woman’s suffrage in the late 19th century. In 1840, while attending a world antislavery convention in London, she made contact with other American women who had a growing interest in expanding the abolitionist cause to include social and political rights for women. In 1848, Stanton organized the first convention specifically for women’s rights, at Seneca Falls, New York. In 1851, she met Susan B. Anthony, and the two women would become lifelong partners in the woman’s rights and women’s suffrage movements. In 1869, the two leaders cofounded the National Woman Suffrage Association. Progress was slow, however, with the U.S. Senate soundly defeating a suffrage amendment in 1887 and

132

Biographical Listing considering the matter only in desultory fashion. Stanton took a broader viewpoint than most of the other leaders of the suffrage movement. She considered the goal of gaining the vote for women to be important, but saw it as only one facet of a broad-based agenda for giving women full rights in the personal, legal, and social spheres. When she died in 1902 she was still in the forefront of a struggle that would not bear fruition for two more decades.

133

CHAPTER 5

GLOSSARY The following terms are frequently encountered in discussion of campaign and election reform. Some important general terms in U.S. politics are also included. absentee ballot A ballot that allows a person to vote without physically visiting a polling place. The results of a close election may not be known for several days because of the late processing of absentee ballots. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) A group founded in 1920 to defend and promote civil liberties such as freedom of speech and protection of the rights of criminal defendants. The ACLU has played an important role in securing voting rights for blacks and other minorities. apportionment The process of drawing up legislative districts. The primary criterion under the “one man, one vote” rule promulgated by the Supreme Court is that districts be closely matched in total population, but the voting power of minorities must also be protected from dilution. association, freedom of A basic general right, freedom to associate for political purposes is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is also used to argue for the right of a political party to determine its rules of operation and to select candidates. at large Delegates or representatives elected to represent a jurisdiction (such as a state or city) as a whole, rather than electing a separate representative for each district or subdivision. Australian ballot See secret ballot. ballot The piece of paper (or electronic or mechanical equivalent) that allows a voter to select candidates and vote for or against various propositions. A variety of methods for marking ballots can be employed, including pencil marks, punch cards, or touch screens. The varying degrees of accuracy and ease of use of ballots had important consequences for the 2000 presidential election.

134

Glossary base The group of voters who are loyal to a party and its principles. The base is a two-edged sword: on the one hand, if properly motivated, the party base can be a reliable source of a high turnout of votes. On the other hand, the attempt of party leaders or candidates to reach out to the moderate voters needed to achieve victory can backfire if it causes the base to either stay home on Election Day or, worse, split off into an alternative party. battleground state A state having an important number of electoral votes and for which polls show that the race is close. Modern presidential candidates focus heavily on battleground states for their personal campaigning and ad budgets, often to the exclusion of much of the rest of the country. bipartisan Actual or claimed participation (as in drafting legislation) of the two major political parties. The term is generally used to seek or claim widespread support for a measure or policy. Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 Campaign reform legislation (originally the McCain-Feingold bill) that closes some of the loopholes that had been used for “soft money” contributions. bloc A group of voters who usually vote the same way on issues affecting their interests. Legislators reapportioning a district try to include blocs of voters who support their party’s interests. bundling The process of gathering many small contributions and presenting them as a lump sum. Bundling can allow an organization that is subject to contribution limits to effectively make large contributions and presumably receive credit for them from the candidate or party. butterfly ballot A type of ballot that lists candidates on alternating sides of a page with arrows pointing to a row of dots down the middle. In the 2000 presidential election, this ballot arrangement apparently led many voters to vote for Reform Party candidate Patrick Buchanan instead of Democrat Al Gore. campaign The process of running for office. Broadly speaking, the campaign can be said to begin even before the candidate officially announces that he or she is in the running (such as when an “exploratory committee” is formed to test the waters and determine possible funding). The expense and effort involved in running for office today has led to charges that many political officials are in effect running permanent campaigns. campaign consultant A professional manager or specialist who offers skills such as fund-raising, speechwriting, polling, or media relations to a candidate or party. campaign finance reform The effort to regulate campaign contributions and expenditures in order to make the political process fairer and more

135

Campaign and Election Reform accessible. Goals of the movement include increased disclosure of the sources of contributions, limits on contributions and spending, and elimination of “soft money” and other indirect, hard-to-track forms of political influence. Some reformers also advocate public funding of campaigns as a supplement or replacement for private contributions. caucus A meeting of voters or legislators belonging to a party, for the purpose of selecting delegates to a convention or establishing party rules or policy positions. A caucus can also represent a particular interest group within a party or legislature, as in the Congressional Black Caucus. chad The small piece of paper that is supposed to be punched out with the stylus in a punched-card voting system. Partly punched chads led to controversy as to whether votes should be counted in the 2000 Florida presidential election. Colorful adjectives were applied to various degrees of chad separation, including dimpled, pregnant, hanging, and swinging. The push to replace punched-card voting machines following this debacle will hopefully mean that such minutiae will never need to be discussed again. civil service Government employees who are not politically appointed but receive their positions on the basis of merit (through examinations and the like). These positions are considered to be nonpartisan, and people holding them are restricted from running for office and from certain kinds of involvement in political campaigns. Most government employees today are covered by civil service rules and protections. closed primary A primary election in which only registered members of a party can vote for its candidates. Common Cause A political watchdog and reform organization founded by John Gardner in 1970. The organization investigates what it considers to be corrupt practices by corporations and special interest groups and undertakes legal action (such as to force disclosure of information). Gardner and his successor, former federal prosecutor Archibald Cox, have also made campaign finance reform a major part of the organization’s agenda. congressional campaign committee A committee used by each of the two major parties as a vehicle for raising money for the party’s congressional candidates, generally targeting spending on those races that are felt to be most winnable (or those incumbents most in need of help). constituency An identifiable group with common interests that might be expected to vote in a certain way on specific issues. For example, union members and small business owners are typical constituencies, as are minority groups. constituent A person living in a representative’s district, entitled to representation and potentially able to vote in elections for the office in question.

136

Glossary convention A state or national meeting of party delegates who vote on party rules, the policy platform, and the nomination of candidates for president and vice president. Since the 1970s, the national conventions of the two major parties have had a largely ceremonial and public relations purpose, with the nomination already certain for one candidate as a result of winning primary elections and gaining massive amounts of funding. corruption General term for a situation in which officeholders, lobbyists, and special interest groups exchange public acts for private gain, providing favors such as contracts, jobs, or favorable legislation in return for money. cumulative voting See preference voting. debates, presidential A structured, often nationally televised discussion between candidates. In debates between presidential hopefuls, the candidates make short opening and closing statements, but the bulk of the debate usually consists of questions being addressed alternately to the candidates by selected members of the press or sometimes the audience. Because of the rigid, limited structure, there is usually little opportunity for extended discussion or rebuttal. The first modern presidential debate was the televised confrontation between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon in the 1960 campaign, in which observers credited Kennedy’s more “telegenic” appearance as being decisive. Since 1976 one or more debates have been held between the major candidates in each presidential campaign. Because the commission overseeing the debates is controlled by the two major parties, minor party candidates and independents face a high hurdle for inclusion, and only Ross Perot in 1992 managed to be admitted. decline to state voter One who does not list a party affiliation; an independent. Such voters can vote in open primaries but not in closed primaries. Democratic Party One of the two major political parties in the United States. The party was originally founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1793. At the time it was called the Democratic-Republican Party to emphasize its support for a “democratic republic” against the monarchist tendencies of aristocratic conservatives. In 1828, the party, by then called simply the Democratic Party, won an important victory through the populist presidential campaign of Andrew Jackson. However, the party’s support for states’ rights put it on the side of southern slaveholders, while the new Republican Party attracted the support of antislavery forces. From the post–Civil War Reconstruction period to the early 20th century, the Democratic Party was at low ebb, although it did attract the support of the large number of immigrants arriving in major cities such as New York and Chicago. The party became dominant in the 1930s and 1940s, thanks to the forging of a liberal, prolabor coalition

137

Campaign and Election Reform through President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal policies. Starting in 1948, the party began to lose southern white support when it increasingly supported the Civil Rights movement, culminating in a new round of social legislation in the 1960s. From the 1970s through the early 1990s, the Democrats tended to control Congress, but the Republicans more often than not won the presidency. From 2000 to 2002, the Democrats’ fortunes waned again, when they first lost the presidency, then the Congress. The party’s traditional symbol is the donkey. direct democracy A system in which voters decide legislative or policy questions by direct vote rather than voting for representatives who in turn make the final decision. The ballot initiative, proposition or referendum are examples of direct democracy, as is the traditional New England town meeting. disclosure The requirement that information (such as a list of a campaign’s contributors and contribution amounts) be made fully available to the public in a timely manner. disenfranchise To remove a person’s right to vote through legal action, such as following conviction for certain types of crimes. More broadly, to make it difficult for particular persons or groups to vote, such as through the use of poll taxes and literacy taxes against prospective black voters in the South. due process The constitutional guarantee, enshrined in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, that all persons involved in a criminal or civil process are entitled to have their rights protected and to the carrying out of proper legal procedures as specified by law. In modern times, the Supreme Court has sometimes used constitutional due process considerations to intervene in state or local cases, including those involving voting rights. elector A person qualified to vote in an election. More specifically, a member of the Electoral College. Electoral College Under the Constitution, each state designates a slate of electors who cast the actual votes for president and vice president. When a voter goes to the polls to vote for a candidate for these offices, he or she is actually voting for a slate of electors pledged to vote for that candidate. The number of electors is equal to the state’s total number of senators (two) and representatives; thus each state has at least three electoral votes. In all states except Maine and Nebraska, the entire slate of electors for the party whose candidate wins the popular vote in the state is selected. (Those two states allocate electors proportionately or by district.) The winning candidate is said to have won all of the state’s electoral votes. On the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, each state’s electors meet at the state capital and transmit their votes to Washington;

138

Glossary the candidates receiving the majority of electoral votes become president and vice president. This is normally a formality, although the deadline for selecting electoral slates became a factor in the disputed Florida vote in 2000. Note that as in 1876 (with Rutherford B. Hayes) and 2000 (with Al Gore) the candidate with the higher overall popular vote lost the electoral vote because a candidate’s getting a popular vote majority in some states does not affect the electoral outcome in other states. enumerator An official who counts votes or a party volunteer who checks to make sure the party’s votes are being properly counted and tabulated. equal protection of the law The concept that all citizens are entitled to equal rights and treatment under the law, regardless of such factors as race. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires states as well as the federal government to guarantee equal protection of the law. During the 1950s and 1960s, under Chief Justice Earl Warren the Supreme Court took a more proactive approach to enforcing equal protection through banning racial segregation and discrimination and guaranteeing voting rights for minorities. equal time provision A regulation by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that requires television and radio stations that provide free time to one candidate in an election to provide an equal amount of free time to other qualified candidates (also known as the “fairness doctrine”). In 1987, however, the FCC repealed the “Fairness Doctrine,” and in practice candidates generally receive coverage in proportion to the amount of attention given them by reporters. Since incumbents often have more opportunity to make news (such as by signing bills), they generally have an advantage in gaining coverage. Minor-party and independent candidates are often excluded on the grounds that they are not newsworthy because they are unlikely to win. exit poll A survey of voters as they leave the polling place. Although not infallible, it is probably the most accurate predictor of election outcomes, and it is the basis for states being “called” by the media even before most of the votes have been tallied. This practice aroused sharp criticism in Florida in 2000. faction This term was originally used by the framers of the Constitution to refer to groups of people promoting particular agendas or issues. Despite being viewed negatively, factions soon flourished in the young U.S. polity and soon turned into full-fledged political parties that nominated slates of candidates in each election. Today the term faction is usually applied to an ideological group within a party, such as the religious right within the Republican Party. Federal Election Commission (FEC) An agency established in 1975 under the Federal Election Campaign Act to monitor contributions,

139

Campaign and Election Reform allocate public campaign matching funds, and otherwise enforce compliance with the act’s provisions. The FEC publishes regular reports on candidate finances. The FEC has been criticized by reformers as being toothless and too closely entangled with the major political parties. First Amendment Guarantees freedom of speech, press, assembly, and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, it is thus crucial for protecting political participation. “first past the post” An election that is won by the candidate getting a plurality of votes, with no requirement of a majority and no run-offs. “527” groups Organizations that were exempted from contributiondisclosure requirements due to a loophole in the tax code that was closed in 2000. Fourteenth Amendment This amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, was primarily directed at protecting the rights of former slaves in the South. Its general language states that “no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This language would be applied in the mid-20th century to overturning racial segregation, discrimination, and other forms of institutionalized inequality. In the controversial Supreme Court decision Bush v. Gore, the Court majority would use equal protection considerations to stop the recounting of votes in certain Florida counties. freedom of speech and the press Guaranteed by the First Amendment as essential to political discourse in a democracy, these freedoms are also cited by opponents of regulation of campaign contributions and spending. In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the Supreme Court held that regulating campaign expenditures violated the First Amendment, although campaign contributions could be regulated. front loading The practice of states holding their primary elections early in a presidential election year in order to garner attention (and advertising) from an eager media. A result of this practice is for candidates to have to begin fund-raising earlier in order to be able to compete in the crucial early primaries that will reveal those candidates considered to be viable. fusion The practice of a candidate being endorsed by more than one party. This can allow minor parties to have some influence by endorsing major party candidates with similar views, but courts have held that states can ban the listing of multiple parties next to a candidate’s name on the ballot. general election The final election in which officeholders are determined. Usually, general election candidates are the winners of their party’s primary election. gerrymander A legislative district whose boundaries are deliberately drawn so as to give political advantage to one party (by making its sup-

140

Glossary porters a majority), or to provide for greater representation for a minority. Also used as a verb meaning to “create such a district.” “get out the vote” (GOTV) Organized efforts to contact a party’s voters and encourage them to go to the polls, sometimes providing transportation. Parties are allowed to use unregulated “soft money” for this purpose. graft The use of political position or power to extract money and other favors in the form of bribes, kickbacks, positions for friends and so on. Although graft still occurs today (Representative James Trafficant was convicted of such behavior in 2002), most political corruption today is more subtle and seldom involves a provable “quid pro quo.” grandfather clause A provision in many southern states that exempted from literacy tests people whose ancestors could vote. Since only whites originally could vote, this had the effect of allowing illiterate whites to vote while barring blacks. grassroots Characterized by widespread participation by ordinary people. A presumed effect of successful campaign finance reform would be to increase the influence of many small contributions coming from the grass roots over that of a relative few wealthy contributors. hard money Direct contributions to political candidates, subject to limits and disclosure requirements. See also soft money. Hatch Act A federal law passed in 1939, prohibiting most government employees from becoming involved in politics other than as voters. (For example, they could not run for office or serve as delegates to a party convention.) Congress eased the restrictions in 1993, allowing federal employees to participate in campaigns (although they still cannot run for office). incumbent The existing holder of an office that is up for election. Incumbency can be a disadvantage if there is a general popular dissatisfaction with the quality of government (or the state of the economy), but incumbents also have significant advantages in their ability to generate favorable news coverage and to maintain an extensive network for fund-raising. independent A candidate or voter who does not express a party affiliation. Some high-profile independents have included presidential candidates Eugene McCarthy (1976), John Anderson (1980), and Ross Perot (1992). (Perot, however, is also associated with the Reform Party.) In 2001, Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont left the Republican Party and declared himself to be an independent, tipping the balance of the Senate over to the Democrats, with whom he usually voted. (The Republicans regained control of the Senate following the 2002 election.) The Senate’s longest-standing independent is also from Vermont: Bernie Sanders, who describes himself as a socialist. independent expenditure Money spent to advocate for the election of a candidate (or for defeat of the candidate’s opponent) that is not spent

141

Campaign and Election Reform by or in coordination with the candidate or the candidate’s campaign committee. initiative A measure that is put on a state or local ballot as a result of the successful gathering of a sufficient number of petition signatures from the public. The initiative, which gives the people a way to bypass legislative gridlock or unwillingness to address certain issues, is a legacy of the progressive movement of the early 20th century. Critics, however, argue that there are often too many initiatives and propositions cluttering the ballot and that some initiatives reflect unfortunate outbursts involving issues such as immigration and race. in-kind contributions Contributions of goods or services to a campaign, such as food, transportation, and printing. Although such contributions should be reported at their cash-equivalent value, they are hard for regulators to track down, since they do not leave a “paper trail.” interest group (or special interest group) People who organize political action (such as making contributions, lobbying, or communicating with the pubic) based on specific interests that affect them. Examples include corporations (in general, or in a specific industry), trade unions, women’s organizations, environmentalists, seniors, and consumer groups. The political action committee (PAC) is a common vehicle used by interest groups to make campaign contributions. issue ads Advertisements during a campaign that supposedly discuss only issues (such as prochoice or antiabortion), not specific candidates. In reality, they provide a way in which unregulated, unlimited funds can be used to indirectly attack an opposing candidate by highlighting those of his or her positions that are believed to be unpopular with voters. Jim Crow laws Antiblack laws passed in many southern states following the end of Reconstruction, after the Civil War. Combined with segregation, such laws made it virtually impossible for blacks to vote. League of Women Voters This organization, founded in 1920 by Carrie Clinton Lane Chapman Catt, was founded to give assistance to women who had newly earned the vote through passage of the Nineteenth Amendment. The organization prepares extensive nonpartisan educational materials on candidates and issues and has often served as the moderator for political debates. lobbying The effort to get a legislature to vote for or against a measure. Lobbyists try to cultivate long-term relationships with legislators, offering various forms of subtle or blatant financial support in exchange for the desired outcome. machine An organized although unofficial system by which dominant politicians (“bosses”) dispense jobs and other favors in exchange for votes. Many large cities such as New York (through Tammany Hall)

142

Glossary and Chicago were dominated by political machines until the mid-20th century. majority-minority district A legislative district drawn in an attempt to ensure that a racial minority group has the majority of voters and is thus presumably able to elect candidates representing the group. majority system An electoral system in which a candidate must receive one more than half the votes cast in order to be elected. If no candidate receives a majority, a runoff election is usually held between the two leading candidates. matching funds In campaign reform, public money that is used to match private contributions received by a candidate who has agreed to abide by certain rules such as contribution limits. Since 1976, matching funds have been available to qualified candidates in presidential elections. McCain-Feingold Bill Campaign reform legislation authored by Senator John McCain (Republican-Arizona) and Senator Russell Feingold (Democrat-Wisconsin) Its most important component was the banning of previously unregulated “soft money” contributions. After a protracted struggle, the essential components of McCain-Feingold were passed as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. The legislation is now being challenged in the courts. midterm election An election held midway through a presidential term: that is, the even-numbered year between two presidential election years. Since the term for a member of the House of Representatives is only two years, the entire House is up for election in a midterm election. Generally the party controlling the White House has lost seats in Congress during a midterm, but the 2002 election was an exception, with the Republicans regaining control of the Senate. minority Mathematically, less than half of any group, as in the minority party in Congress. The term also refers to a group whose ethnic, racial, or other characteristics distinguish it from the majority, and that is often subject to discrimination, lack of opportunity, and lack of political power. In an increasingly multiethnic and multicultural society, however, the concept of a “majority” is becoming less distinct. “Motor Voter Act” A 1993 law that requires states to provide voter registration as part of the process of issuing or renewing driver’s licenses or dispensing certain other services. Many Republicans opposed it, believing that people who had not bothered to register before were more likely to be Democrats. multiparty system A political system in which there is more than one political party. The term is generally used to refer to a system (unlike that in the United States) where there are more than two significant

143

Campaign and Election Reform parties, and governments are generally formed by a coalition of two or more parties. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) The NAACP, founded in 1909 by a coalition of black activists and sympathetic whites, spearheaded the Civil Rights movement of the 1940s through the 1960s. Through litigation by its Legal Defense and Education Fund, the NAACP worked to overturn segregation and discriminatory laws, especially laws designed to prevent blacks from voting. The NAACP does not endorse partisan candidates, but there is generally a close relationship between the group and the Democratic Party. national committee A party committee that oversees strategy and fundraising and that develops the party’s political positions. It consists of two representatives from each state party (the Democrats now use a system that ensures proportional representation for women and minorities). negative campaigning (negative advertising) A somewhat nebulous term for campaign efforts or advertising that seeks primarily to attack an opponent (particularly for alleged personal faults) rather than focusing on the positive qualities of the supported candidate. nomination The designation of a person as a party’s candidate for office or as a proposed holder of a nonpartisan office (as in a nomination to a judgeship). nonbinding primary Also called a “beauty contest,” a primary election in which the delegates associated with the winning candidate are not obligated to vote for that candidate at the party convention. off-year election An election held in a year in which there is no presidential election. See also midterm election. “one man, one vote” The principle, endorsed by the Supreme Court in cases such as Baker v. Carr (1962) and Reynolds v. Sims (1964) that each person’s vote should be of equal weight in determining representation. This requires that legislative districts include virtually the same number of constituents. open primary A primary election in which any registered voter, regardless of affiliation, can vote for a candidate for any party’s nomination. Parties have often opposed this system, believing that it deprives a party of the right to select candidates who reflect the party’s principles. overvote A ballot that shows indications of the voter having voted for two or more candidates for the same office. Since there is no way to know which candidate the voter had intended to vote for, the vote cannot be counted. parliamentary government A system (as in Great Britain) in which the government is established by the majority party in the legislature (parliament), or by a coalition of parties that amounts to a majority. The executive (prime

144

Glossary minister) and cabinet are appointed by the majority, which can also remove them through a vote of no confidence and call for new elections. partisan A supporter or advocate for a political party, or an election in which candidates are identified with political parties (as with most races for legislative or executive offices). patronage Appointments, positions, or other favors given to supporters of the politician or party in power. Hope of receiving patronage both encourages and rewards political support and contribution. The civil service reforms of the late 19th century diminished the possibilities for patronage by moving most career positions from political appointment to the competitive civil service system. petition A document signed by registered voters requesting that a candidate or proposition be placed on the election ballot. A threshold number of signatures is required; in practice, many more signatures must be gathered to allow for some signatures being invalid. platform A set of principles and policies that represent the official position of a party and to which the party’s candidates are supposedly expected to adhere. In recent national elections in the United States, major party platforms have generally been used to mollify important factions within the party, but have otherwise been ignored. plurality The largest number of votes in an election but not an absolute majority. In elections that require only a plurality, there is no runoff, and the winner may represent only a small minority of voters if the vote is split among many candidates. (Technically, due to the presence of minor parties, the winners of presidential elections often achieve only a plurality. In a rather pronounced example, Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992 with only 43 percent of the popular vote, because of the relatively strong showing of independent candidate Ross Perot.) policy wonk A generally pejorative term for a person obsessed with studying issues and developing policies, presumably to the exclusion of life’s “normal” interests. Such people are often accused of being out of touch with the lives of the people for whom they presume to create the policies. political action committee (PAC) A mechanism by which an organization (such as a corporation or union) that cannot directly contribute to political campaigns can use segregated funds to contribute to candidates or parties. political party An organization that attempts to appeal to and bring together persons sharing a common set of political beliefs or objectives and that nominates and runs candidates for various offices. National parties such as the Democratic Party and Republican Party have a layered system of local, state, and national committees and meetings. Although there are

145

Campaign and Election Reform several other parties that arguably have national scope (such as the Green, Libertarian, Natural Law, and, until recently, Reform Parties), in much discussion about politics the term party is often assumed to mean “major party”—the Democrats or Republicans. polity The political culture or system of values and institutions underlying a nation’s form of government. polling place An officially designated place for casting ballots; also called a precinct. poll tax A fee charged for voting. Poll taxes were frequently used to discourage blacks and poor whites from voting in the South. In the 1950s the courts began to rule against the use of poll taxes as being discriminatory, and their use was prohibited by the Twenty-fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which was ratified in 1964. poll watcher A person designated by a political party to observe the proceedings at a polling place, keep track of the party’s voters, or prevent election tampering or intimidation by opponents. populism A political movement based on the interests of the common or general people rather than elites or special interests or an appeal to such ideas. Populism can take the positive form of progressive or reform movements or the negative form of demagoguery. William Jennings Bryan, who ran for president in 1896, 1900, and 1908, is often considered to be a classic American populist. The Reform Party of the 1990s also had elements of populism. preference voting A system in which voters rank candidates on the ballot in order of preference, and second choices are used to determine the winner if there is no immediate majority. primary election A preliminary election for determining which of several candidates will be a party’s nominee for a particular office. (A closed primary is restricted to voters registered with the relevant party, while in an open primary any voter can vote for any candidate in any party’s primary.) Progressive Party Loose groupings of reformers who ran alternative candidates in the presidential elections of 1912 (Theodore Roosevelt), 1924 (Robert La Follette), and 1948 (Henry Wallace). Although none of these efforts succeeded, they did publicize views at odds with those of the dominant Democrats and Republicans. proportional representation An electoral system in which seats in a legislature are given in proportion to a party’s vote in the election. For example, if a legislature has 100 seats and parties A, B, and C receive 57 percent, 23 percent, and 20 percent of the vote respectively, the parties would receive 57, 23, and 20 legislative seats. This system is not generally used in the United States, where normally there is only one legislative seat per district.

146

Glossary public campaign finance (funding) A system in which public funds (such as those raised by taxpayer check-offs) are distributed to qualifying candidates who agree to follow certain fund-raising or expenditure limits. The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974 provided for public funding of presidential candidates. Supporters of this system argue that it allows candidates who have grassroots support but little special-interest funding to compete with privately funded candidates. push poll A poll whose questions are designed not to measure support for candidates but to plant false or negative information about opponents through the way questions are phrased. For example, do you agree with candidate X’s antichoice and progun positions? reapportionment The process of redrawing the boundaries of legislative districts, usually on the basis of new census data. Congressional redistricting is required by the need to have all districts include approximately the same population, thus ensuring “one person, one vote.” However, in states where one party dominates the legislature and/or holds the governorship, district boundaries are likely to be drawn in a way that maximizes the number of “safe” seats for that party at the expense of the opposition. See also gerrymander. recall A petition that calls for the removal of an officeholder before the normal end of his or her term. Usually a threshold number of signatures are required before the recall petition is placed on the ballot. In 2003 California governor Gray Davis faced a rare recall challenge. recount A second or subsequent counting of the ballots following a close election. Some jurisdictions have an automatic recount if the margin between the winner and second place candidates is below a specified threshold (such as .5 percent). Recounts can also be called at the request of the losing candidate, but in that case the candidate must pay for the costs of the recount. The most famous recounts were those following the razorthin Florida presidential election in 2000, where the recount was eventually halted by the U.S. Supreme Court. redistricting See reapportionment. referendum A procedure by which voters decide a policy question directly, via the ballot, rather than through the legislature. Usually a minimum number of signatures is required to place a referendum on the ballot. Reform Party In the United States, a party founded by computer billionaire H. Ross Perot in the 1990s, who gained considerable grassroots support. Its platform emphasized what it saw as the corruption of the two major parties by corporate interests, and opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other free-trade schemes. Perot received 19 million popular votes in the 1992 election as an independent candidate, and 9 million in 1996 as an official Reform

147

Campaign and Election Reform Party candidate. The high point of the movement was probably the surprising election of former professional wrestler Jesse Ventura to the governorship of Minnesota on the Reform Party ticket. In 2000, the Reform Party was essentially destroyed by a bitter battle in which supporters of right-wing candidate Pat Buchanan took over the party machinery. registration The process by which a person establishes his or her right to vote in a particular jurisdiction. States vary greatly in their registration laws (such as in the treatment of independent or decline-to-state voters), but Supreme Court rulings and federal legislation have imposed certain requirements, such as the prohibition of poll taxes or literacy tests as requirements for registration. representative A member of the House of Representatives or of the corresponding body in a state legislature. More broadly, anyone elected to speak for the interests of constituents in a legislature. representative democracy A system in which voters elect representatives who are supposed to pursue their interests in devising legislation. This is contrasted with direct democracy, where voters directly enact legislation, as in town meetings. republic A country that employs representative democracy. Republican Party One of two major political parties in the United States, the Republican Party was founded by a group of antislavery activists in Ripon, Wisconsin, in 1854. The party’s efforts were met with early success in electing Abraham Lincoln president in 1860 and 1864. Although the Republicans became known as “the party of Lincoln,” by the later 19th century the party had come to represent mainly conservative, moneyed interests, although it had its occasional reformers, such as President Chester Alan Arthur and later, the “trust-busting” President Theodore Roosevelt. During the 20th century, the Republican Party’s most successful periods were the 1950s (under the moderate President Dwight Eisenhower) and the 1980s (under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush). This success can be partly attributed to the so-called southern strategy by which the Republicans appealed to conservative white southern Democrats who had become disenchanted by their party’s support for the Civil Rights movement. The modern Republican Party often features struggles between its corporate but socially moderate establishment and right-wing activists who emphasize social issues such as opposition to abortion rights. During the mid-1990s, the Republicans, who had generally been the minority party in Congress, regained control of that institution, losing it briefly in 2001 and regaining it in 2002. The Republican Party is also known as the GOP (Grand Old Party), with an elephant as its symbol. right of assembly The right to organize and come together to express political views, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

148

Glossary The right of assembly has been cited in litigation against electoral laws affecting a political party’s right to control its nomination process. Rock the Vote A campaign organized by young voters with support from major media outlets, notably MTV. Its purpose is to get young people involved in the political process, to educate them about issues, and to encourage them to vote. run-off A final election held to decide the winner when no candidate received a majority in the main election. Normally, only the two top votegetters compete in the run-off. sample ballot A copy of the ballot with explanations of issues and candidate statements, sent to voters before the election to help them decide and prepare to vote. secret ballot The casting of ballots in such a way that bystanders cannot tell what candidate or party is being voted for. Ballot secrecy was an important step in reducing overt coercion in voting. sectionalism The emergence of competing interests in different parts of the country. For example, it became clear in the early 19th century that the agricultural, slaveholding South had different interests from New England, which was increasingly involved with manufacturing and overseas trade and generally opposed slavery. Sectionalism is generally less pronounced today, due to the reduction of cultural differences and the interdependent global economy. single-member district A legislative district represented by a single representative. This has been the norm in the United States (except for the U.S. Senate, where two senators represent each state). The use of singlemember districts implies a “winner-take-all” system (as opposed to proportional representation) and discourages multiparty systems. slate The list of all candidates being run by a party in an election. Parties often distribute “slate cards” for the convenience of their voters. smoke-filled room A term referring to the old practice in which party bigwigs met in a hotel room, smoked cigars, and decided behind the scenes who the party’s candidates would be. Today most of the smoke is gone, but a party’s major contributors and pressure groups play a similar role in deciding which primary candidates will really be viable. soft money Unregulated contributions to a party rather than to a specific candidate. This money, supposedly for such activities as “party building” and “get out the vote,” is in reality allocated by party leaders to those specific races where they think it will do the most good. Soft money was unregulated until the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. sound bite A short statement (perhaps 10 or 20 seconds) designed to be a simple, memorable message about an issue or candidate. Critics believe

149

Campaign and Election Reform that the media is not interested in longer, more nuanced statements and that this has reduced the quality of the political discourse available to the average voter. spin doctor A person skilled at manipulating the media to get favorable coverage for a campaign or in framing issues or events to a candidate’s advantage. spoiler A candidate who enters a race with no expectation of winning but rather seeks to draw voters away from another candidate. “Third party” candidates such as Ralph Nader in 2000 are often accused of being spoilers. stand To run for office (common usage in the United Kingdom). statistical dead heat A situation in which the gap between the two leading candidates is less than the poll’s margin of error (typically 3 percent). straw poll An informal vote to gauge preference for candidates or the sentiment on a particular issue. The media often seizes on early straw polls in an attempt to determine which primary candidates have significant support. stuffing, ballot Putting illegal or forged ballots into the ballot box or having the same voter vote in several different precincts. At one time, Chicago was famous for its legion of dead voters who supported the Daley machine. suffrage The right to vote. suffragists Women activists who demanded the right to vote in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The term can also be applied to advocates for voting rights for other groups, such as African Americans. Super Tuesday A single Tuesday (as in March 2000) that involves simultaneous primary elections in many states. It forces candidates to raise enough money early to enable a showing that demonstrates their continued viability. swing vote The undecided voters in the electorate (or in a legislature) whose decision will determine the winner of the election or the passage of a bill. Tammany Hall A venerable Democratic machine that dominated New York City politics through much of the 19th century, with diminishing influence to the mid-20th century. term limits Limiting the number of terms in office for a given individual. The informal term limit for the presidency was two, established by George Washington’s declining to run for a third term, and broken by Franklin Roosevelt, who served three terms and part of a fourth. (The presidency was formally limited to two terms by the Twenty-second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.) During the 1980s and early 1990s, reformers agitated in many states for term limits on legislators, claiming that limits would prevent politicians becoming entrenched and unresponsive to the popular will. The Supreme Court has ruled that

150

Glossary state-imposed term limits on members of the House of Representatives are unconstitutional because only the House has the power to determine the eligibility of its members. ticket The list of candidates nominated by a political party. The term is often used specifically to refer to the presidential and vice presidential candidates. See also slate. town meeting An assembly in which the residents of a town meet to discuss and vote on issues. They mainly survive in small New England towns. See also direct democracy. tracking poll A poll that takes frequent, regular measurements to identify trends in support for candidates. transparency The ability for people to easily see or determine facts about an institution or process. Campaign finance reformers hope to achieve transparency by requiring greater disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures. triangulation The attempt to position a candidate so that he or she can appeal in different ways to two normally opposed groups—such as liberals and conservatives with regard to welfare reform. Clinton adviser Dick Morris is credited with formalizing this strategy. truth squad A group from one party who follows campaign speakers for the opposing party and “corrects” their statements, supplying what they consider to be truth. turnout The percentage of registered or eligible voters who actually vote. Chronic low turnout is often cited as evidence of malaise in the U. S. political system. Twenty-sixth Amendment This constitutional amendment, ratified in 1971, guarantees the right to vote to all U. S. citizens 18 years of age or older. (The minimum age had been 21 in most states.) two-party system The dominance of U.S. politics by the Democratic and Republican Parties. tyranny of the majority The tendency of the majority to exercise its political power without regard for the rights of the minority who disagree with them. The ability of the courts to review the constitutionality of laws is one check against the tyranny of the majority. undervote A vote not counted, either because it does not show up on the ballot (for example, no hole is punched) or because of some defect in the voting machine. “vote early and often” Joking reference to the practice of political machines in places like Chicago, where voters have been reputed to cast repeated ballots, many under the names of dead people. walking-around money Small payments given to party workers or local supporters to encourage them to get out the vote.

151

Campaign and Election Reform ward An electoral district in a city. Whig Party A conservative party that arose in 1834 in opposition to the populist movement that elected Andrew Jackson president that year. The party later split, with members who opposed slavery forming the Republican Party in 1854. white primary The limiting of participation in primary (party nomination) elections to whites. Since the Democratic Party thoroughly dominated southern politics and its nominees virtually always won in the general election, this restriction effectively denied blacks any ability to influence the choice of candidates and thus the outcome of elections. winner-take-all primary A primary election in which the winner gets the entire slate of delegates to the national party convention. In the 1970s, this form of primary was replaced by a form of proportional representation. winner-take-all system The pervasive electoral system in the United States, in which legislative districts have only a single seat, meaning that only the winning party receives representation. See also proportional representation. woman suffrage The right of women to vote and the movement dedicated to securing that goal. write-in candidate A candidate whose name is not printed on the ballot, but is written in a blank space on the ballot by the voter. Write-in candidates usually run as a gesture of protest or to gain publicity but occasionally can win.

152

PART II

GUIDE TO FURTHER R ESEARCH

CHAPTER 6

HOW TO RESEARCH CAMPAIGN AND ELECTORAL REFORM The area of campaign finance reform and electoral reform has generated a vast amount of information in recent years. This includes the raw data of political contributions and spending, profiles of candidates and interest groups, congressional debate, legislation, and legal cases. This chapter presents a selection of resources, techniques, and research suggestions for investigating campaign and electoral issues. Although students, teachers, journalists, and other investigators may ultimately have different objectives, all are likely to begin with the same basic steps. The following general approach should be suitable for most purposes: • Use the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and state electoral websites to obtain basic information about campaign finance disclosures and current legislation, particularly the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. • Browse the many websites provided by researchers and reform advocates. Their pages are rich in links to news, articles, and issue papers as well as often providing the raw data of campaign finance in more accessible form. • Find materials by using bibliographic tools such as the library catalogs and periodical indexes. • To keep up with current events and breaking news, check back periodically with media websites and periodically search the catalogs and indexes for recent material. • Use the legislative and legal websites to keep up with changes in campaign law and its interpretation. The rest of this chapter discusses various types of resources and tools, including online resources, print resources, and legislation and legal research.

155

Campaign and Election Reform

ONLINE RESOURCES With the increasing amount of information being made available online, using the World Wide Web is a logical way to begin any research project. However, it is easy to be overwhelmed by the amount of information on the Web. Combining a few well-organized, resource-rich sites with selective Web searching can provide a more systematic research path.

GOVERNMENT WEB SITES The primary federal government web site for campaign and electoral reform research is that of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) (http://www.fec.gov). Resources provided by this site include the following: • campaign finance legislation and litigation (including the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002) • news releases about FEC actions • campaign finance reports and data • basic information about voting and the electoral system The site offers three guides that organize information according to the user’s interest. A good one to start with is the Citizen Guide. Among other things, it explains how to obtain campaign finance information from the FEC databases and from state offices. Alternative guides are also available for the media (journalists) and for candidates and committees. Another relevant federal agency is the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, which enforces voting rights laws. The Voting Section Home Page (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting) provides information about federal voting rights laws (including the key Voting Rights Act of 1965 and its amendments and regulatory implementation), and the National Voter Registration Act (“Motor Voter” act). For information about state campaign finance laws and disclosures, see the listing of state electoral agencies in chapter 8. Each state has such an office, although the regulations, information provided, and online availability of information vary from state to state.

GENERAL SITES ON ELECTIONS ELECTORAL SYSTEM

AND THE

Following are some useful sites that offer extensive background material and resources on elections, the electoral system, voter behavior, and other

156

How to Research Campaign and Electoral Reform topics that can be useful for providing a context for the debate on campaign and electoral reform. • Campaigns and Elections magazine’s site, at http://www.campaignline.com, offers news, reports, book reviews, and links to political consultants. • The Center for Voting and Democracy, a nonprofit voting rights group, has a site at http://www.fairvote.org that provides extensive links to a variety of topics, including alternative voting systems (such as instant runoff voting and proportional representation), news about electoral reform, information on voting equipment and procedures, and other issue areas. • The CSES (Comparative Study of Electoral Systems), at http://www. umich.edu/~cses, is an international collaborative project that gathers standardized survey data from voters in more than 50 nations. According to its web site, the first stage of the project “focused on three general themes: the impact of electoral institutions on citizens’ political cognition and behavior (parliamentary versus presidential systems of government, the electoral rules that govern the casting and counting of ballots; and political parties); the nature of political and social cleavages and alignments; and the evaluation of democratic institution and processes.” The focus of the second phase is “the contrast between the view that elections are a mechanism to hold government accountable and the view that they are a means to ensure that citizens’ views and interests are properly represented in the democratic process.” Survey data is available for download after free registration. • Election 2000 is a web site sponsored by the American Political Science Association at http://www.apsanet.org/teach/election2000/index.cfm. It provides resources relating to the 2000 U.S. presidential election and its aftermath, including the 2002 midterm election. • Election Center is a nonprofit organization of professional election workers (such as registrars and election administrators). Its web site, at http://www.electioncenter.org, offers reports on various aspects of election administration as well as conference announcements and contacts that might be useful for people pursuing a career in this field. • Election Notes by Klipsan Press, at http://www.klipsan.com/elecnews. htm, is a site offering news about elections in the United States and around the world and a calendar of upcoming elections. • Elections 2000 by the University of Michigan Documents Center, at http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/elec2000.html, offers an extensive collection of links to election resources on many aspects of electoral politics. (Despite the title of the site, much material is of general interest and is not confined to the 2000 presidential election.)

157

Campaign and Election Reform • “Elections and Electoral Systems around the World,” a British-based site at http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/election.htm, offers many links to electionrelated sites both general and by country. • “Elections Around the World,” at http://www.electionworld.org, provides an international perspective on elections and democratic politics with links to elections and election resources around the world. It also includes background guides and an explanation of terminology. • The Federal Election Commission’s “About Elections and Voting” page, at http://www.fec.gov/pages/electpg.htm, gives answers to frequently asked questions about registering and voting, statistics on voter registration and turnout, information about types of voting machines, and other links. • Project Vote Smart, at http://www.vote-smart.org, offers extensive information about current candidates, including speeches, biographies, and contact information. It is also easy to determine who voted which way on key issues, including campaign finance. • Voter Information Service, at http://www.vis.org, is a nonprofit, nonpartisan group that compiles congressional voting records on many issues. After free registration with the service, members can obtain a “report card” on any member of Congress that shows the percentage of time he or she voted in agreement with the positions of dozens of major lobbying groups.

SITES FOCUSING

ON

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

The following sites deal mainly with data and articles relating to campaign finance (such as contributions, the influence of PACs and other committees, and the use of soft money and other loopholes) as well as with the status of various reform efforts and legislation. • The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) opposes most campaign finance measures on First Amendment grounds. Its “Free Speech: Campaign Finance Reform” page, at http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/ FreeSpeechlist.cfm?c=20, contains press releases relating to the organization’s opposition to various provisions of campaign finance laws. There are also links to news, legal documents, and testimony by ACLU witnesses. • The Campaign Finance Information Center is a program sponsored by Investigative Reporters and Editors (IRE), a journalists’ resource organization. The CFIC web site, at http://www.campaignfinance.org, features news, databases, and search tools to help activists and reporters track the

158

How to Research Campaign and Electoral Reform

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

flow of campaign contributions and spending. It also offers (for a modest fee or by subscription) the FEC database for each election cycle, which includes information about candidates, committees, individual contributors, and contributions. The Campaign Finance Institute, at http://www.cfinst.org, is a nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute affiliated with George Washington University. It offers a variety of links to data relating to campaign expenditures and disclosures as well as the Campaign Finance Clearinghouse, a searchable database of research articles on campaign finance topics. The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank. It generally opposes regulations on campaign contributions or spending as violating freedom of speech and of association. Its page, at http://www.cato.org/campaignfinance, includes articles refuting proreform arguments and questioning the effectiveness of reform measures. The Center for Public Integrity, a group advocating for electoral and political reform, offers “The Buying of the President 2004: Document Warehouse” at http://www.bop2004.org/dtaweb/bop2004/default.aspx? Section=DOCWHSE. It is an ongoing compilation of information about campaign contributions, campaign committees, and disclosures for each of the major candidates for the 2004 presidential nominations. The “Checkbook Democracy” site, at http://www.prospect.org/checkbook, is sponsored by the Electronic Policy Network and The American Prospect magazine. It provides a variety of news and links, primarily from a conservative, anti–campaign reform perspective, although opposing points of view are also included. The “Money and Politics: Who Owns Democracy?” web site, at http:// www.network-democracy.org/map/bb/nif/contents.html, sponsored by Information Renaissance and National Issues Forums Research, provides links to a history of campaign finance law, the text of federal campaign legislation (not including the most recent 2002 law), and excerpts from Supreme Court decisions. The National Center for Public Policy Research has a resource page called “Campaign Reform Information Center: Links to Campaign Reform Resources Representing a Variety of Viewpoints” at http://www. nationalcenter.org/CampaignIndex.html. Although many topics are covered by the linked position papers, news articles, and press releases, the selection primarily reflects a conservative, antireform viewpoint. Opensecrets.org: Your Guide to the Money in U.S. Elections is a site sponsored by the Center for Responsive Politics, at http://www.opensecrets.org. The site provides overviews of members of Congress, presidential and

159

Campaign and Election Reform congressional races, and issues including campaign finance reform. There is also a section on special interests that discusses industries and interest groups, PACs, soft money, and lobbying. • The PoliticalMoneyLine web site, at http://www.tray.com/fecinfo, provides news and information culled from FEC databases relevant to current candidates, campaigns, contributors, and PACs. Database and tracking services are available for a fee. • Public Campaign is a group that promotes building a coalition to reform campaign finance and electoral politics. Its web site, at http://www. publiccampaign.org, includes online access to the organization’s many reports and summaries of recent developments. • The libertarian organization Real Campaign Reform, at http://www.realcampaignreform.org, opposes campaign finance regulation as an attack on free speech. It believes that true campaign reform would involve an overhaul of the electoral system to remove the structural barriers that prevent alternative parties from challenging the two-party system. The organization is raising money to fund a court challenge of the federal campaign finance laws. The site includes articles and essays. • Soft Money Laundromat is a web site sponsored by the venerable political reform group Common Cause at http://www.commoncause.org/ laundromat. It provides background material on soft money (including lists and profiles of top donors) and a searchable database of soft money contributions to both major parties. Contributors can be searched by donor name, location, and industry. • The Washington Post has an online section called “On Politics: The Issues/ Campaign Finance” at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/ specials/campaignfinance. It provides current news, features, and access links to many Washington Post editorials, columns, and news stories relating to campaign finance reform.

SITES

ON

RELATED TOPICS

The following sites provide useful introductory material on other topics covered in this book, including voting rights, minority voters, term limits, and alternative electoral systems such as proportional representation. • The newsletter Ballot Access News, edited by Richard Winger, is devoted primarily to attempts by minor parties and independent candidates to gain fair and equal access to the ballot and chronicles litigation and other efforts. The newsletter’s web site, at http://www.ballot-access.org,

160

How to Research Campaign and Electoral Reform

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

provides current and past issues of the newsletter as well as links to related sites. Electionreform.org, at http://www.electionreform.org/ERMain, is a web site run by a nonprofit reform group that provides news and links about the organization’s reform priorities: instant runoff voting, Internet voting, improved ballot access, increasing voter turnout, opening the presidential debate to more candidates, and promoting campaign finance reform. The Electronic Voting Page by Anne-Marie Oostveen, at http://www.swi. psy.uva.nl/usr/oostveen/evote.html, includes lists of popular and technical articles on electronic, online, and interactive voting systems. The National Civic League, whose web site is at http://www.ncl.org, is one of the nation’s oldest political reform organizations. Its wide-ranging agenda includes campaign finance reform, free media and public financing for candidates, and voting system reform. PR Library: Readings in Proportional Representation is a resource page offered by electoral systems expert and advocate Douglas Amy at http:// www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/prlib.htm. The site includes beginning and advanced readings, proportional representation–related web sites, articles, and a bibliography. The “Race-Conscious Remedies Resource Site” by Conrad Johnson and Kimberlé Crenshaw, at http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/bios/crenshaw/ racerem/index.html, provides background material, news, and resources relating to the use of race-conscious remedies in education, employment, housing, contracting, and voting rights—that last link being most relevant here. The authors say they are also trying to provide information about effective alternative ways to assure minority representation if current trends in the courts against race-conscious remedies (as in reapportionment) continue. A page on redistricting is provided by the National Conference of State Legislatures at http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/redist.htm. It includes legal resources and current litigation, statistical and other tools for redistricting plans, and various slide presentations. The Voting Rights page by the Center for Voting and Democracy, at http://www.fairvote.org/vra/index.html, provides extensive links to background resources on voting rights issues, including the Voting Rights Act of 1965, data on representation by race, ethnicity, and gender, and related issues, such as voting rights for ex-offenders, the relationship between voting rights and voting equipment, and advancing voting rights through alternative electoral systems.

161

Campaign and Election Reform • Voting Systems Factsheets are another offering by the Center for Voting and Democracy through links at http://www.fairvote.org/factshts/index. htm. The fact sheets cover a variety of voting systems and related issues, including variations of proportional representation, “choice voting,” and cumulative voting. • “Women and PR” is another resource page by the Center for Voting and Democracy, available at http://www.fairvote.org/women/index.html. It provides links to voting rights issues relating to women and the relationship between the use of proportional representation (PR) and increased representation for women.

MEDIA WEB SITES The major broadcast and cable networks, news (wire) services, most newspapers, and many magazines have web sites that include news stories and links to additional information. The public affairs cable network C-SPAN (http://www.cspan.org) has a good site with archived video of the congressional campaign finance reform debate, the 2000 Florida election and other events. Try searching this site under “campaign finance.” For breaking news, the following sites are also useful: • Associated Press (AP) wire (http://wire.ap.org/public_pages/WirePortal. pcgi/us_portal.html) • Cable News Network (CNN) (www.cnn.com) • New York Times (www.nytimes.com) • Reuters (www.reuters.com) • Time magazine (http://www.time.com) • Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/public/us) • Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com) Yahoo! maintains a large set of links to many newspapers that have web sites or online editions: http://dir.yahoo.com/News_and_Media/Newspapers/ Web_Directories.

FINDING MORE

ON THE

WORLD WIDE WEB

Although the resource sites mentioned earlier provide a convenient way to view a wide variety of information, it will eventually be necessary for the researcher to look for information or views elsewhere. The two main approaches to Web research are the portal and the search engine.

162

How to Research Campaign and Electoral Reform Web Portals A web guide or index is a site that offers a structured, hierarchical outline of subject areas. This enables the researcher to focus on a particular aspect of a subject and find links to web sites for further exploration. The links are constantly being compiled and updated by a staff of researchers. The best-known (and largest) web index is Yahoo! at www.yahoo.com. The home page gives the top-level list of topics, and the researcher simply clicks to follow them down to more specific areas. In addition to Yahoo!’s outline-like structure, there is also a search box into which the researcher can type one or more key words and receive a list of matching categories and sites. Web indexes such as Yahoo! have two major advantages over undirected surfing. First, the structured hierarchy of topics makes it easy to find a particular topic or subtopic and then explore its links. Second, Yahoo! does not make an attempt to compile every possible link on the Internet (a task that is virtually impossible, given, the size of the Web). Rather, sites are evaluated for usefulness and quality by Yahoo!’s indexers. This means that the researcher has a better chance of finding more substantial and accurate information. The disadvantage of web indexes is the flip side of their selectivity: the researcher is dependent on the indexer’s judgment for determining what sites are worth exploring. To find information on campaign and electoral reform issues via Yahoo!, the researcher should browse to Government, then Politics, followed by Elections. Numerous sites selected by the editors are available for browsing. Note that the “By Region” link can be used to find links to elections in specific countries, states or other areas. Some topics have further subtopics, as indicated by the topic name ending with an “@”.) The Mining Company’s About.com, at www.about.com, is rather similar to Yahoo! but gives a greater emphasis to overviews or guides prepared by “experts” in various topics. Although there is currently no featured guide relating to campaign or electoral reform, the site does a good job of creating a guide page “on the fly,” when a key word or phrase is entered in the search box. The About.com listing provides many more pages both within the About.com network itself and on the Web in general. Note that About.com generates special URLs that keep pages “tied” to the About.com site, so for bookmarking purposes it is probably a good idea when visiting the linked site to reload it under its own URL. Search Engines Search engines take a very different approach to finding materials on the web. Instead of organizing topically in a “top down” fashion, search engines

163

Campaign and Election Reform work their way “from the bottom up,” scanning through web documents and indexing them. There are hundreds of search engines, but some of the most widely used include: • • • • • • •

Alta Vista (www.altavista.com) Excite (www.excite.com) Google (www.google.com) Hotbot (www.hotbot.com) Lycos (www.lycos.com) Northern Light (www.northernlight.com/news.html) WebCrawler (www.WebCrawler.com)

(Note that many of these sites are indexed portals as well as search engines.) Search engines are generally easy to use by employing the same sorts of key words that work in library catalogs. There are a variety of Web search tutorials available online (try “web search tutorial” in a search engine to find some). One good one is published by Bright Planet (http://www.brightplanet.com/deepcontent/tutorials/search/index.asp). Here are a few basic rules for using search engines: • When looking for something specific, use the most specific term or phrase. For example, when looking for information about reapportionment, use that specific term. • Phrases should be put in quotation marks if you want them to be matched as phrases rather than as individual words. Examples might be “butterfly ballot” “soft money” and “campaign finance reform.” • When looking for a general topic that might be expressed using several different words or phrases, use several descriptive words (nouns are more reliable than verbs) such as campaign electoral reform. Most engines will automatically list pages that match all terms first on the results list. • Use “wild cards” (symbolized by an asterisk) when a desired word may have more than one ending. For example, ballot* matches both “ballot” and “ballots.” • Most search engines support Boolean (and, or, not) operators that can be used to broaden or narrow a search. Use AND to narrow a search. For example, ballot and access will match only pages that have both terms. Use OR to broaden a search: reapportionment or redistricting will match any page that has either term, and since these terms are often used interchangeably, this type of search is necessary to retrieve the widest

164

How to Research Campaign and Electoral Reform range of results. Use NOT to exclude unwanted results: reform not party finds articles about reform but not the Reform Party. Since each search engine index differs and each offers somewhat different ways of searching, it is a good idea to use several different search engines, especially for a general query. Several “metasearch” programs automate the process of submitting a query to multiple search engines. These include: • Metacrawler (www.metacrawler.com) • SurfWax (http://www.surfwax.com) (Note that metasearch engines tend to have two drawbacks: they may overwhelm you with results [and insufficiently screen out duplicates], and they often do not use some of the more popular search engines [such as Google or Northern Light].) There are also search utilities that can be downloaded and run from the researcher’s own computer, rather than through a web site. A good example is Copernic, at www.copernic.com. It can tap into dozens of search engines, then filter the results to remove duplicates and present the most likely “hits.” Searches can be stored and rerun periodically. Finding Organizations and People Chapter 8 of this book provides a list of organizations that are involved with research, advocacy, or opposition to campaign or electoral reform. New organizations will emerge now and then. A good place to look for information and links to organizations are on the resource sites and web portals mentioned earlier, such as the Campaign Finance Information Center and other resource sites. If the name of an unfamiliar organization is found while reading or browsing, the name can be entered in a search engine. Generally, the best approach is to put the name of the organization in quotation marks, such as “California Term Limits.” Another approach is to take a guess at the organization’s likely web address. For example, the American Civil Liberties Union is commonly known by the acronym ACLU, so it is not a surprise that the organization’s web site is at www.aclu.org. (Note that noncommercial organization sites normally use the .org suffix, government agencies use .gov, educational institutions use .edu and businesses use .com.) This technique can save time, but does not always work. In particular, watch out for “spoof ” sites that mimic or parody organizational sites. Such a site might, for example, have the same name as that of a government agency but end in .org instead of .gov. (Such sites, though, may be of interest as forms of criticism or dissent.)

165

Campaign and Election Reform When reading materials from an unfamiliar author, it will often be useful to find out more about that person’s affiliation, credentials, and other achievements. There are several ways to find a person on the Internet: • Put the person’s name (in quotation marks) in a search engine and possibly find that person’s home page on the Internet. • Contact the person’s employer (such as a university for an academic or a corporation for a technical professional). Some organizations have web pages that include a searchable faculty or employee directory. • Try one of the people-finder services such as Yahoo! People Search (http://people.yahoo.com) or BigFoot (www.bigfoot.com). This may yield contact information such as an e-mail address, postal address, and/or phone number.

PRINT SOURCES As useful as the web is for quickly finding information and the latest news, in-depth research still requires trips to the library or bookstore. Getting the most out of the library requires the use of bibliographic tools and resources. Bibliographic resources is a general term for catalogs, indexes, bibliographies, and other guides that identify the books, periodical articles, and other printed resources that deal with a particular subject. They are essential tools for the researches.

LIBRARY CATALOGS Most readers are probably familiar with the basics of using a library catalog but may not know that many catalogs besides that of one’s local library can be searched online. Access to the largest library catalog, that of the Library of Congress, is available at http://catalog.loc.gov. This page includes a guide to using the catalog and both basic and advanced catalog searches. Yahoo! offers a categorized listing of libraries at http://dir.yahoo.com/ Reference/Libraries. For materials available at one’s local public or university library, that institution will be the most convenient source. Most catalogs can be searched in at least one of the following ways: • An author search is most useful if you know or suspect a person has written a number of works of interest. However, it may fail if you do not know the person’s exact name (cross references are intended to deal with this problem, but cannot cover all possible variations).

166

How to Research Campaign and Electoral Reform • A title search is best if you know the exact title of the book and just want to know if the library has it. Generally you need only use the first few words of the title, excluding initial articles (a, an, the). This search will fail if you do not have the exact title. • A keyword search will match words found anywhere in the title. It is thus broader and more flexible than a title search, although it may still fail if all keywords are not present. • A subject search will find all works that have been assigned to that subject heading by the library. The big advantage is that it does not depend on certain words being in the title. Using a subject search requires knowledge of the appropriate subject headings (see below). Relevant Library of Congress subjects relating to campaign and electoral reform include: Advertising, political Campaign funds Campaign management Election districts Election forecasting Election law Elections—[United States, California, etc.] (can be used with further subdivisions such as statistics, history, bibliography, and public opinion) Governors—election Local elections Political participation Political parties Presidents—[United States, France, etc.]—election—[year] Primaries Public opinion—[geographic area]—statistics Referendum United States Congress—elections Voting—[geographic area]—statistics Once the record for a book or other item is found, it is a good idea to see what additional subject headings and name headings have been assigned. These in turn can be used for further searching.

MINING THE BOOKSTORE CATALOGS Many people have discovered that online bookstores such as Amazon.com (www.amazon.com) and Barnes & Noble (www.barnesandnoble.com) are 167

Campaign and Election Reform convenient ways to shop for books. A less-known benefit of online bookstore catalogs is that they often include publisher’s information, book reviews and reader’s comments about a given title. They can thus serve as a form of annotated bibliography. Note that many out-of-print or highly specialized materials may not be listed in such catalogs.

BIBLIOGRAPHIES, INDEXES,

AND

DATABASES

Bibliographies in various forms provide a convenient way to find books, periodical articles, and other materials. How far to go back in one’s reading depends on one’s research topic and goals. For campaign finance reform, there are two “watershed” dates that may mark logical boundaries for limiting bibliographic or article searches. One is the early 1970s, following the passage of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) in 1971. The other is the mid-to-late 1990s, when debate began on the McCain-Feingold bill, which was passed in 2002 as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Popular and scholarly articles in political science and related fields can be accessed through periodical indexes that provide citations and abstracts. Abstracts are brief summaries of articles or papers. They are usually compiled and indexed—originally in bound volumes, but increasingly available online. Some examples of printed indexes in which you might retrieve literature related to campaign and election reform include: • • • • • •

Index to Legal Periodicals and Books International Bibliography of the Social Sciences International Political Science Abstracts Social Sciences Citation Index Social Sciences Index Sociological Abstracts

Some of these indexes are available online (at least for recent years). Generally, however, you can access them only through a library where you hold a card, and some of these cannot be accessed over the Internet (unless you are on a college campus). Consult a university reference librarian for more help. There are two good indexes that have unrestricted search access. UnCover Web (http://www.ingenta.com) contains brief descriptions of about 13 million documents from about 27,000 journals in just about every subject area. Copies of complete documents can be ordered with a credit card, or they may be obtainable for free at a local library.

168

How to Research Campaign and Electoral Reform PERIODICAL INDEXES Most public libraries subscribe to database services such as InfoTrac and EBSCOhost that index articles from hundreds of general-interest periodicals (and some moderately specialized ones). The database can be searched by author or by words in the title, subject headings, and sometimes words found anywhere in the article text. Depending on the database used, “hits” in the database can result in just a bibliographical description (author, title, pages, periodical name, issue date), a description plus an abstract (a paragraph summarizing the contents of the article), or the full text of the article itself. Before using such an index, it is a good idea to view the list of newspapers and magazines covered and determine the years of coverage. Many libraries provide dial-in, Internet, or Telnet access to their periodical databases as an option in their catalog menu. However, licensing restriction usually mean that only researchers who have a library card for that particular library can access the database (by typing in their name and card number). Check with local public or school libraries to see what databases are available. For periodicals not indexed by InfoTrac or another index (or for which only abstracts rather than complete text are available), check to see whether the publication has its own web site (most now do). Some scholarly publications are putting all or most of their articles online. Popular publications tend to offer only a limited selection. Some publications of both types offer archives of several years’ back issues that can be searched by author or key word. Nearly all newspapers now have web sites with current news and features. Generally, the newspaper offers recent articles (perhaps from the last 30 days) for free online access. Earlier material can generally be found in an archive section. A citation and perhaps an abstract are generally free, but a fee of a few dollars may be charged for the complete article. Often one can buy a “pack” of articles at a discount as long as the articles are retrieved within a specified time. Back issues of newspapers and magazines may also be available in hard copy, bound, or microfilm form at local libraries.

LEGAL RESEARCH As with all complex and controversial topics, campaign and electoral reform have long been the subject of intense litigation in the courts, and with the passage of the 2002 legislation a new spate of legal battles is already under way. Although one can find news coverage of some important cases in the general media, many researchers will need to find specific court opinions or the text of existing or pending legislation.

169

Campaign and Election Reform Because of the specialized terminology of the law, legal research can be more difficult to master than bibliographical or general research tools. Fortunately, the Internet has also come to the rescue in this area, offering a variety of ways to look up laws and court cases without having to pore through huge bound volumes in law libraries (which may not be easily accessible to the general public, anyway).

FINDING LAWS The nuts and bolts of running elections are the prerogative of the states, but in recent years, voting rights and campaign finance issues have led to an increasing amount of federal legislation. Federal legislation is compiled into the massive U.S. Code. The U.S. Code can be searched online in several locations, but the easiest site to use is probably the Cornell Law School site at http://www4. law.cornell.edu/uscode. The fastest way to retrieve a law is by its title and section citation, but phrases and key words can also be used. Browsing the section titles on the site one can come to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. Links to its various sections are provided as follows: • Sec. 591.—Repealed. Pub. L. 96–187, title II, Sec. 201a1, Jan. 8, 1980, 93 Stat. 1367 • Sec. 592. Troops at polls • Sec. 593. Interference by armed forces • Sec. 594. Intimidation of voters • Sec. 595. Interference by administrative employees of Federal, State, or Territorial Governments • Sec. 596. Polling armed forces • Sec. 597. Expenditures to influence voting • Sec. 598. Coercion by means of relief appropriations • Sec. 599. Promise of appointment by candidate • Sec. 600. Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity • Sec. 601. Deprivation of employment or other benefit for political contribution • Sec. 602. Solicitation of political contributions • Sec. 603. Making political contributions • Sec. 604. Solicitation from persons on relief • Sec. 605. Disclosure of names of persons on relief

170

How to Research Campaign and Electoral Reform • • • •

Sec. 606. Intimidation to secure political contributions Sec. 607. Place of solicitation Sec. 608. Absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters Sec. 609. Use of military authority to influence vote of member of Armed Forces • Sec. 610. Coercion of political activity • Sec. 611. Voting by aliens The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 had not yet been incorporated into the U.S. Code at the time of writing.

KEEPING UP

WITH

LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENTS

Pending legislation is often tracked by advocacy groups, both national and those based in particular states. See chapter 8, “Organizations and Agencies,” for contact information. The Library of Congress Thomas web site, http://thomas.loc.gov, includes files summarizing legislation by the number of the Congress. Each two-year session of Congress has a consecutive number: for example, the 107th Congress was in session in 2001 and 2002. Legislation can be searched for by the name of its sponsor(s), the bill number, or by topical key words. Laws that have been passed can be looked up under their Public Law number. For example, selecting the 107th Congress and typing in the phrase “campaign finance” into the search box at the time of writing retrieved a list that began as follows: 1. H.RES.344: Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2356) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide bipartisan campaign reform. Sponsor: Rep Reynolds, Thomas M. [NY-27] Committees: House Rules Latest Major Action: 2/12/2002 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by voice vote. 2. H.R.380: To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to reform the financing of campaigns for elections for Federal office, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4] Committees: House House Administration; House Education and the Workforce; House Government Reform; House Judiciary; House Ways and Means; House Rules

171

Campaign and Election Reform Latest Major Action: 3/15/2001 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations. Note: For further action, see H.R. 2356, which became Public Law 107-155 on 3/27/2002. Further details are available with a click on the bill number, including sponsors, committee action, and amendments. Note that once one learns that the Shays bill became Public Law 107-155, one can also look up its text under that designation.

FINDING COURT DECISIONS Legislation is only part of the story. The Supreme Court and state courts make important decisions every year that determine how the laws are interpreted. Like laws, legal decisions are organized using a system of citations. The general form is: Party1 v. Party2 volume reporter [optional start page] (court, year). For example, for the citation Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 340 (1960), the parties are Gomillion and Lightfoot (the first listed is the plaintiff or appellant, the second the defendant). The case is in volume 364 of the U.S. Supreme Court Reports, beginning at page 340, and the case was decided in 1960. (For the U.S. Supreme Court, the name of the court is omitted.) An example of a more complicated citation is Day v. Holahan, 34 F.3d 1356 (8th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1127 (1995). Here the case ended up in the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which decided it in 1994. Cert. denied means that the Supreme Court made a ruling denying it certiori, or a full hearing before the Court; that ruling can be found at the citation following. A state court decision can generally be identified because it includes the state’s name. For example, in State v. Torrance, 473 S.E.2d. 703, S.C. 1996, “S.E.” refers to the appeals district, and “S.C.” to South Carolina. Once the jurisdiction for the case has been determined, the researcher can then go to a number of web sites to find cases by citation and sometimes by the names of the parties or by subject key words. Some of the most useful sites are: • The Legal Information Institute (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct) has all Supreme Court decisions since 1990, plus 610 of “the most important historic” decisions. • Washlaw Web (www.washlaw.edu) has a variety of courts (including states) and legal topics listed, making it a good jumping-off place for

172

How to Research Campaign and Electoral Reform many sorts of legal research. The actual accessibility of state court opinions (and the formats they are provided in) varies widely.

LEXISNEXIS

AND

WESTLAW

LexisNexis and Westlaw are commercial legal databases that have extensive information including an elaborate system of notes, legal subject headings, and ways to show relationships between cases. Unfortunately, these services are too expensive for use by most individual researchers unless they are available through a university or corporate library.

MORE HELP

ON

LEGAL RESEARCH

For more information on conducting legal research, see the “Legal Research FAQ” at http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypertext/faq/usenet/law/ research/top.html. After a certain point, a researcher who lacks formal legal training may need to consult with or rely on the efforts of professional researchers or academics in the field.

A WORD OF CAUTION Thanks to the Web, there is more information from more sources available than ever before. There is also a greater diversity of voices, since any person or group with a computer and Internet service can put up a web site—in some cases a site may look as polished and professional as that of an established group. One benefit of this is that dissenting views can be found in abundance. However the other side of the coin is that the researcher—whether journalist, analyst, teacher, or student—must take extra care to verify facts and to understand the possible biases of each source. Some good questions to ask include: • • • • • •

Who is responsible for this web site? What is the background or reputation of the person or group? Does the person or group have a stated objective or agenda? What biases might this person or group have? Do a number of high-quality sites link to this one? What are the sources given for a particular fact? Do those sources actually say what is quoted? Where did they get that information?

In a sense, in the age of the Internet each person must be his or her own journalist, verifying sources to the extent they are to be relied upon.

173

CHAPTER 7

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY This chapter presents a representative selection of books, articles, and Internet documents and sources relating to the issues of campaign finance reform and electoral reform. Materials have been selected to be accessible, substantial and diverse in viewpoint. The bibliography is divided into three broad categories that are further divided into subtopics as follows: Reference and Background General Reference Elections and the Electorate Campaign Finance Reform The Influence of Money on Politics General Debate on Campaign Finance Reform Legislation and Its Consequences Legal Issues Relating to Campaign Finance Reform Electoral Reform Voting Rights, Minorities, and Redistricting Term Limits Voting Procedures and Problems Alternative Electoral Systems Within each topic the listings are divided according to format (books, articles, and Internet resources) as appropriate. Note that although all web addresses (URLs) have been checked, web pages are often moved or removed. If an address is not found, a key word search using a search engine is recommended Articles from newspapers and magazines can often be found online even when a specific online source is not given. Check the publication’s web site for an archive or try searching an online article database. See chapter 6 for more information about Internet research and resources.

174

Annotated Bibliography

REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND General Reference This section includes general reference works on U.S. electoral politics (and a few international comparative sources). These works can provide useful background material both for campaign finance and for electoral reform.

BOOKS America Votes: A Handbook of Contemporary Election Statistics. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. Published every two years to cover the preceding federal election. Volume 23 (1999) covers the 1998 election, while volume 24 (2001) covers the 2000 vote. Covers the full official returns for elections for governors, senators, and representatives, including county-level statistics and won/lost percentages. Archer, J. Clark, et al. Atlas of American Politics, 1960–2000. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2001. This profusely illustrated atlas has many maps and charts that make it easy to grasp the geographical and demographic factors relating to governance and the electoral process. Barone, Michael, Richard E. Cohen, and Charles E. Cook. Almanac of American Politics 2002. Washington, D.C.: National Journal Group, 2001. This annual publication includes detailed profiles of each member of Congress and each congressional district, including historical and demographic information and notes on redistricting. There is also detailed analysis of the preceding election (the 2000 election in this case) and “handicapping” for the upcoming election. Binning, William C., Larry E. Esterly, and Paul A. Scracic. Encyclopedia of American Parties, Campaigns, and Elections. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1999. This A–Z encyclopedia includes important personages, events, and terms relating to U.S. politics and the electoral system. The book includes a bibliography. Bott, Alexander. Handbook of United States Election Laws and Practices: Political Rights. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Publishing, 1990. This well-organized handbook divides electoral law into 10 chapters. It starts with chapters on the right to vote, the right to be a candidate, getting access to the ballot, the right to fair representation (one person, one vote), and the rights of political expression and association. Subsequent chapters cover specific topics including the Voting Rights Act of 1965, initiative, referendum, and recall (at the state level), freedom of information, and the political roles of lobbyists and public employees. There is also an extensive bibliography. Readers should supplement this volume with books and articles covering important election cases during and since the 1990s.

175

Campaign and Election Reform Cook, Rhodes, Richard M. Scammon, and Alice V. McGillivray. America at the Polls, 1920–2000: A Handbook of Presidential Election Statistics. 2 vols. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2001. A vast compilation of statistics relating to presidential elections, including vote breakdowns, demographics, and turnout. Garvin, Peggy, ed. Government Information on the Internet. 5th ed. Lanham, Md.: Bernan Press, 2002. An extensive guide and compilation of online information from federal, state, local, and foreign governments. Much of this information is potentially relevant to researching campaign finances and electoral issues, including data from the Federal Election Commission and state election agencies. Hill, Kathleen Thompson, and Gerald N. Hill. The Facts On File Dictionary of American Politics. New York: Checkmark Books, 2001. Contains definitions of terminology and historical events involving every aspect of U.S. politics, including ideology, the legislative process and election campaigns. Appendices include summaries of presidential elections and brief biographies of political figures. Israel, Fred L. Student’s Atlas of American Presidential Elections, 1789–1996. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1997. An accessible introduction to and overview of U.S. presidential elections. The social and economic context of each election is given, placing it in the context of broader U.S. history. The issues, campaign tactics, outcome, and significance of each race are then summarized. Lowenstein, Daniel Hays, and Richard L. Hasen. Election Law: Cases and Materials. 2d ed. Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic Press, 2001. A voluminous, well-organized textbook covering every aspect of election law, including the right to vote and its exercise, election administration (Bush v. Gore), voting and representation, legislative districting, minority vote dilution, racial gerrymandering, ballot propositions, major political parties, third parties and independent candidates, campaigns, incumbency, bribery, and every significant aspect of campaign finance regulation. Martin, Fenton S. American Government and Politics: A Guide to Books for Teachers, Librarians, and Students. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1997. An annotated bibliographic guide to books on a wide range of political topics, including political participation, interest groups, political parties, elections, campaigns, voting, and campaign finances. Martin, Fenton S., and Robert U. Goehlert. CQ’s Resource Guide to Modern Elections: An Annotated Bibliography, 1960–1996. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1999. This annotated bibliography is organized by topic, including nomination and selection of presidents, primaries, conventions, campaigning, candidates, presidential debates, campaign finance, media coverage, political parties, electoral system, redistricting and reapportionment, and voting participation.

176

Annotated Bibliography ———. How to Research Elections. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2000. A complete guide for students and other researchers, listing print and Web information on every aspect of elections, including campaign organizations, independent and research groups, campaign finance, and polling. The book includes an extensive annotated bibliography. Moore, John L. Elections A to Z. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2000. A onevolume topical guide to the elements of electoral politics and issues such as term limits, reapportionment, and campaign finance. Moore, John L., Jon P. Preimesberger, and David R. Tarr. Congressional Quarterly’s Guide to U.S. Elections. 4th ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2001. This comprehensive two-volume guide includes a historical overview of the development of U.S. elections and political parties, then delves into presidential and congressional elections in detail, including primaries. There are also sections on gubernatorial elections and reapportionment, maps, statistics, and informative sidebars. Rose, Richard, ed. International Encyclopedia of Elections. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2000. An A to Z encyclopedia with more than 150 articles from 70 international contributors on every aspect of elections and election research. Drawing on electoral systems throughout the world, this reference provides a broader perspective for researchers who normally focus only on U.S. elections. Sharp, J. Michael. Directory of Congressional Voting Scores and Interest Group Ratings. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2000. Analyzing the influence of money on politics often requires correlating a legislator’s political orientation with that of contributors. For each member of Congress, this directory gives the voting record and ratings from many different interest groups. Utter, Glenn H., and Ruth Ann Strickland. Campaign and Election Reform: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO, 1997. This reference includes an introduction, chronology, biographical sketches, survey data and quotations, directory of organizations and agencies, annotated print and nonprint bibliographies, and glossary. There is good coverage of historical works up to the early to mid-1990s.

WEB DOCUMENTS “Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, 1774–present.” U.S. Congress. Available online. URL: http://bioguide.congress.gov/ biosearch/biosearch.asp. Downloaded on February 4, 2003. Allows for search by name, position (e.g., representative, senator) and state and returns with a brief biography of each member of Congress. Howard, Margaret. “Campaign Finance Reform . . . or Not?” University of Michigan Documents Center. Available online. URL: http://www.lib. umich.edu/govdocs/campfin.html#books. Downloaded on February 4,

177

Campaign and Election Reform 2003. A bibliography and resource guide provided for University of Michigan professor Howard’s class on American political parties. The site includes books, articles, subject headings and search strategies, indexes and databases, periodicals and links to media organizations, research and reform groups, interest groups, statistics, and much more. Mott, Jonathan. “Online American Government and Politics Textbook,” ThisNation.com. Available online. URL: http://www.thisnation.com/ textbook.html. Downloaded on March 13, 2003. This online textbook provides an introductory overview of the fundamental elements and processes of American government, including “foundational” discussions of the U.S. Constitution, civil rights, federalism, and explanations of political processes, including voting and elections. The resource links and a sample chapter are available online; the rest of the text is available for download purchase at nominal cost. “National Election Studies.” National Election Studies Project. Available online. URL: http://www.umich.edu/~nes/overview.htm. Downloaded on February 4, 2003. This research organization conducts in-depth surveys of the electorate, including datasets (suitable for analysis with statistical software) and a bibliography of more than 3,000 publications that use the group’s data. “Voting and Registration Data.” U.S. Census Bureau. Available online. URL: http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voting.html. Updated on December 31, 2002. Provides demographic and socioeconomic (but not party affiliation) statistics for registered voters, both current and projected into the future. Includes downloadable tables or spreadsheets.

Elections and the Electorate The works in this section provide historical background on U.S. elections, political parties, campaigns, the nature and behavior of the electorate, voter participation and other matters relevant to campaign and electoral reform. The historical span is from the early American republic to the presidential election of 2000. (Note that discussion focusing on legal issues of the 2000 election and Bush v. Gore will be found in the section “Voting Rights and Redistricting” while discussion of problems with vote counting in the 2000 election will be found under “Voting Procedures and Problems.”)

BOOKS Abrams, Elliot. Democracy: How Direct? Views from the Founding Era and the Polling Era. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002. Explores views

178

Annotated Bibliography on direct versus representative democracy from the framers of the Constitution, Lincoln, the late 19th century, and the modern era when much political decision making seems to be poll driven. Direct democracy in the form of the state and local ballot referendum is also discussed. Bailey, Michael A., et al. Campaigns and Elections: Contemporary Case Studies. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1999. A varied collection of 19 election campaign case studies drawn from Campaigns and Elections magazine. Includes an overview of the campaign process and recent trends. Each case is illustrated with news clips and excerpts from campaign ads and printed literature. Working through this material gives a good feel for the factors that determine success in modern politics. Browning, Graeme. Electronic Democracy: Using the Internet to Transform American Politics. 2d ed. Medford, N.J.: CyberAge Books, 2002. This wide-ranging handbook covers both the use of the World Wide Web from grassroots activism and campaigning to the use of online polls and the possibility that elections themselves might be conducted online. Actual examples from recent election campaigns are used to show how online activity made a difference. Conway, M. Margaret. Political Participation in the United States. 3d ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1999. Analyzes forms of participation in politics (ranging from voting to helping campaign to running for office) the reasons why people choose to participate, and people’s political expectations and goals. There is also discussion on how people are mobilized to participate and the relationship between participation, level of education, and social connectedness. Conway, M. Margaret, Gertrude A. Steuernagel, and David W. Ahern. Women and Political Participation: Cultural Change in the Political Arena. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1997. The authors trace the development and growth of women’s participation in U.S. politics, tying it to broader changes in culture and gender roles. The relationship among gender identity, political issues, and partisan affiliation is also explored. Several chapters examine how women participate in the political elite, including the executive, legislative, and judicial functions. Cook, Rhodes. How Congress Gets Elected. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1999. Explains the process by which members of Congress are elected and how campaigning has changed through U.S. history. Current trends in demographics, partisan strategy, campaign financing, and reapportionment are also explored. Davis, James. Leadership Selection in Six Western Democracies. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1998. A comparative study of the process of nominating or choosing political leaders in six modern democracies—the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Germany, France, and Australia.

179

Campaign and Election Reform Dinkin, Robert J. Campaigning in America: A History of Election Practices. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1989. A comprehensive and detailed account of campaign and election practices in America since the mid18th century. Dinkin shows that the crafting and targeting of campaign messages (and the role of the press) were important factors long before the television age. Modern trends, such as the movement from partycentered campaigns to candidate-centered campaigns and the explosion in fund-raising and campaign spending, are also covered. This book and the author’s Election Day complement each other well. ———. Election Day: A Documentary History. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 2002. A vivid account of changing election and campaign practices from colonial times to today. Many excerpts from original documents and accounts are included to provide perspectives of voters, candidates, election officials, and the many people (including African Americans and women) who were excluded from voting for much of the lifetime of the American republic. ———. Voting in Revolutionary America: A Study of Elections in the Original Thirteen States, 1776–1789. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1982. Describes many aspects of elections in the formative period of American democracy, including the electorate, voter behavior, election procedures and regulations, and trends. The book includes charts, tables, and a bibliography. Doppelt, Jack C., and Ellen Shearer. Nonvoters: America’s No-Shows. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 2000. Political scientists have spent considerable time trying to identify the factors that seem to be leading to an increasing number of voters saying “no thanks” at election time. This book offers some possible explanations, but its particular virtue is that it lets dozens of nonvoters or reluctant voters speak in their own words about why they stay away from the polls and what it would take to bring them back into the political process. The influence of money in politics, often cited as a reason for nonvoting by campaign reformers, seems to play a relatively small part in their decision. Fife, Brian L., and Geralyn M. Miller. Political Culture and Voting Systems in the United States: An Examination of the 2000 Presidential Election. Westport, Conn.: Praeger Publishers, 2002. Based on their study of the 2000 election, the authors suggest that the voting systems (including type of ballot, voting machinery, and procedures) have a surprising impact on how elections are perceived and on voters’ attitudes and participation. Flanighan, William H., and Nancy H. Zingale. Political Behavior of the American Electorate. 10th ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2000. In the latest edition, analyzing National Election Service (NES) data from the 2000 election, the authors systematically explore the factors influencing voter

180

Annotated Bibliography behavior, including economic and social characteristics. Partisans and independents are compared and contrasted, and there is expanded coverage of third parties and primary races. Green, John C., and Paul S. Herrnson, ed. Responsible Partisanship?: The Evolution of American Political Parties Since 1950. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2002. An up-to-date evaluation of the practices of the two major U.S. political parties and of the laws governing them. Contributors also discuss the effects of campaign finance regulation and practice on the importance and role of the parties in presidential and congressional elections, as well as the relationship between the parties and voters. Overall, the parties remain strong and important, but often appear to act in irresponsible and troubling ways. Green, John C., and Rick Farmer. The State of the Parties: The Changing Role of Contemporary American Parties. 4th ed. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003. A comprehensive, updated look at the operation of U.S. political parties, major and minor, highlighting trends. The book includes discussion of the courts’ involvement in sorting out conflicts between parties’ right of association and control of their nominating process and state regulations. Haskell, John. Direct Democracy or Representative Government? Dispelling the Populist Myth. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 2000. The author argues that while modern media and other technology make direct democracy more possible than ever, it is often a bad idea. He uses social choice theory to suggest that direct democracy (such as through the referendum or indirectly through poll-driven politics) is unstable and lacks the deliberative nature of representative democracy. Herrnson, Paul S. Congressional Elections: Campaigning at Home and in Washington. 3d ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2000. This in-depth analysis of the 1998 congressional elections emphasizes the fact that a modern candidate has to wage two separate campaigns—not just reaching out to voters, but campaigning in Washington for the support of party committees, PACs, and other major contributors. The realities of modern campaigning in turn have a profound effect on how Congress is comprised and how it functions. Presenting case studies from 60 different campaigns, this analysis provides a concrete perspective for understanding how “soft money” is used and how various proposed campaign reforms might change the situation. ———. Playing Hardball: Campaigning for the U.S. Congress. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 2001. The author, a prolific scholar on congressional and electoral issues, discusses important topics that have arisen out of recent congressional elections. These include how better challengers to incumbents might be found, characterization of the major individual contributors to campaigns, the use and effects of negative campaigning, and the overall quality of the electoral process.

181

Campaign and Election Reform Herrnson, Paul S., and John C. Green. Multiparty Politics in America: Prospects and Performance. 2d ed. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002. An important aspect of electoral reform is its affect on third or alternative parties. This collection of essays by political scientists and third-party activists evaluates the generally disappointing performance of the Reform, Green, and Libertarian Party campaigns in recent years and discusses possible reforms that might make third parties more viable in the future. Jacobson, Gary C. The Politics of Congressional Elections. 5th ed. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 2000. A systematic discussion of issues and factors determining the success of congressional candidates. The book begins with a discussion of the constitutional and legal framework for elections and districting and then discusses the advantages of incumbency and the importance of money. The various elements of a congressional campaign are then covered, including the types of fund-raising and committees, campaign strategy, types of messages, and use of the media. The discussion then moves on to an analysis of types of voters and their behavior, parties and the relationship between congressional and presidential candidacies, the effects of elections on the composition of Congress, and trends in the 1990s and the future. Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. Everything You Think You Know About Politics . . . and Why You’re Wrong. New York: Basic Books, 2001. Political expert Jamieson is dean of the Annenberg School for Communication and Director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. Using clear and interesting prose, she draws upon the latest studies by political scientists to show how many of the common assumptions held by political pundits and the media are wrong. For example, the extent and effect of so-called negative advertising is much less than most people suppose. The complex relationship between advertising, news coverage, and voter response is explored in depth. A wealth of easily digested surveys and statistics is included. Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, and Karlyn Kohrs Campbell. The Interplay of Influence: News, Advertising, Politics, and the Mass Media. 5th ed. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 2000. Because so much of the money gathered for political campaigns goes to buy media access, understanding how the media works and the extent to which it influences voters (and in turn can be influenced) is vital for those considering campaign reforms. This book includes numerous anecdotes, case studies, and statistics. Topics include the nature and process of news, media ratings and revenues, advertising, how to influence the media, the difference between political and product campaigns, and the role of news and advertising in political campaigns. Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, and Paul Waldman, eds. Electing the President, 2000: The Insiders’ View. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,

182

Annotated Bibliography 2001. Includes “inside” accounts of the 2000 election from many of the chief strategists on both sides. The difference between how voters see a campaign and how the insiders view it can be startling, and seeing how campaigns use the money they have gathered can be disquieting. Keefe, William J. Parties, Politics, and Public Policy in America. 8th ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1997. Surveys the factors affecting the status and role of the major U.S. political parties today, which the author believes have become decentralized and less visible, but still of great importance. Many factors influencing the parties are explored, including outside groups (PACs) and soft money that have turned the attention of candidates away from their party, and changing voter attitudes toward party affiliation. The author concludes with an exploration of the “doctrine of responsible parties” and possible reforms to make parties act more responsibly. Leduc, Lawrence, Richard G. Niemi, and Pippa Norris, eds. Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1996. A collection of comparative studies of democracies, including the United States, Europe and emerging democracies in Latin America. These various political systems are compared with regard to electoral and campaign finance laws, campaign practices, the role of the media, and voter attitudes. Leduc, Lawrence, et al., eds. Comparing Democracies 2: New Challenges in the Study of Democracies and Voting. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 2002. This new edition of essays on comparative democracy updates issues discussed in the first volume and adds many new topics including the role of grassroots movements and direct democracy. Niemi, Richard G., and Herbert F. Weisberg, eds. Controversies in Voting Behavior. 4th ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2001. A collection of 16 essays newly selected for this edition. The essays are organized around six major issues: Why is voter turnout low and apparently declining? What are the consequences of the public’s lack of good political information? What really determines the outcome of an election? Do voters want a divided government and vote accordingly? What determines voters’ willingness to identify with a political party? Is the role of the party system changing? Each of these issues has an impact on the need for and results of various campaign reforms. Patterson, Thomas E. The Vanishing Voter: Public Involvement in an Age of Uncertainty. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2002. The author presents the findings of the Vanishing Voter Project of Harvard University’s Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy. A significant factor in electoral malaise is the media’s structural bias toward producing negative campaign coverage; another is the ever-earlier presidential primaries, which lead to the nomination becoming a foregone conclusion

183

Campaign and Election Reform before many of the nation’s voters have their say. A number of modest, pragmatic reforms are offered, such as shortening the length of the campaign, increasing coverage of candidates’ own words (as in debates), and making Election Day a national holiday to encourage voter turnout. Piven, Frances Fox. Why Americans Still Don’t Vote: And Why Politicians Want It That Way. Revised ed. Boston: Beacon Press, 2000. Piven, a noted voting rights activist (together with Richard A. Clowder) won passage of the “Motor Voter” registration act in 1993, in part because the first edition of this book showed the connection between cumbersome voter registration laws and poor election turnout. The revised edition suggests that the problem now is no longer access to the polls but the lack of meaningful outreach to new voters by the two major parties. Pomper, Gerald M., ed. The Election of 2000: Reports and Interpretations. New York: Chatham House, 2001. Seventh in a series of volumes on the presidential elections since 1976, this collection of articles by journalists and scholars looks at many aspects of the strangest presidential campaign in modern memory. Aspects discussed include the nomination process, public opinion at various stages of the campaign, the role of the media, and campaign financing. Reynolds, David. Democracy Unbound: Progressive Challenges to the Two-Party System. Boston: South End Press, 1997. Discusses the broad movement to grassroots alternative politics that underlay the abortive Ross Perot candidacy and the longer-term efforts of the Green Party and nontraditional independent candidates such as Jesse Ventura, who won the Minnesota governorship as the Reform Party candidate in 1998 and later became an independent candidate. Rosenstone, Steven J., Roy L. Behr, and Edward H. Lazarus. Third Parties in America. 2d ed. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996. A classic, authoritative source on the history of third-party movements. The authors focus on the relationship between failures by the major parties and the rise of third parties that in turn make the major parties more responsive to voters’ concerns. Rusk, Jerrold G. A Statistical History of the American Electorate. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 2001. The author draws upon a huge supply of data and accounts to bring out the larger patterns emerging from U.S. electoral history. Topics include election laws and suffrage, voting participation, voting in specific types of elections (presidential, House, Senate, and gubernatorial), and measures of voting behavior. Schantz, Harvey L., ed. American Presidential Elections: Process, Policy, and Political Change. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996. Five political scientists provide a comprehensive social context for presidential elections and describe patterns and trends. Social and economic changes

184

Annotated Bibliography are reflected in changes in the electoral process, and outcomes of elections influence the development of social policy. Scheele, Paul E., ed. We Get What We Vote for . . . or Do We? The Impact of Elections on Governing. Westport, Conn.: Praeger Publishers, 1999. A diverse collection of essays on many election-related topics, including campaign advertising, the media, treatment of minorities and women in coverage, voter attitudes and expectations, and campaign finance. The concluding essays explore possible reforms from the pragmatic to the more radical. Schmidt, David D. Citizen Lawmakers: The Ballot Initiative Revolution. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1989. Describes the origin and development of the ballot initiative process that in many states allows citizens to petition to put a proposition on the ballot, in effect legislating through direct democracy. The mechanics of the process are explained, as well as arguments from critics who feel that the initiative can lead to imprudent policy-making that can be hard to reverse. Sifry, Micah L. Spoiling for a Fight: Third-Party Politics in America. New York: Routledge, 2002. A journalist and former editor at The Nation who has covered unorthodox political campaigns for many years asserts that despite the many obstacles thrown in the path of third-party and independent candidates, alternative movements such as the Green Party are making real inroads. Writing mainly from a leftist perspective, Sifry suggests that activists understand why the Perot effort failed, learn from the attacks on Nader by the Democratic Party, and work to build alternative parties that can succeed in local elections and build toward national scope. West, Darrel M. Air Wars. 3d ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2001. Describes the evolution of political media advertising since 1952, with particular emphasis on the 2000 election. Because of the extent to which modern campaigns invest in media, this is useful background for students of campaign finance reform. Wilson, Graham. Business and Politics: A Comparative Introduction. 3d ed. New York: Chatham House, 2003. This updated textbook provides a useful international perspective on the relationships among business, government, and the political process, focusing on the United States, the major European countries, and Japan. This relationship is undergoing significant change because of the impact of economic globalization.

ARTICLES Baron, Michael. “The 49 Percent Nation.” National Journal, vol. 33, June 9, 2001, p. 1,710. A study of demographics and voting behavior in the 1996 and 2000 elections suggests that the two major parties have battled to a condition of stasis such that future presidential elections (and the balance

185

Campaign and Election Reform in Congress) are likely to be decided by 1 percent or 2 percent of the votes. At the same time, the “Bush Nation” and the “Gore Nation” have very different views on issues, with the more rural Bush areas having a faster population growth rate that seems to be more than offsetting the Democratic advantage in urban areas being fed by immigration. Orndoff, Keith. “Assessing American Diversity.” The Futurist, vol. 37, Jan.–Feb. 2003, p. 22ff. The author suggests that emphasis on racial and ethnic diversity and shifting demographics may be obscuring the fact that many parts of the country are changing slowly, if at all. For example, while California is expected to see a drop in non-Hispanic white population from 48 percent to 34 percent between 2000 and 2025, the proportion of whites in Maine is expected to drop only from 98 percent to 97 percent over the same time. Because the Democrats tend to win the populous, racially diverse states, they are likely to win the popular vote in future elections, but the Republican hold on the less diverse states may still ensure them an Electoral College victory. This in turn may make increasing numbers of voters feel disenfranchised. Divisions based on factors such as religion and age may also be accentuated. Peck, Don. “The Shrinking Electorate: Is the Much Lamented Decline in U.S. Voter Turnout a Sign of Civic III Health? Not Necessarily.” The Atlantic Monthly, vol. 290, November 2002, p. 48ff. It is a commonplace assertion that low voter turnouts threaten the health of democracy. The author gives some evidence to refute this view. The National Election Studies (NES) surveys repeatedly have shown that voters have much the same preferences as nonvoters, so election outcomes still reflect the preferences of the population as a whole. Although low turnout may have long term negative effects, there is evidently no “crisis.” Schaffner, Brian F., and Matthew J. Streb. “The Partisan Heuristic in LowInformation Elections.” Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 66, Winter 2002, p. 559ff. The authors stress the importance of party “cues” in assessing and predicting voter behavior. In partisan races in which there is little visible campaigning (or in races for nonpartisan administrative offices) poll respondents have little information about the candidates and their responses are likely to be uninformative and not predictive. However, if the poll question identifies candidates’ party affiliations, the respondent will pick up that cue and give a much more accurate “prediction” of his or her vote. Skaggs, David E., and Adam Anthony. “Winning with Young Voters: How to Reach—and Motivate—30 Million Missing Voters under 30.” Campaigns & Elections, vol. 23, August 2002, p. 22ff. The authors describe the methodology used by the Campaign for Young Voters (CYV) to get out the youth vote. Most campaigns need to concentrate on likely or potential young voters, not unlikely ones. Contrary to stereotype, young people rely upon issues

186

Annotated Bibliography and track record in assessing candidates, not appearance or style. However, young voters pay less attention to party affiliation: They are like independent older voters. They want to see candidates pay attention to them and will often respond to such attention with commitment. Practical suggestions are given for meeting with and winning over younger voters.

WEB DOCUMENTS Gastil, John. “Election Day Computer Simulation Game.” University of Washington. Available online. URL: http://staff.washington.edu/ election. Posted on July 17, 2000. This free software, which can be downloaded from the web site and run on the user’s computer, is designed to teach students how the electoral process works. Students play the part of candidates or campaign managers and set budgets, plan campaign activities, analyze polls, and respond to various events. The site also explains the project and philosophy behind the game. Leip, David. “Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections.” Available online. URL: http://uselectionatlas.org. Downloaded on March 13, 2003. This site provides tabular results and electoral vote map depictions for every primary and general U.S. presidential election. “U.S. Electoral College,” Office of the Federal Register, U.S. National Archives & Records Administration. Available online. URL: http://www. archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/electoral_college.html. Downloaded on March 13, 2003. The Federal Register is involved with documenting the operation of the Electoral College for the Archivist of the United States. This site contains official explanations of the legal basis, structure, and procedures of the Electoral College as well as the electoral results of all presidential elections.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM The Influence of Money on Politics This section deals with the use and impact of money in politics and with public response to the issue of campaign finance reform.

BOOKS Biersack, Robert, Clyde Wilcox, and Paul S. Herrnson, ed. After the Revolution: PACs, Lobbies, and the Republican Congress. Boston: Allyn and Bacon,

187

Campaign and Election Reform 1999. In 1994 the so-called Republican Revolution gave the GOP control of Congress and brought a new generation of representatives to Capitol Hill. This collection of essays explores how lobbyists (particularly from big business and labor) courted these new representatives and sought to achieve their political objectives while taking advantage of loopholes in the complicated federal campaign finance legislation. ———. Risky Business? PAC Decisionmaking in Congressional Elections. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe, 1994. The activities of 19 PACs (political action committees) in the 1992 congressional election are studied in detail by 18 scholars. The emphasis is on the decisions made by the PACs at each stage of the campaign. Birnbaum, Jeffrey H. The Money Men: The Real Story of Fund-Raising’s Influence on Political Power in America. New York: Crown, 2000. An investigative journalist offers a behind-the-scenes look at the people who raise money for political candidates. The activities of contributors and lobbyists seldom involve a simple quid pro quo but more resemble the complicated mating dance of some insects. Obtaining access and cultivating long-term contacts is often more important than seeking particular favors. Particularly effective groups such as the AARP and EMILY’s List are profiled. Brown, Clifford W., Jr., Lynda W. Powell, and Clyde Wilcox. Serious Money: Fundraising and Contributing in Presidential Nomination Campaigns. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995. While much attention to campaign finance focuses on the general election campaign, this book looks at fund-raising in connection with the primary campaign. With primaries being increasingly “front-loaded” (held earlier in the year), successful presidential candidates must raise large amounts of money quickly if they are to be perceived as viable candidates. This book is also unusual in that it focuses on individual rather than group contributions and how the all-important “seed money” must be raised from growing numbers of individual contributors because of the $1,000 limit on individual contributions. Center for Responsive Politics. The Big Picture: The Money Behind the 2000 Elections. Washington, D.C.: Center for Responsive Politics, 2001. A comprehensive report on the funding of the 2000 federal elections, drawing upon FEC data and the center’s own extensive research. ———. Follow the Money Handbook. Washington, D.C.: Center for Responsive Politics, 1997. A guide for computer-based journalists and other researchers investigating and tracing the contributions and spending of candidates, party and independent committees, and other groups. The focus is on assembling a standardized database that can be shared with other journalists or reformers. An abbreviated version is available online at URL: http://www.opensecrets.org/pubs/index.asp (under “Money in Politics”). Clawson, Dan, Alan Neustadtl, and Mark Weller. Dollars and Votes: How Business Campaign Contributions Subvert Democracy. Philadelphia: Temple

188

Annotated Bibliography University Press, 1998. The authors extensively interviewed corporate “government relations specialists” to see how they related to legislators and what they expected from them. Corporations work to develop “access” to legislators and then use the relationships they have cultivated to promote special interest legislation (of which many examples are given). CQ’s Federal PACs Directory, 1998–1999. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1999. Lists the top 2,000 political action committees (PACs), including contact information. The directory also profiles the major interest groups represented by PACs, analyzes PAC spending to identify ideological interests, and lists the top recipients of PAC donations. Greider, William. Who Will Tell the People: The Betrayal of American Democracy. New York: Touchstone Books, 1993. A now classic treatment of what the author considers to be an ongoing breakdown of U.S. democracy in which multinational corporations and other powerful interests wield growing influence, the political parties become accomplices, and the media seems indifferent. Examples given include the massive savings and loan bailout and the bipartisan support for NAFTA, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and most-favored trade status for China, disregarding the interests of labor, traditionally one of the Democratic Party’s most important constituencies. Herrnson, Paul S., Ronald G. Shaiko, and Clyde Wilcox, editors. The Interest Group Connection: Electioneering, Lobbying, and Policymaking. 2d ed. New York: Chatham House, 2003. Updated edition of an important study examining the activities and relationships of interest groups in Washington. Many concrete examples of interest group politics are given. Lewis, Charles. The Buying of the Congress: How Special Interests Have Stolen Your Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. New York: Avon Books, 1998. Lewis and other researchers from the Center for Public Integrity examine how tobacco and food companies, airlines, insurance companies, and other big business interests use their contributions to lawmakers to get them to block or water down consumer-oriented legislation despite the high popular support for such measures. ———. The Buying of the President 2000. New York: Avon Books, 2000. Reveals the top contributors for the Republican and Democratic candidates in the primary and presidential elections of 2000. The author draws upon research from the Center for Public Integrity to explore how candidates serve the agendas of special interests and use their campaigns to enrich themselves in various ways. The book includes information about databases on candidate expenditures. Magleby, David B., ed. Financing the 2000 Election. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2002. This collection of essays by political scientists and legal experts is the latest in a series that has analyzed presidential

189

Campaign and Election Reform election years since 1960. The contributors analyze how the nearly $4 billion spent on elections (at all levels) in 2002 was raised and spent, and the implications for the ongoing debate over campaign finance reform. Suggestions for reform based on the identified trends include a ban on soft money with a compensating increase in the limits for direct contributions to candidates and parties as well as tightening restrictions on the use of “issue ads” that mention specific candidates. (These measures are at least in part included in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.) Rozell, Mark J., and Clyde Wilcox. Interest Groups in American Campaigns: The New Face of Electioneering. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1998. A handbook on the operations and influence of interest groups in modern U.S. politics. Much of the material is based on interviews with a number of interest group leaders as well as surveys and campaign finance data. Thompson, Joel A., and Gary F. Moncrief. Campaign Finance in State Legislative Elections. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1997. With other contributing authors, Thompson and Moncrief analyze campaign contributions and spending at the state level, drawing upon a massive database gathered from 15 states from 1986 into the mid-1990s. Zuckerman, Edward. Almanac of Federal PACs, 2002–2003. 9th ed. Hedgesville, W.V.: Amward Publications, 2002. Profiles all PACs that gave more than $50,000 to candidates, giving contact information, financial data, and amounts contributed to Democrats and Republicans.

ARTICLES Allen, Mike. “Corporate Cash Pours in to Conventions: Watergate-Inspired U.S. Funding Has Become a Relative Pittance.” Washington Post, July 28, 2000, p. A16. Although Congress approved public funding for party conventions in 1974, about three-quarters of the actual cost of today’s $100 million political extravaganza is now paid for by contributors and lobbyists. There are no regulatory limits on the funds that can be raised by party “host committees” for the conventions. The article includes a chart listing major donors to the 2000 Republican and Democratic conventions. Bates, Eric, et al. “Campaign Inflation.” Mother Jones, vol. 26, March 2001, p. 46. Profiles the top 400 contributors to Republican campaigns in 1999–2000. According to analysis of contribution records, business interests contributed a total of $646 million to Republican George Bush’s presidential effort and to electing GOP members of Congress. Spending is shown to be effective in that all but 29 of 469 congressional seats in play were won by the candidate who had raised the most money. The authors also survey 10 business sectors to learn what each wants in return for its contributions.

190

Annotated Bibliography Bennet, James. “Is the Choice Between These Two Guys Worth 10 Million? Inside the Most Absurdly Expensive House Race Ever.” The New York Times Magazine, October 22, 2000, p. 62. The Virginia House race between Republican incumbent James Rogan and Democratic challenger Adam Schiff is described as showing a new level of excess in political fund-raising and campaign spending. Together the two candidates may have spent $10 million by the election, and both have hired large numbers of expensive fund-raisers and political consultants. Berthelsen, Christian. “Davis’ Opponents Crimped by New Rules on Donations.” San Francisco Chronicle, July 25, 2003, p. A16. Reports on the effects of California’s campaign finance regulations (Proposition 34) on the unprecedented 2003 gubernatorial recall election. Because of a loophole in the rules, there is no limit on campaign funding regarding recall question itself, but candidates hoping to succeed Governor Gray Davis cannot receive more than $21,200 from any single source. With only 75 days until the election, less-known candidates are thus at a considerable disadvantage. Eisele, Albert. “Your Money, Their Views: Playing Partisan Politics with Nonprofits.” New York Times, December 9, 1997, p. 4. Describes how nonprofit foundations that receive nondeductible contributions are free to contribute them to political campaigns. One common use of the money is for sponsoring so-called issue ads that in reality target a candidate’s opponent, as happened to Calvin Dooley, a third-term California representative who was suddenly “blindsided” by $250,000 worth of negative advertising in the last days of the campaign. Lack of reporting requirements for nonprofits that are not primarily advocacy groups makes tracing the sources of such attacks difficult. Gran, David, and Erika Niedowski. “The Dirty Hill: The Sleaze That Dare Not Speak Its Name.” The New Republic, vol. 216, April 7, 1997, p. 21ff. The authors describe what they see as the shameless and borderline illegal fund-raising practices of Congress. A “bipartisan menu of fundraising events” suggests what levels of access to prominent politicians can be “purchased” for various levels of contributions. Despite denials of quid-pro-quo arrangements, a series of favorable legislative outcomes following major corporate contributions suggest a close connection between the two. The 104th Congress (following the 1994 Republican victory) also saw increasing instances where lobbyists were in effect invited into congressional offices to write the legislation they wanted. The questionable use of office staff for campaign activities is also discussed. For example, staff members are given a leave so they can work “voluntarily” on the campaign and are rewarded on their return with large bonuses. Hayward, Steven, and Allison R. Hayward. “Moving Money Around Washington: A Brief Tour of ‘Bundling’ and Other Beltway Bypasses.” Reason,

191

Campaign and Election Reform vol. 28, October 1996, p. 27. Describes the techniques used by big campaign contributors during the 1990s to bypass the regulations of the Federal Election Commission. Levy, Clifford J. “Tobacco and Its Gifts Have Minority Allies.” New York Times, January 4, 2000, p. A21ff. Describes how Philip Morris corporation has systematically cultivated favor with black and Hispanic communities by contributing to minority politicians. Although tough antismoking legislation has been passed, the contributions have apparently kept some minority activists on the sidelines. The article includes a chart summarizing national PAC, soft money and individual contributions by the tobacco industry from 1979 to 2000. McChesney, Fred S. “‘Pay to Play’ Politics Examined, with Lessons for Campaign-Finance Reform.” Independent Review, vol. 6, Winter 2002, p. 345ff. Most campaign reformers focus on the use of campaign contributions to win access and influence for businesses or other groups. An often overlooked aspect of the situation is “rent-seeking”—an economic term meaning revenue received not through direct economic activity but through monopolies, subsidies, or other advantages provided by government. Politicians in turn can use their power to withhold or alter legislation to induce rent-seekers to contribute to them. People who have economic interests are thus forced to continually “pay to play”—if they do not, the government will punish them or reward a competitor. The author gives numerous examples of both sides of this “political economics.” Campaign reform that ignores this reality is likely to be circumvented as the political “market” seeks other ways to clear. To the extent that reforms are effective, an ironic result may be that economic inefficiency will increase because businesses and other interests will not be able to in effect bribe politicians to let them continue productive activity. Primo, David M. “Public Opinion and Campaign Finance: Reformers Reality.” Independent Review, vol. 7, Fall 2002, p. 207ff. According to a 1997 Center for Responsive Politics survey, a majority strongly or somewhat favored mandatory public campaign financing, further limits on PACs, limiting television advertising, and limiting contributions to political parties. However, the actual public interest in campaign reform is relatively low, except perhaps when temporarily fueled by high-profile events such as the Enron scandal. Surprisingly, there is no demonstrable link between trust in government and overall campaign spending.

WEB DOCUMENTS Bailey, Holly. “Double Down: A Look at Soft Money Fund-Raising by Leadership PACs.” Center for Responsive Politics. Available online.

192

Annotated Bibliography URL: http://www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v5/alertv5_62.asp. Posted on October 30, 2000. Describes the growing number of so-called leadership PACs associated with prominent members of the House and Senate. The fund-raising activities of these organizations were revealed only after summer 2000, when Congress closed a loophole exempting organizations that did not expressly call for the election or defeat of a candidate. The article includes a chart summarizing the “hard” and “soft” money contributions of the leadership PACs. “A Brief History of Money in Politics.” Center for Responsive Politics. Available online. URL: http://www.opensecrets.org/pubs/history/historyindex. asp. Downloaded on February 4, 2003. A primer on campaign financing, including the following sections: Introduction, How Americans Have Financed Elections in the Past, Reform Attempts at the Federal Level, The States, “Laboratories of Reform,” and Important Dates in Campaign Finance Legislation. “Campaign Finance: Vital Stats.” Campaign Finance Institute. Available online. URL: http://www.cfinst.org/studies/vital. Downloaded on February 4, 2003. Provides a variety of charts including election results for incumbents and challengers, contributions, contributors, and PACs. “Campaign Reform 2001: Examining Issues, Quashing Myths, and Understanding the Nature of North Carolina Voters.” North Carolina Center for Voter Education. 2001. Available online. URL: http://www.ncvotered. com/downloads/PDF/3_01_survey_report.pdf. Reports a survey conducted on March 27–29, 2001, in which respondents were asked detailed questions about their attitudes toward campaign reform–related issues. The survey found large majorities in favor of addressing campaign finance problems, strong support for soft money restrictions, and/or a four-year legislative term limit, while just under half said they would favor a publicly funded candidate over a privately funded one. Green, John, et al. “Individual Congressional Campaign Contributors: Wealthy, Conservative, and Reform-Minded.” Center for Responsive Politics. Available online. URL: http://www.opensecrets.org/pubs/donors/ donors.asp. Posted on June 9, 1998. Reports the results of a 1997 national survey of individual contributors to congressional candidates. Some results are rather surprising. For example, a majority favors substantial campaign finance reform, such as a ban on soft money. Less surprising is the tendency of contributors to be conservative and wealthy. Knott, Alex. “It’s a Millionaires’ Race: New Financial Disclosure Database Details Assets of 2004 Presidential Candidates.” Center for Public Integrity. Available online. URL: http://www.bop2004.org/dtaweb/bop2004/ default.aspx?Section=ARTICLE&AID=4. Posted on January 27, 2003. The Center for Public Integrity introduces its new searchable database of

193

Campaign and Election Reform 2002 financial disclosures, highlighting the large amounts of personal wealth available to President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and would-be Democratic rivals such as Senator John Kerry (Massachusetts), Senator John Edwards (North Carolina), and Bob Graham (Florida). Each candidate mentioned in the article has a direct link to his or her entry in the database. Lewis, Charles. “Profiteering from Democracy.” Center for Public Integrity. Available online. URL: http://www.public-i.org/breakingnews_id_mmddyy. htm. Posted on August 30, 2000. Describes how President Bill Clinton’s proposal that the Federal Communications Commission require that broadcasters provide free or low-cost time for candidates was overwhelmed by the political power of media companies that did not want to lose profits and by powerful incumbents who did not want challengers to have greater access to the airwaves. The article includes details about the biggest media contributors, the junkets they provided to key members of Congress, and ties between media lobbyists and members of Congress. “Money and Politics Survey.” Center for Responsive Politics. Available online. URL: http://www.opensecrets.org/pubs/survey/top.htm. Posted on June 6, 1997. Summary and detailed findings of a 1997 survey on public attitudes toward campaign reform done by the Princeton Survey Associates for the Center for Responsive Politics. In general, most respondents had negative feelings about the effects of campaign contributions on politics. Relatively few respondents were familiar with the major provisions of current campaign finance law. Modest majorities strongly supported or “somewhat favored” the most commonly discussed reforms, such as limiting soft money, limiting or banning the use of PACs, and providing public financing for campaigns. Almost a majority agreed with having no contribution limits at all, provided all contributions were disclosed, and only 15 percent of respondents believed that campaign finance should be the top legislative priority. “Monopoly Politics 2002: How ‘No Choice’ Elections Rule in a Competitive House.” Center for Voting and Democracy. Available online. URL: http://www.fairvote.org/2002/mp2002.htm. Posted on November 8, 2002. The center has created a computer model that demonstrates the extent to which incumbency, structural features of the electoral system, and the high cost of elections combine to give incumbents an overwhelming advantage in modern U.S. elections even as the Congress as a whole becomes increasingly competitive between the two major parties. The model’s projections for the 2002 midterm election were 100 percent accurate. Projections for the 2004 election are included. “Opensecrets.org: Your Guide to Money in U.S. Elections.” Center for Responsive Politics. Available online. URL: http://www.opensecrets.org.

194

Annotated Bibliography Downloaded on February 4, 2003. Provides overviews of Congress, presidential and congressional races, and issue areas, including campaign finance reform. There is also a section on special interests, including industries and interest groups, PACs, soft money, and lobbying. “Our Private Legislatures.” Center for Public Integrity. Available online. URL: http://www.public-i.org/dtaweb/index.asp?L1=20&L2=10&L3=50& L4=0&L5=0& State=. Posted on May 21, 2001. Reports on an investigation by the Center for Public Integrity into conflicts of interest and suspect ties between legislators and lobbyists in state legislatures. The report points out that in 41 of 50 states, legislators serve in poorly paid, part-time positions, so the job is really only available to lawyers, businesspersons, and others who have means and various agendas that they want to carry out through legislation. About 20 to 25 percent of legislators have some form of inherent conflict of interest, such as serving on a committee that regulates their business, or that funds a government agency for whom they also work. “Party Fundraising Reaches $1.1 Billion in 2002 Election Cycle.” Federal Election Commission. Available online. URL: http://www.fec.gov/press/ 20021218party/20021218party.html. Posted on December 18, 2002. Reports and gives breakdowns of both hard and soft money raised by the two major parties. Even though 2002 was a nonpresidential election, total fund-raising almost equaled that in 2000, probably because of the desire of the parties to “bank” as much soft money as possible before the restrictions in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 took effect. The site includes tables. “The Power of Public Opinion.” Public Campaign. Available online. URL: http://www.publicampaign.org/pubop.html. Downloaded on February 4, 2003. Links to a number of polls showing strong public support for campaign finance reform. For an amusing note, the “Elvis Poll” for Fox News rated the likelihood of an Elvis sighting (48 percent) over the chances for real campaign finance reform (31 percent). Remes, Sarah. “High-Tech Influence: Computer Companies and Political Spending.” Center for Responsive Politics. Available online. URL: http:// www.opensecrets.org/pubs/cashingin_computers/compindex.htm. Posted in 1997. Data from the 1996 election cycle shows that the high tech industry, which had traditionally remained aloof from politics, had begun to become a substantial player in making contribution to federal candidates and parties. Schram, Martin. “Speaking Freely.” Center for Responsive Politics. Available online. URL: http://www.opensecrets.org/pubs/speaking/speakingindex. html. Posted in 1995. Interviews of former congresspersons and senators on a variety of topics relating to money in politics—how it is raised, the effects it had on their decision making, and public perception.

195

Campaign and Election Reform “State Campaign Finance Data.” Campaign Finance Information Center. Available online. URL: http://www.campaignfinance.org/states/index. html. Downloaded on February 4, 2003. Clicking on a state on the U.S. map on this web site gives a list of what kinds of transactions are covered by the state’s campaign finance disclosure regulations and a link to the relevant data source or agency. “Wall Street Interests Pushing For Social Security Privatization Gave $53 Million in Political Contributions during Past Decade, According to Common Cause.” Common Cause News. Available online. URL: http:// 216.147.192.101/publications/securities.htm. Posted in February 1999. Describes the increasing effort by Wall Street interests to use campaign contributions to lobby for privatization of Social Security, which could give them access to billions of dollars of funds put under private management. An accompanying chart gives the total contributions of industrial sectors, labor, lawyers, and lobbyists. “Washington’s Other Scandal.” Frontline, WGBH, PBS. Available online. URL: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/scandal. Posted 1996–98. This web site provides a transcript and supporting materials for the PBS/WGBH Frontline show that delved into the campaign finance abuses during the 1996 election cycle, including the high-intensity fundraising by the Clinton administration, which was accused of using White House facilities for fund-raising in violation of federal law. Materials also include interviews with Harold Ickes, Dick Morris, and Senator Joseph Lieberman, as well as discussion and samples of “issue ads” that are increasingly used to get around direct contribution limits. Watzman, Nancy, James Youngclaus, and Jennifer Shechter. “Power to the People? Money, Lawmakers, and Electricity Deregulation.” Center for Responsive Politics. Available online. URL: http://www.opensecrets.org/ pubs/cashingin_electric/contents.htm. Posted in 1997. Details the large campaign contributions made by power companies (such as Enron), which were rewarded by deregulation. Data is from the 1996 election cycle. Includes interactive search facility for finding contributors and recipients. “Who Paid for This Election? A Mid-October Snapshot of Campaign Funding in the 2000 Elections.” Center for Responsive Politics. Available online. URL: http://www.opensecrets.org/pubs/whospay00/index.asp. Posted in October 2000. Includes the “big picture” of historical fundraising trends and disparities between candidates leading to noncompetitive races. Donors are then categorized by industry or ideological group, as well as top individual contributors. Wright, Sarah. “PACs Remain Stealthy Despite Disclosure Law.” The Tracker [newsletter of the Campaign Finance Information Center]. Available online. URL: http://www.campaignfinance.org/tracker/winter02/

196

Annotated Bibliography stealthPACs.html. Downloaded on February 4, 2003. Even though a 2000 regulation removed the “527” tax loophole that allowed PACs to slip under the disclosure radar, the groups are still avoiding disclosure by claiming that they are not involved with specific election races. They can do so by avoiding certain key phrases, such as “vote for” or “vote against.” However, careful investigation can usually trace broadcast or print ads back to the “stealth PACs” that produced them and to the campaign they are intended to help.

General Debate on Campaign Finance Reform This section covers general debate on such topics as contribution and spending limits, PACs and independent expenditures, “soft money,” disclosure and public financing of campaigns as well as works about important reformers. For discussion and debate that focuses on specific legislation see “Legislation and Its Consequences.”

BOOKS Alexander, Paul. Man of the People: A Life of John McCain. New York: John Wiley, 2002. A mainly laudatory biography of Senator John McCain (Rep.-Arizona), a leading advocate of campaign finance reform and a contender in the 2000 presidential primary. The author had previously written about McCain for Rolling Stone. Anderson, Annelise, ed. Political Money: Deregulating American Politics: Selected Writings on Campaign Finance Reform. Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution Press, 2000. A collection of articles that survey the situation at the end of the 1990s, describing competing proposals for campaign finance reform. The book includes definitions of key concepts and terms and a thorough exploration of the constitutional issues. The collection is well balanced between advocates of reform (who generally get more publicity) and opponents who argue against reform proposals on grounds of efficacy, legality, and fairness. Bartels, Larry M., and Lynn Vavreck, ed. Campaign Reform: Insights and Evidence. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000. A collection of articles reflecting the work of the Task Force on Campaign Reform sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts. The book includes detailed analysis of factors affecting the “quality” of campaigns, including negative campaigning (the use of attack ads), which according to the authors does not actually decrease voter turnout. The use of voluntary agreements for

197

Campaign and Election Reform better practices in campaigns is also explored, as well as some modest changes in electoral laws to provide for easier registration and access to the polls. Clean Campaigns: How to Promote Candidate Codes of Conduct. Denver, Co.: Institute for Global Ethics and National Civic League. 2001. A handbook for citizens who are interested in getting candidates to agree to a code of campaign ethics. The book explains how to choose appropriate provisions, how to contact candidates, and how to work with the media. Corrado, Anthony, ed. Campaign Finance Reform: Beyond the Basics. Washington, D.C.: Century Foundation Press, 2000. A well-organized handbook that explains the elements of the modern campaign finance system, including sources and types of contributions, the role of the parties, issue advocacy ads, and the relevant legal framework. It concludes with a discussion of possible reforms. Corrado, Anthony, et al., eds. Campaign Finance Reform: A Sourcebook. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1997. A collection of source documents for many aspects of election law and campaign reform. Each section is introduced by an editor. Topic areas include: the current state of the law, history of campaign finance law, the impact of the First Amendment on regulation, the various types of campaign participation (PACs, soft money, and issue advocacy), the role of the Federal Election Commission, and recent developments. Drew, Elizabeth. Citizen McCain. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2002. A veteran political journalist recounts the political battles for campaign finance reform led by Senator John McCain. The virtually blow-by-blow account reveals how McCain was able to build and sustain the coalition that eventually prevailed with the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Gais, Thomas. Improper Influence: Campaign Finance Law, Political Interest Groups, and the Problem of Equality. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996. The author suggests that campaign finance laws with their often complicated requirements actually discourage grassroots participation, while not deterring the powerful interest groups (such as business) who can afford to navigate the regulations involving PACs and take advantage of loopholes. A better alternative, he believes, would be to deregulate campaign contributions and target public subsidies to giving smaller groups a more level playing field. Haddock, Doris, and Dennis Burke. Granny D: Walking Across America in My Ninetieth Year. New York: Villard Books, 2000. Describes the crosscountry walk Doris “Granny D.” Haddock undertook to bring public attention to the need for campaign finance reform. In the course of her journey, she encountered thousands of ordinary Americans and recorded

198

Annotated Bibliography their often passionate thoughts on the subject of the “disconnect” between the people and their government. Lubenow, Gerald C., ed. A User’s Guide to Campaign Finance Reform. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001. Ten political scientists and policy analysts provide a variety of contributions, including a history of campaign finance law, a survey of popular opinion, a critique of the assumptions behind campaign finance laws, sources and uses of soft money, and the tangled legal issues surrounding campaign regulation. The book concludes with Norman J. Ornstein’s list of eight proposed reforms that he believes would be common sense, feasible, legally justifiable, and effective. Luna, Christopher, ed. Campaign Finance Reform. New York: H. W. Wilson, 2001. A collection of articles from various publications on campaign finance issues. The articles are grouped into the following sections: The History of Campaign Finance in the United States, Soft Money. PACs and Issue Advocacy, The Debate Over Campaign Finance Reform, and Steps Toward Reform. The book also includes a bibliography and list of web sources. Martin, Justin. Nader: Crusader, Spoiler, Icon. Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus Publishing, 2002. A biography of the peripatetic consumer advocate whose confrontation with major corporations has in recent years led him increasingly into political reform, including running for president as the Green Party candidate in 2000. The author discusses his assessment of Nader’s strengths (tireless, articulate advocacy) and weaknesses (a certain inflexibility and a tendency to alienate people who might be expected to support him). McCain, John S. Worth the Fighting For: A Memoir. New York: Random House, 2002. Autobiography of the former prisoner of war in Vietnam and Arizona senator who has become one of the nation’s most tireless advocates for campaign finance reform. He is also known for challenging George W. Bush in the primaries of 2000. McCain assesses his strengths and weaknesses and describes persons (such as Theodore Roosevelt) who inspired him. Neder, Ralph. Crashing the Party: How to Tell the Truth and Still Run for President. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2002. The 2000 Green Party presidential candidate describes how the two major parties exerted every possible effort to shut him out of the presidential debates, even to the extent of threatening him with arrest if he attended a debate as a ticketed member of the audience. Nader passionately decries a system in which he says that both major parties serve the same corporate interests and deny any real choice to voters. He also charges the media with laziness and indifference to third-party campaigns and highlights reforms that he believes would restore real democracy.

199

Campaign and Election Reform Nader, Ralph, and Barbara Ehrenreich. The Ralph Nader Reader. New York: Seven Stories Press, 2000. A collection of essays in which Nader describes a variety of ways he has taken on big corporate interests throughout his 40year career. Looking to the future, he focuses on grassroots activism as a way in which ordinary people can begin to take power into their own hands. Schneider, Jerrold E. Campaign Finance Reform and the Future of the Democratic Party. New York: Routledge, 2002. The author suggests that it is possible to implement effective campaign finance reform, and that doing so would help the Democratic Party by allowing it to promote social programs with broad popular support rather than special-interest bills promoted by big contributors. The factors that determine the strength of political parties are analyzed. Contrary to common belief, reform might strengthen the national parties.

ARTICLES Abbe, Owen G., Nathan S. Begelow, and Paul S. Herrnson. “Campaign Reform: Is There a Consensus?” Campaigns & Elections, vol. 23, July 2002, p. 44ff. A recent survey conducted by the Center for American Politics and Citizenship at the University of Maryland with Campaigns & Elections magazine asked more than 4,000 candidates for a variety of state, local, and federal offices for their opinions on various aspects of campaign reform. The authors summarize the results of the survey. Some opinions break sharply along partisan lines: for example, about 70 percent of Democratic candidates support public campaign financing and want to ban soft money, while about an equal proportion of Republicans oppose both public financing and the soft money ban. Higher proportions of Democrats than Republicans support banning issue ads, but prompt disclosure of contributions is supported by a majority in both parties. Beinart, Peter. “TRB from Washington: Oversight.” The New Republic, March 18, 2002, p. 6. One general argument against passing new campaign finance reform laws is that politicians and contributors will always manage to find loopholes through which they can keep the money flowing. The author in effect says: “So what?” If the need to plug loopholes was an argument against legislation, there would be no tax laws. As with the Internal Revenue Service, what is needed is an agency that can effectively detect and deter violators. Yet opponents of campaign reform are generally the same people who have done whatever they could to keep the Federal Election Commission weak and ineffective. ———. “TRB from Washington: Speak Easy.” The New Republic, March 4, 2002, p. 6. The author refutes arguments that campaign finance regulations infringe on free speech rights. He begins by saying that the sudden interest

200

Annotated Bibliography in free speech by politicians who generally do not support it in other contexts is disingenuous. Indeed, opponents first opposed soft money restrictions on free speech grounds, but when that argument proved ineffective, they switched to claiming that the laws were not strict enough. Besides, the Supreme Court has already decided that limits on contributions are constitutional. Even the proposed new limits on soft money will not deprive independent groups of the ability to produce issue ads, as long as they use hard money, which is capped by a maximum $5,000 per contributor per year. “Campaign Finance—Veto.” National Review, vol. 54, March 11, 2002, p. 12ff. Argues that President George W. Bush should veto the bipartisan campaign reform bill because of his own belief that it is unconstitutional and violates principles he had stated during the previous campaign. Contributions are not inherently corrupting, and money is often simply the means of promoting ideology—not the other way around. Besides, money will always find a way into the system, and adding layers of new complex rules will simply make it harder for ordinary citizens to exercise their political speech. Rosenkranz, E. Joshua. “Faulty Assumptions in ‘Faulty Assumptions’: A Response to Professor Bradley Smith’s Critiques of Campaign Finance Reform.” Connecticut Law Review, vol. 30, Spring 1998, pp. 867–896. A detailed rebuttal of Bradley A. Smith’s assertions of faulty assumptions behind campaign finance reform and a defense of such reform as promoting democracy. Scheiber, Noam. “Business School: Enron and the Irrelevance of Campaign Finance Reform.” The New Republic, February 4, 2002, p. 17. Looking at how interests such as the accounting industry have been able to defeat regulations even in the wake of the Enron scandal, the author pessimistically concludes that even strict limits on campaign contributions would not prevent such special influence. The reason is that big corporate interests offer the prospect of remunerative future employment for legislators (or staffers) after they leave government service. Even if there is no direct quid pro quo, lawmakers will not want to alienate the interests that offer employment at several times congressional salaries. Corporate interests can also use their influence over the appointment process to reward or punish legislators. Schier, Steven E. “One Cheer for Soft Money.” Washington Monthly, July 2000, p. 21. The author argues that soft money contributed to parties rather than directly to candidates actually strengthens democracy and reduces corruption. This is because giving more money to parties rather than directly to candidates promotes making elections about clearly defined issues rather than personalities. Strong parties promote democratic stability, and parties can serve as a “buffer” between contributors and the individual politicians they seek to influence.

201

Campaign and Election Reform Smith, Bradley A. “Campaign Finance Reform: Faulty Assumptions and Undemocratic Consequences.” USA Today, vol. 126, January 1998, p. 10ff. A point-by-point rebuttal of the assumptions underlying most arguments for campaign finance reform. For example, the author points out that “Americans spend two to three times as much money each year on potato chips as on political campaigns.” He also argues that people give money to candidates they feel are likely to win and that contributions have little correlation with actual legislation. The author goes on to argue that campaign contribution limits tend to entrench the status quo because challengers can seldom raise money as effectively as incumbents. Sunstein, Cass R. “Political Equality and Unintended Consequences.” Columbia Law Review, vol. 94, May 1994, pp. 1,390–1,414. (Also in Corrado, Anthony, et al., ed. Campaign Finance Reform: A Sourcebook. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1997, pp. 113–120). The author agrees that there is a valid social objective in preventing gross inequality in political power between the wealthy and ordinary citizens. He believes that Buckley v. Valeo was wrongly decided because it uncritically accepted existing inequality (just as the Lockner case had accepted inequality between employers and employees with regard to the ability to set wages). However, there are a number of potential unintended negative consequences to campaign reform including the possible entrenchment of incumbents; a growth in the power of PACs as individual contributions are restricted (and the reverse); and a shift from “hard money” to “soft money” limits on PACs disproportionately hurting labor and minority candidates.

WEB DOCUMENTS “Campaign Finance, Corruption, and the Oath of Office.” Cato Institute. Available online. URL: http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb107/ hb107-10.pdf. Posted on January 1, 2001. In chapter 10 of its handbook for Congress, the libertarian Cato Institute urges that Congress, which has an inherent conflict of interest in regulating the political process, refrain from such regulations and instead reduce corruption by limiting the power of government (which presumably would limit the incentive to make contributions in return for favors). “Campaign-Finance Reform: The Right Way.” Business Week Online. Available online. URL: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/ feb2002/nf20020212_7571.htm. Posted on February 12, 2002. According to this article, banning “soft money” will not really help—what is needed is full, prompt disclosure of all contributions, with higher contribution limits for individuals who, unlike anonymous-sounding committees, are more readily identifiable. Disclosure should also be applied to anyone sponsoring so-called issue ads.

202

Annotated Bibliography Ornstein, Norman J., et al.”Reforming Campaign Finance.” Brookings Institution. Available online. URL: http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/gs/cf/ reformcf.htm. Issued on December 17, 1996, revised on May 7, 1997. [Later released by the League of Women Voters under the title “5 Ideas for Practical Campaign Reform.”] A group of scholars and activists propose what they see as five practical proposals for reforming election campaigns that would not conflict with the Supreme Court’s decision in Buckley v. Valeo. The proposals include tightening the use of soft money and making parties more accountable, while allowing individuals to give more money directly to parties with increased party disclosure requirements. There would also be a 100 percent tax credit for the first $100 of contributions by an individual to federal candidates in the same state. To regulate political advertising, all ads showing a candidate’s picture or name would be treated as campaign ads, not as unregulated “issue ads.” Another interesting proposal would set up a “broadcast bank” into which media companies would have to place minutes of free broadcast time, with qualified candidates and parties receiving vouchers that they could use to buy this time. “Questions and Answers on Sham Issue Ads.” League of Women Voters. Available online. URL: http://www.lwv.org/elibrary/pub/qa_shamissues. htm#(1)%20A. Downloaded on February 4, 2003. The league distinguishes between true issue ads, which are unconnected with specific campaigns, as being a proper exercise of free speech and “sham” issue ads, which are thinly disguised political “hit pieces.” The suggested distinction (ads appearing within 60 days of the election and showing or mentioning a candidate) was included in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. “10 Myths About Money in Politics.” Center for Responsive Politics. Available online. URL: http://www.opensecrets.org/pubs/myths/contents. htm. Downloaded on February 4, 2003. A campaign reform advocacy group refutes common arguments against the idea that the growing stream of money flowing into politics is pernicious. Some of the “myths” addressed include “The special interests balance each other out” and “The money buys only access—not votes.”

Legislation and Its Consequences This section focuses on legislation, particularly the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 and state and local campaign finance laws. It includes legislative debate, discussion of the provisions of legislation, and debate about consequences or effects. For legal cases and issues, see the following section, “Legal Issues Relating to Campaign Finance Reform.”

203

Campaign and Election Reform BOOKS Bainter, R., and P. M. Levine. Local Campaign Finance Reform: Case Studies, Innovations & Model Legislation. Denver: National Civic League, 1998. A study of local campaign finance reform conducted by the New Politics Program of the National Civic League. The book includes descriptions of reform legislation in 75 cities from which they derive various “models” for campaign finance regulation. These models include Low Contribution Limits (Fort Collins, Colorado), Public Financing (Tucson, Arizona), Conflict of Interest (Westminster, Colorado), Time Limits (Little Rock, Arkansas) and Voluntary Reform (Chapel Hill, North Carolina). A 2001 addendum with additional case studies is also available in print or online, at http://www.ncl.org/npp/lcfr/lcfr_addendum.pdf. Bauer, Robert F. Soft Money, Hard Law: A Guide to the New Campaign Finance Law. Washington, D.C.: Perkins Cole, LLP, Political Law Group, 2002. Describes the provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 as they apply to the different types of expenditures (hard and soft money) and players (the parties, PACs, individual contributors). The book includes the text of the new law, which amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. Dwyre, Dana, and Victoria A. Farar-Myers. Legislative Labyrinth: Congress and Campaign Finance Reform. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2000. The authors use recent battles over campaign finance legislation as a case study of the operation of the legislative and policy-making process. The roles of party leaders, floor leaders, and “issue entrepreneurs” are shown to interlock in intricate ways that determine the fate of important legislation. The potential importance and impact of campaign finance reform on the legislative process itself is also explored. Gais, Thomas L., and Michael J. Malbin. The Day After Reform: Sobering Campaign Finance Lessons from the American States. Albany, N.Y.: Rockefeller Institute Press, 1998. The authors examine campaign finance reform at the state level, surveying the current laws in all 50 states and examining data disclosed by candidates, as well as interviewing a wide selection of state political leaders. As the title suggests, the authors found that many reforms did not work as intended or had negative unintended consequences. The authors close with proposed reforms that might more realistically moderate campaign abuses while preserving freedom of speech and association. Sandler, Joseph E., and Neil P. Reiff. Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002: Law and Explanation. Riverwoods, Ill.: CCH Incorporated, 2002. This handbook includes detailed analysis of the provisions of the 2002 campaign finance legislation, comparisons with relevant provisions of the

204

Annotated Bibliography Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971 and its amendments, and summaries of current and pending cases that challenge the new law.

ARTICLES Bainter, Ric, Paul Lhevine, et al. “Four Communities on the Cutting Edge of Change: Seattle, Washington; Lee’s Summit, Missouri; Lima, Ohio; and Bronx County, New York.” National Civic Review, vol. 87, Fall 1998, p. 201ff. While Washington struggled slowly and painfully toward campaign finance reform, a number of local communities successfully instituted their own political reforms. For example, Seattle passed a strong reform program in 1972 that included contribution limits, disclosure requirements, and public financing of local campaigns. About 60 cities now have similar requirements. “Campaign Finance: Excerpts from House Debate on the Shays-Meehan Campaign Finance Bill.” New York Times, February 14, 2002, p. A30. A selection of brief statements by members of the House during the debate on what would become the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Castillo, Carl, and Mike McGrath. “Localism and Reform: The Benefits of Political Diversity.” National Civic Review, vol. 90, Summer 2001, p. 137. The deadlocked 2000 presidential election has spurred new interest in fundamental electoral reform. Although many proposals (such as uniform federal standards for elections) are at the national level, some of the most interesting experimentation is being done by the states. The Arizona Democratic Party, for example, conducted its presidential primary via the Internet for the first time in history, while Oregon became the first state to vote entirely by mail. Meanwhile, 75 cities have enacted some form of campaign finance legislation. Besides contribution limits, innovative approaches include voluntary spending limits (enforced via public pressure), defining certain contributions as creating conflicts of interest for officeholders, and public financing of campaigns. Many of these approaches are likely to withstand court challenges (the Supreme Court has banned compulsory spending limits). Cohn, Jonathan. “Campaign Reform That Might Actually Work: Taking Offense.” The New Republic, November 29, 1999, p. 13. Reports on the successful efforts of the group Public Campaign to defeat a compromise that would have gutted the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill by replacing its outright ban on soft money contributions with a $60,000 cap, while increasing limits on other kinds of contributions. Conniff, Ruth. “The Maine Chance.” The Progressive, vol. 64, July 2000, p. 12. Describes the hard-fought 10-year campaign that finally resulted in Maine adopting public funding of campaigns. Court challenges on free

205

Campaign and Election Reform speech grounds by the National Right to Life Committee and the ACLU have failed, and in the fall election 115 candidates for state office will be receiving public funding. The new program creates further pressure for cleaner campaigns by giving a qualifying candidate double funding if his or her opponent refuses to participate. Cooper, Marc. “A New Public-Funding Law Has Prompted Many Reformers to Run for Office: Clean Money in Maine.” The Nation, vol. 270, May 29, 2000, p. 22. Describes the effects of the passage of Maine’s Clean Election Act. Because candidates who can gather a modest number of signatures now qualify for public funding, they can challenge even incumbents who have special interest backing. Greens and Democrats are benefiting most in this traditionally Republican state. Crowley, Michael. “On the Hill: Mourning After.” The New Republic, March 4, 2002, p. 14. Democratic Party leaders Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt were outwardly jubilant when the 2002 campaign reform bill was finally passed by the House. Behind the scenes, however, Democrats are worried that the new law will disproportionately hurt their party much more than the Republicans, who receive more large hard-money contributions from wealthy individuals. Democrats will have to rely more on state-level get-out-the-vote efforts (which can still raise money) and nonprofit groups such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Dewar, Helen. “Senate Approves Disclosure Measure.” Washington Post, June 30, 2000, p. A1. Reports on the passage of a bill closing the “527” loophole in the tax code that allowed for undisclosed campaign contributions by political interest groups. Although the bill is hailed as a breakthrough, it does not limit “soft money” contributions but only requires disclosure. Edsall, Thomas B. “‘Soft Money’ Ban Evasion Alleged: 2 Political Parties Accused in Complaints Filed with FEC.” Washington Post, November 22, 2002, p. A10. A complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission accuses both major parties and two Republican lobbyists of trying to evade the soft money regulations of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. The complaint was filed by a number of public interest groups (including Common Cause) as a way to test the enforcement of the new law. The parties and fund-raisers are accused of secretly continuing the flow of soft money and of forming special new groups to disguise the source of contributions. Fineman, Howard. “‘Everything Will Change.’ Or Not.” Newsweek, February 25, 2002, p. 18. The new campaign finance legislation of 2002 means different winners and losers and unpredictable results. The Republicans, who tend to raise hard money rather than newly restricted soft money,

206

Annotated Bibliography will be at an advantage, while the Democrats, who are beneficiaries of large soft money contributions from trial lawyers and other groups, are likely to be hurt. Large organizations such as the Sierra Club and National Rifle Association (NRA) will be able to spend unlimited money on political communications with their own members, but the ban on external communications will hamper smaller advocacy groups. Consultants are already working on ways to get around soft money restrictions. Foer, Franklin. “Petty Cash—Will McCain-Feingold Breed Democratic Fratricide?” The New Republic, June 3, 2002, p. 15. When the 2002 campaign reforms take effect, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) will have to downsize because it can no longer raise soft money. (The Republicans, who receive more hard money, will be less affected.) The Democrats are making plans to decentralize their fund-raising and campaign efforts to the state level, where soft money can still be spent on party-building and “get out the vote” efforts. They are also attempting to set up campaign coordination among nonprofit groups that traditionally support the party, such as the AFL-CIO, Sierra Club, and trial lawyers. This may result in liberals gaining more power in the party, and thus to “fratricide” between antibusiness interests and the party’s more centrist corporate backers. Foerstel, Karen, Peter Wallenstein, and Derek Willis. “Campaign Overhaul Mired in Money and Loopholes.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, May 13, 2000, p. 1084. Reports on the struggle for campaign finance reform in the 1990s and early 2000s, describing PACs and soft money “527” organizations that can make unlimited, undisclosed contributions. The desire of Republicans to protect their corporate fund-raising base and of Democrats to protect their unions and liberal PACs led to failure of reform efforts in 1989 and 1992. (Even though a bipartisan reform bill finally passed in 2002, the events recounted in this article are still relevant for showing the interests and tactics likely to be employed in undermining the new reforms.) Green, Joshua. “Clean Money in Maine.” The American Prospect, vol. 11, September 25, 2000, p. 36. Of the state’s 353 candidates for election, 115 are “running clean”—forgoing private contributions in return for public financing under the new Maine Clean Election Act. Supporters of the law say it is already having an effect: “Clean” candidates are entering more primaries and elections for open seats, making them more competitive. The article includes the history of the campaign that led to the act’s passage and remarks from candidates and officeholders who seem pleased with the new system. Some questions and obstacles remain, such as whether candidates can have so-called leadership PACs and whether the public money provided will be enough to make clean candidates competitive, particularly in the governor’s race.

207

Campaign and Election Reform Gross, Kenneth. “The New Federal Campaign Finance Act—In a Nutshell.” Campaigns and Elections, vol. 23, July 2002, p. 22ff. A summary of key provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, including individual contribution limits, the ban on raising soft money by national party committees, restrictions on the use of soft money by state committees, criteria for “electioneering communications” (issue ads), and coordinated expenditures. Harshbarger, Scott, and Edwin Davis. “Federal Campaign Finance Reform: The Long and Winding Road.” National Civic Review, vol. 90, Summer 2001, p. 125. Recounts the history of modern campaign finance reform since the early 1970s and the congressional maneuvering surrounding the McCain-Feingold bill since the mid-1990s. Lehrer, Jeremy. “The Reform Quandary: As McCain-Feingold Awaits Final Judgment, the Debate Continues About the Merit and Finer Points of Campaign Finance Reform.” Human Rights, vol. 25, Winter 1998, p. 10ff. An overview of the debate on campaign finance reform in recent years. The article includes an historical overview, the 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act, and the impact of the Supreme Court’s Buckley v. Valeo decision, which seems to set the parameters for current proposals but is likely to face further challenges. Miller, Ellen, and Nick Penniman. “The Road to Nowhere: Thirty Years of Campaign-Finance Reform Yield Precious Little.” The American Prospect, vol. 13, August 12, 2002, p. 14ff. Ellen Miller, former director of the Center for Responsive Politics, and Nick Penniman, director of the Policy Action Network, present a pessimistic assessment of the three decades of campaign reform efforts that culminated in the passage of McCain-Feingold in 2002. This law, after all, reflects acknowledgement that the measures passed in the early 1970s had been fatally undermined, and it remains to be seen whether the new law will fare any better. Public financing, often seen as a panacea, is also problematic. State efforts in Maine, Vermont, Arizona, and Massachusetts are imperiled by inadequate funding and court challenges. It is possible, however, that a mixture of public pressure and litigation by groups such as the National Voting Rights Institute (asserting that the present system of campaign financing denies voters equal protection of the law) might enable the implementation of reforms that stick. Samples, John. “Campaign Finance ‘Reform.’” World and I, vol. 17, May 2002, n.p. The author, director of the Center for Representative Government at the Cato Institute, provides an introduction and analysis to campaign finance reform, with particular reference to the Shays-Meehan bill that later passed Congress as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002. He argues that voter wishes, not campaign contribu-

208

Annotated Bibliography tions, ultimately have the most decisive effect on officeholders and candidates. Constitutionally problematic regulation of campaign contributions and spending has only weak justification and is likely to have undesirable consequences, such as making it harder for challengers to unseat incumbents. Tighter restrictions on campaign ads also have the effect of disproportionately hurting challengers, who may need to build name recognition. Finally, the media (which is not subject to restrictions) is likely to become the dominant voice in political issues at the expense of parties and candidates. Schmitt, Mark. “New York City’s Campaign Finance System: Why Is the Best Hope for Reform Being Ignored?” National Civic Review, vol. 90, Summer 2001, p. 149. The debate over McCain-Feingold has largely ignored the alternative of total or partial public financing of campaigns. Yet states such as Maine, Massachusetts, and Arizona have passed “clean money” reforms in which candidates who agree to renounce private funding are provided with enough public funds to run a typical campaign for that office. Partial public funding (usually through a matching funds system) may offer the most practical approach. Shenk, Joshua Wolf. “Designed for Impotence: Why the Federal Election Commission Is a Lap Dog for the Political Class.” U.S. News and World Report, vol. 122, January 20, 1997, p. 30ff. The FEC, created in the wake of the Watergate scandal, is revealed to be toothless, with violators able to avoid or delay significant penalties. Congress has frequently responded to attempts by the FEC to tighten regulations by cutting its budget. Further, court decisions such as Buckley v. Vallejo have taken away the ability to regulate campaign expenditures. Sifry, Micah L. “Clean Money, Clean Elections.” Tikkun, vol. 15, May 2000, p. 45. Because the effect of contribution limits on the ability of big money to influence elections is likely to be limited, activists are beginning to focus on implementing “clean money” legislation. This provides for a system in which candidates who raise a certain number of $5 contributions and agree not to raise further private funds and to abide by spending limits are given matching public funds. Further, additional public funds are provided if a “clean” candidate is outspent by an opponent receiving private funding. Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Arizona have adopted “clean money” systems, and efforts are underway in many other states, including Connecticut, Illinois, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. Sullivan, Paul E. “The Devil’s in the Details: New Words and New Concerns for Associations and Unions.” Campaigns & Elections, vol. 23, July 2002, p. 27. After the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, the Federal Election Commission is in the process of drafting

209

Campaign and Election Reform regulations to implement the “soft money” provisions. This is introducing new terminology that is likely to be subject to difficulties in interpretation. Examples include “agent,” “solicit,” and “nonfederal funds.” When is a person serving as an “agent” of a party, and does mere attendance at a fund-raising event constitute “solicitation”? Waller, Douglas. “Looking for the Loopholes: Twenty-eight Years after the Last Campaign-Finance Reform, New Rules Look Set to Take Effect.” Time, vol. 159, February 15, 2002, p. 42ff. Even as the final stages for passage of the 2002 campaign finance legislation are underway, corporations, unions, and interest groups are already planning ways around the regulations. Although soft money no longer can be used for broadcast attack ads before an election, money can still be used for direct mail, e-mail, and “get out the vote” activities. The parties, too, may be able to replace most of their lost soft money with hard money, thanks to newly increased contribution limits. Campaign reform expert Anthony Corrado is quoted as saying that “Any campaign-finance reform law works for a period of time,” but then new loopholes have to be plugged.

WEB DOCUMENTS “Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.” Federal Election Commission. Available online. URL: http://www.fec.gov/pages/bcra/bcra_update.htm. Downloaded on February 4, 2003. Includes the text of the BCRA in PDF format as well as FEC rulemaking for the BCRA and information reported under the law’s provisions. “Federal Election Commission Creates Major Loopholes in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold Law)”. Public Citizen. Available online. URL: http://www.citizen.org/congress/campaign/articles. cfm?ID=8445. Updated on January 2003. Ongoing analysis of FEC regulatory rulings that the reform group Public Citizen believes are undermining the effectiveness of the new campaign finance law. In general, as shown in the charts that accompany the article, Public Citizen believes the FEC interpretations would allow parties and independent committees to effectively bypass most of the supposedly tough new regulations on soft money. Hoover Institution. “Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001: Detailed Summary” Hoover Institution Public Policy Inquiry: Campaign Finance. Available online. URL: http://www.campaignfinancesite.org/legislation/ reformact.html. Downloaded on February 4, 2003. A concise summary of the provisions of what was then the Shays-Meehan bill, passed in substantially the same form as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. “Nationwide Numbers.” Center for Public Integrity. Available online. URL: http://www.public-i.org/dtaweb/DRSearch.asp?L1=20&L2=9&

210

Annotated Bibliography L3=25&L4=10&L5=0&State=&Display=DRNationwideNumbers. Downloaded on February 4, 2003. Scores and ranks the states on the quality of their campaign finance disclosure laws and procedures. 23 detailed questions were asked of each state and then scored. Clicking on a state provides its details. The top three states were Oregon, California, and Washington (the latter two tied.) “Shadow Dancing: A Look at the Groups That Want to Keep Soft Money Flowing.” Center for Responsive Politics. Available online: URL: http:// www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v6/alertv6_67.asp. Posted on November 25, 2002. The Center for Responsive Politics reports that in only three weeks after the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 took effect, dozens of supposedly “independent” or “issue” groups were formed. These groups can still accept unlimited, undisclosed contributions. The report reveals that many of the groups actually have ties to prominent national politicians in both major parties.

Legal Issues Relating to Campaign Finance Reform This section covers constitutional issues relating to campaign finance regulations, such as freedom of speech and the significance of Supreme Court decisions such as Buckley v. Valeo.

BOOKS Banks, Christopher P., and John C. Green. Superintending Democracy: The Courts and the Political Process. Akron, Ohio: University of Akron Press, 2001. The contentious 2000 presidential election and the controversial Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore have raised many questions about the role of the courts in protecting the fundamental machinery of U.S. democracy. This collection of essays deals with the parameters of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in areas such as campaign finance reform, political patronage, racial gerrymandering, minority voting rights, and the access of minor parties to the electoral process. Rosenkranz, E. Joshua, ed. If Buckley Fell: A First Amendment Blueprint for Regulating Money in Politics. New York: Century Foundation, 1999. Arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision in Buckley v. Valeo (1976), upholding contribution limits but rejecting spending limits, is incoherent and ultimately untenable, the contributors attempt to construct a legal framework based on the premise that Buckley is eventually overturned.

211

Campaign and Election Reform Slabach, Frederick G., ed. The Constitution and Campaign Finance Reform: An Anthology. Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic Press, 1998. A collection of law review articles on various aspects of campaign finance reform, including the question of whether “money is speech,” possible compelling government interests in regulating campaigns, and a variety of alternative methods of regulation.

ARTICLES Gwirtzman, Milton S. “A Look At . . . Roadblocks to Campaign Reform.” Washington Post, January 12, 1997, p. C3. The author takes the Supreme Court to task for its 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision, which held that limits on campaign spending (but not contributions) were unconstitutional because they violated the First Amendment’s protection of speech. He argues that the Court was naive in thinking that spending promoted increased coverage of issues and that “independent expenditures” reflected true activism rather than coordinated funneling of money to indirectly help campaigns. The author further suggests that Congress provoke a reexamination of Buckley by passing spending limits again, buttressed by strong findings of fact about the corrosive effects of the present system. Lane, Charles. “High Court to Weigh Nonprofits’ Political Contributions: N.C. Antiabortion Group Says First Amendment Protects Its Support of Candidates.” Washington Post, November 19, 2002, p. A13. The group, North Carolina Right to Life, argues that the First Amendment protects its right to make campaign contributions. The Fourth Circuit court of appeals had agreed with this position by a 2-1 vote, saying that the corruption the law sought to prevent was not present for nonprofit corporations. (In 1986 the Supreme Court had already decided that nonprofit corporations could not be prevented from making indirect political contributions. In June 2003 the Court ruled that the First Amendment did not preclude regulating contributions from nonprofit advocacy groups.) Rosen, Jeffrey. “Talk Is Cheap: Campaign Finance Reform Meets the Internet.” The New Republic, February 14, 2000, p. 20. Argues that the tenuous distinction announced in Buckley v. Valeo between campaign spending (protected as integral to speech) and campaign contributions has become even less tenable, given the realities of the new electronic media. Today anyone can be a “publisher” or the equivalent of an “opinion columnist” on the World Wide Web, for example, so money is less necessary for effective speech. Further, the justification that spending regulation is needed to prevent speech sponsored by powerful interests from drowning out more poorly funded voices is also suspect, given the world of hundreds of cable channels and millions of web sites.

212

Annotated Bibliography Taylor, Stuart, Jr. “Censoring ‘Issue Ads’: A Direct Assault on Free Speech.” National Journal, vol. 33, September 8, 2001, p. 272ff. The ban on issue ads within 60 days of an election (proposed as part of the Shays-Meehan bill) would effectively censor advocacy groups such as the Sierra Club, ACLU, or National Right to Life Committee from exercising their free speech just when public attention on many issues is at its highest. It would also serve to shield incumbent politicians from criticism. The rules about “coordination” would also make it problematic for ads to refer to a politician that a group has had some dealings with in the past. Tucker, Neely. “Campaign Law Case Brings Debate, Crowds.” Washington Post, December 5, 2002, p. A4. A major legal showdown over the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (the McCain-Feingold act) is underway in a Washington, D. C., federal district court. Litigators in the oral arguments include former solicitor general Kenneth Starr (who opposes the reform law) and Seth Waxman (who supports it). While defenders say the law addresses the harmful effects of money in politics, opponents believe it is an unconstitutional infringement on free speech (with regard to limits on “issue ads”) as well as being unlikely to actually accomplish its objectives. The Justice Department is defending the law against an array of political parties and advocacy groups. ———. “McCain-Feingold Harms Poor, Group Says.” Washington Post, December 6, 2002, p. A5. Attorneys representing the U.S. Public Interest Research Group and a group of poor voters argued before a federal district court panel that the new campaign finance law will disenfranchise the poor. This is because the hard money, or direct contribution, limit is being raised to $2,000. These large contributions can be “bundled” for greater impact, but this will mean that the small contributions that poor people might be able to afford will have comparatively less influence on politicians.

WEB DOCUMENTS Goodman, Lee E. “Overview of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002: Prepared for the Republican Party of Virginia, December 7, 2002.” Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP, 2002. Available online. URL: http://www. wrf.com/db30/cgi-bin/pubs/Overview_of_BCRA.pdf. An attorney provides a summary of the provisions and impact of the new law with regard to soft money and hard money for national parties and state parties, as well as the new restrictions on issue ads. “Is the New Campaign Finance Reform Law Constitutional?” Public Citizen. Available online. URL: http://www.citizen.org/congress/campaign/ issues/constitution/articles.cfm?ID=7421. Downloaded on March 13, 2003. The reform group Public Citizen argues that the new restrictions

213

Campaign and Election Reform on the use of soft money and the banning of sham “issue ads” are constitutional and that the courts should view them as necessary and narrowly tailored ways to prevent corporations, unions, and other large contributors from subverting the political process. Raskin, Jamin B., and John Bonifaz. “The Wealth Primary: Campaign Fundraising and the Constitution.” Center for Responsive Politics. Available online. URL: http://www.opensecrets.org/pubs/law_wp/wealthindex. htm. Downloaded on February 4, 2003. An approach to legally challenging the present system of campaign finance as being an undemocratic (and arguably unconstitutional) “wealth primary” that excludes all but the wealthy candidates (or those with wealthy backers).

ELECTORAL REFORM Voting Rights, Minorities, and Redistricting This section deals with several closely related legal issues: the right to vote, the treatment of racial and ethnic minorities in the electoral process, and redistricting (reapportionment), particularly when used to promote minority representation. Note that legal issues relating to Bush v. Gore and the 2000 election are also included here because they deal mainly with voting rights.

BOOKS Ackerman, Bruce A., ed. Bush v. Gore: The Question of Legitimacy. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2002. This varied collection of essays by legal scholars focuses not on why the Supreme Court decided Bush v. Gore the way it did, but rather on the possible long-term implications for the relationship between the courts and the political process, the rule of law, and popular confidence in the justice system. Bositis, David A., ed. Redistricting and Minority Representation: Learning from the Past, Preparing for the Future. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1998. Using data from the 1996 elections, the author analyzes the success and failure of black and Hispanic candidates in white majority districts and what these results have to say about the composition of the districts. The author suggests ways in which the findings of the 2000 census can be used to provide better minority representation in the light of changing demographics. Bugliosi, Vincent. The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President. New York: Thunder’s

214

Annotated Bibliography Mouth Press/Nation Books, 2001. A veteran prosecutor and author indicts the U.S. Supreme Court for its Bush v. Gore decision, accusing the majority of the justices of being unprincipled and ignoring the fundamental right to vote of millions of Americans. More passionate polemic than analysis. Butler, David, and Bruce E. Cain. Congressional Redistricting: Comparative and Theoretical Perspectives. New York: Macmillan, 1992. The authors survey the development of redistricting practices and discuss the many factors that go into the process today, when the desire to gain partisan advantage often comes into conflict with the need to improve minority representation. Congressional redistricting is also compared to state redistricting and to similar practices in other democracies. Bybee, Keith J. Mistaken Identity: The Supreme Court and the Politics of Minority Representation. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1998. A Harvard University professor of government argues that defenders of group-based racial considerations in districting and their opponents who focus on the individual are both guilty of a “mistaken identity.” The mistake arises from not paying attention to the political identity and interests of people, which is essential for seeing if they are being fairly represented. The author analyzes competing interpretations of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, including those by a conservative (Abigail Thernstrom) and a liberal (Lani Guinier), as well as Supreme Court decisions since the 1970s. Canon, David T. Race, Redistricting, and Representation: The Unintended Consequences of Black Majority Districts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999. Canon supports the general idea that districts should be drawn to give blacks and other minority groups effective representation. He believes that the best approach is neither the so-called color-blind approach that denies history and reality nor a rigid group-based politics that results in polarization. Rather, he emphasizes a “policy of commonality” in which representatives from majority-minority districts who may be raceconscious in dealing with certain issues can also effectively represent white constituents in many common issues that have nothing in particular to do with race. Canon supports his arguments with extensive statistical data. Cox, Gary W., and Jonathan N. Katz. Elbridge Gerry’s Salamander: The Electoral Consequences of the Reapportionment Revolution. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002. A comprehensive study of changing reapportionment practices and their electoral effects. After introducing the historical background, the authors look at the partisan role in redistricting, the impact of court cases in the 1960s and beyond involving minority representation, and the relationship between redistricting and the advantages of incumbency.

215

Campaign and Election Reform Davidson, Chandler, and Bernard Grofman. Quiet Revolution in the South. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994. Contributors to this collection of essays explore the impact of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and show how African-American and Hispanic activists, working with the Justice Department, broke down the barriers to minority voting in the South following the passage of the law and through the 1980s. There is also a discussion of current issues and cases relating to treatment of minority voting rights. Dionne, E. J., and William Kristol, ed. Bush v. Gore: The Court Cases and the Commentary. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2001. This extensive, well-balanced collection combines both legal commentary and a broad range of commentary from journalists and opinion columnists. Sources for the commentary include the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, New Republic, Weekly Standard, and National Review. The text of the relevant Florida court decisions as well as that of the Supreme Court is included. Dover, Edwin D. The Disputed Presidential Election of 2000: A History and Reference Guide. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 2003. A collection of essays on various aspects of the 2000 election debacle. Includes primary sources and a bibliography. Dworkin, Ronald, ed. A Badly Flawed Election: Debating Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court, and American Democracy. New York: New Press, 2002. This collection of essays by noted legal scholars analyzes the issues surrounding the 2000 presidential election and the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore. Contributors Cass R. Sunstein and Richard A. Posner agree that the Court’s decision had the virtue of avoiding protracted political instability, but only Posner believes that this objective justified what many scholars consider to be a legally unsound approach. Other contributors look beyond the election debacle to consider electoral reforms: Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. suggests a modest tinkering with the Electoral College—enough to ensure that a loser in the popular vote cannot win the presidency. Lani Guinier argues for more fundamental change through adoption of proportional representation in place of the current single-seat, winner-take-all election format. Graham, Gene. One Man, One Vote: Baker v. Carr and the American Levelers. Boston: Little, Brown, 1972. The Supreme Court’s embracing of “one man, one vote” as a primary principle is viewed as the culmination of a reform movement seeking fundamental democracy, and the social and cultural consequences are explored. Grofman, Bernard, and Chandler Davidson, eds. Controversies in Minority Voting: The Voting Rights Act in Perspective. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1992. A collection of essays assessing the impact of the 1965 Voting Rights Act on its 25th anniversary. Topics include the history of

216

Annotated Bibliography voting rights legislation, the process by which application of the Voting Rights Act has been adjudicated in the courts and implemented by political leaders and whether the law is still useful and effective. Grofman, Bernard, Lisa Handley, and Richard G. Niemi. Minority Representation and the Quest for Voting Equality. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992. The authors analyze the effects of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and subsequent legal cases, then develop a model for determining the extent to which voting in a district is racially polarized and for measuring “vote dilution” in the light of changing legal standards. Karlan, Pamela S. “Equal Protection: Bush v. Gore and the Making of a Precedent.” In Rakove, Jack N., ed. The Unfinished Election of 2000. New York: Basic Books, 2001, pp. 159–199. Discusses the history of interpretation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as it applies to the right to vote. The author concludes that Supreme Court’s remedy in Bush v. Gore (stopping the vote-counting process) is inconsistent with the Court’s general approach to equal protection cases. For one thing, it left uncounted (excluded) more rather than fewer voters. Keyssar, Alexander. “The Right to Vote and Election 2000.” In Rakove, Jack N., ed. The Unfinished Election of 2000. New York: Basic Books, 2001, pp. 75–102. Recounts the complex history of the right to vote, noting that even as voting rights were being expanded (such as by removing property or taxpaying qualifications), new restrictions were often added, such as literacy tests. Views the problems with voting and counting of votes in the 2000 election in the light of this troubling history. ———. The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States. New York: Basic Books, 2000. A comprehensive history of the struggle for universal suffrage in the United States, in the broad context of the social and economic changes of two centuries. The author suggests that contrary to the usual view of steady widening of the electorate, voting rights for many Americans actually contracted from 1850 to 1920. He suggests that war has frequently expanded suffrage because of the need to keep the allegiance of the working class that supported the military, while class conflict has often led to attempts to restrict the franchise. Kousser, J. Morgan. Colorblind Injustice: Minority Voting Rights and the Undoing of the Second Reconstruction. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999. Kousser begins his defense of race-conscious districting by looking back to the “Second Reconstruction”—the period from the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and decisions that supported effective remedies for the minorities who had been discriminated against. He argues that the Supreme Court took a fateful wrong turn in its 1994 decision Shaw v. Reno and its subsequent suspicion of the use of race in districting (such as the creation of

217

Campaign and Election Reform so-called minority-majority districts that attempt to guarantee that a proportional number of minority representatives will be elected). Kousser passionately argues that the Rehnquist court has ignored history and misapplied constitutional principles in striking down race-based districts. Kramer, Larry D. “The Supreme Court in Politics.” In Rakove, Jack N., ed. The Unfinished Election of 2000. New York: Basic Books, 2001, pp. 105–157. After a detailed analysis of the proceedings in the Florida and U.S. Supreme Court, the author suggests that the Court’s uncharacteristic behavior in Bush v. Gore ultimately resulted not from a Republican coup to install Bush but from an equally problematic attitude by which the Court “deluded themselves into believing that only they could save us from ourselves.” Lamis, Alexander P. Southern Politics in the 1990s. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1999. This collection consists of papers by political science researchers, with chapters devoted to each southern state. Together they provide useful background for dealing with issues of voting rights, minority political representation, and reapportionment. Lawson, Steven F. Black Ballots: Voting Rights in the South, 1944–1969. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2000. Explores the struggle for voting rights in the South from the end of World War II to the “Second Reconstruction,” epitomized by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The techniques used by Southern white officials to disenfranchise blacks are described, including the white primary, literacy tests, the grandfather clause, and poll taxes. Gradually, the Civil Rights movement developed legal arguments and political tactics to overcome these barriers. Lublin, David. The Paradox of Representation: Racial Gerrymandering and Minority Interests in Congress. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1997. According to the author, the “paradox of representation” is that concentrating minorities into “majority-minority” districts may ensure the election of more minority representatives, but it may also mean that more conservative representatives opposed to the minority political agenda will be elected from surrounding districts. Thus, for example, more black Democrats may go to Congress, but Republicans may become more likely to gain control of that body. Lublin seeks to find a balance between the objectives of minority representation and the election of a legislature that is more liberal overall. He suggests that drawing up districts with 40 percent black and Latino constituents is likely to produce better results than having districts with 55 percent or more minorities. Monmonier, Mark S. Bushmanders and Bullwinkles: How Politicians Manipulate Electronic Maps and Census Data to Win Elections. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001. The ability of the party in power to control the decennial redrawing of districts is crucial to either making competitive challenges to the opposing party possible or defending one’s own incum-

218

Annotated Bibliography bents. The author, a cartographer, criticizes the way both parties manipulate electoral maps to gain partisan advantage. This process can produce strange bedfellows: In 1991, the administration of George H. W. Bush aligned with minority activists to encourage the drawing-up of more minority-majority districts. The result was that more minority politicians were assured of election, while the concentration of the minority voters (who vote overwhelmingly Democratic) into a few districts diluted the Democratic vote in many others, helping the Republicans achieve a majority in the Congress. Many maps are included to help readers visualize the districting process and electoral outcome. Posner, Richard. Breaking the Deadlock: The 2000 Election, the Constitution, and the Courts. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2001. Posner, a distinguished appellate judge and legal scholar, explores the complexities of election law and practice that had been uncovered by the Florida deadlock in 2000. Posner argues that while both Gore’s and Bush’s legal positions were reasonable, the scholarly “postgame analysis” largely missed the practical considerations that guided the Supreme Court in making its controversial decision. In addition to critiquing the judges and lawyers who tried the case at the local, state, and federal levels, Posner suggests modest reforms designed to prevent another close election from ending up in the courts. Rakove, Jack N., ed. The Unfinished Election of 2000. New York: Basic Books, 2001. A collection of essays analyzing the significance of the 2000 election, including the political forces that made it so difficult for either party to achieve a majority. Below the surface of the problems with voting and ballot processing is the fundamental question of whether the right to vote and access to the polls is really assured for all groups. Finally, the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore is criticized from a number of viewpoints. Rush, Mark E. Does Redistricting Make a Difference? Partisan Representation and Electoral Behavior. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2001. Refuting conventional wisdom, the author argues that analysis of resulting voting patterns shows that in most cases parties are unable to use redistricting to gain lasting electoral advantage. This suggests that the expensive consultants and lawyers deployed in intensive partisan redistricting battles are counterproductive and feed voters’ negative perceptions of the parties. The author argues, however, that redistricting based on race can be effective in improving diversity of representation. Rush, Mark E., ed. Voting Rights and Redistricting in the United States. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1998. This collection of essays discusses the many controversial cases arising from enforcement of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which was interpreted as requiring that districting (and redistricting) protect minority voting rights. As a result

219

Campaign and Election Reform white and minority voters were often put at odds, while scholars have struggled to determine the effectiveness of race-based redistricting. Rush, Mark E., and Richard L. Engstrom. Fair and Effective Representation?: Debating Electoral Reform and Minority Rights. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001. In this debate on how diverse populations can achieve fair and effective representation, Engstrom argues for electoral innovations such as preference or cumulative voting or a multiple-seat, proportional representation system as ways to avoid the endless litigation arising from groups who feel they are at a disadvantage in a winner-take-all election. Rush critiques Engstrom’s proposals, questioning some of the justifications for proportional representation as well as possible negative effects of trying to graft a European-style election onto the complicated organism that is U.S. constitutional government. There are also excerpts and discussions of nine key Supreme Court voting rights cases. Sunstein, Cass R., and Richard Alan Epstein, eds. The Vote: Bush, Gore, and the Supreme Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001. Two distinguished University of Chicago legal scholars bring together their analysis of Bush v. Gore and that of a variety of other contributors. Many of the contributors compare and contrast the votes of various justices in Bush v. Gore with those justices’ usual patterns of legal reasoning—pointing out, for example, that conservative justices who generally profess to abhor “judicial activism” and who might be expected to narrowly construe equal protection principles did just the opposite in Bush v. Gore. The collection of contributors is well balanced; some argue that the Supreme Court should not have taken the case at all, while others disagree on whether the Supreme Court’s decision was motivated by justifiable legal pragmatism or tainted by partisanship. Swain, Carol M. Black Faces, Black Interests: The Representation of African Americans in Congress. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993. The author approaches the question of minority representation from an interesting angle: She looks at members of the Congressional Black Caucus and sympathetic white representatives and correlates them with the constituency of the districts they represent. She suggests that black interests can sometimes be adequately represented by white representatives even in black majority districts, while blacks in districts where they are a minority can succeed by representing both black and broader interests. Swain argues, however, that blacks in Congress face many problems in balancing interests. Thernstrom, Abigail. M. Whose Votes Count? Affirmative Action and Minority Voting Rights. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987. The author asserts that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was badly needed and quite effective in giving blacks and other minorities access to the polls, but subsequent regulations veered onto a wrong track in trying to ensure quotas for

220

Annotated Bibliography minority representation. (An update of this discussion is in chapter 16 of Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom’s 1999 book America in Black and White.)

ARTICLES Caraley, Demetrios James. “Editor’s Opinion: Why Americans Need a Constitutional Right to Vote for Presidential Electors.” Political Science Quarterly, Spring 2001, pp. 1–3. The author believes that while the Supreme Court was technically correct in Bush v. Gore when it said “the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for President unless and until the state legislature chooses statewide election,” the realities in the wake of the 2000 election require an explicit statement of voting rights. The author suggests that electoral votes be retained but the actual electors be eliminated, thus avoiding the danger of electors taking matters into their own hands. Greenhouse, Linda. II “Supreme Court Takes Case on Black Voting Districts.” New York Times, January 18, 2003, p. 12. In response to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, minority activists have promoted the creation of “maxblack” or “majority-minority” districts. With concentrated numbers of blacks and other minorities, such districts could ensure the election of minority representatives to state legislations. Republicans often joined with the activists because concentrating minorities (who usually vote Democratic) meant that the other districts were more likely to be won by Republican candidates. In recent years, white and black Democrats have tried to reverse some of this minority concentration in order to give the party better electoral chances. However, a federal district court in Georgia ruled that shrinking the large black majorities to slightly less than 50 percent violated the Voting Rights Act. Now the case will be heard by an apparently reluctant U.S. Supreme Court. In an ironic twist, Democrats are taking a states’ rights position while Republicans are backing race-based districting. (The Supreme Court in 2003 ruled that the Democrats’ plan did not impermissibly dilute minority voting strength.) “How to Rig an Election: Congressional Redistricting.” The Economist (U.S.). April 27, 2002, p. 29. Increasingly in America, representatives choose their voters, rather than the other way around. Both partisan and race considerations lead to a wave of redistricting after each 10-year census, and the redrawn districts can be bizarrely shaped. For example, in Illinois two Hispanic areas on either side of a black district are joined by a sort of umbilical cord to form a single Hispanic district. Today, thanks to geographical databases available from the government and special software, the party in power can more reliably redraw districts to suit its political needs. Because of this tinkering and the natural advantages of incumbency, fewer House districts than ever are truly competitive, driving down voter interest.

221

Campaign and Election Reform McDonald, Laughlin. “The New Poll Tax: Republican-Sponsored BallotSecurity Measures Are Being Used to Keep Minorities from Voting.” The American Prospect, vol. 13, December 30, 2002, p. 26ff. The author, director of the Voting Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, argues that the Voting Integrity Initiative announced by the Department of Justice is really the latest effort by Republicans to suppress minority voting in the guise of preventing fraud. The Justice Department’s first action, an intensive investigation of registration of Native Americans in South Dakota, raises troubling implications of racial profiling. Other examples of alleged voter intimidation by Republicans include the use of hundreds of “spotters” at the polls in heavily Democratic precincts in Michigan and challenging the rural route addresses of South Carolina voters, many of whom are African American. The use of picture identification also discriminates against minorities, who are less likely to have it, and has not been shown to be effective in reducing fraud. Puzzanghera, Jim. “Redistricting, Incumbency Lead to Noncompetitive Races.” Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service, November 1, 2002, p. K7455. Usually, redistricting results in some challenges for incumbents who find new voters in their districts and lose some of their current supporters. In the redistricting following the 2000 census, however, Democratic and Republican leaders in California opted to protect incumbents rather than to improve their competitive chances. As a result, California congressional districts are less competitive than ever. Examples of specific races are included. Rosenbaum, David E. “Supreme Court Takes Up Redistricting Case in Mississippi.” New York Times, December 11, 2002, p. A28. Amid charges that the Justice Department under President Bush is using the Voting Rights Act to reject or manipulate districts drawn by Democrats, the Supreme Court heard arguments about a disputed Mississippi congressional district. The Court’s questions were procedural and did not deal with the larger Voting Rights Act issues. Tam Cho, Wendy K., and Albert H. Yoon. “Strange Bedfellows: Politics, Courts, and Statistics; Statistical Expert Testimony in Voting Rights Cases.” Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, vol. 10, Spring 2001, p. 237ff. Expert witnesses frequently duel in court over the use of statistical techniques for redrawing districts to comply with Voting Rights Act mandates. To defend the creation of a majority-minority district, proponents must show that a relevant minority group is geographically compact and has political cohesion (tends to vote as a group) and that the majority white population also tends to vote as a bloc. These showings depend crucially on the statistical methods or models used, and judges have only limited qualifications in this area. Two possible ways of solving this problem are to create a special panel of experts to advise the

222

Annotated Bibliography courts or to create specialized courts for dealing with this and other scientific issues.

WEB DOCUMENTS “Felony Disenfranchisement Laws in the United States.” The Sentencing Project. Available online. URL: http://www.sentencingproject.org/brief/ pub1046.pdf. Downloaded on March 13, 2002. Summarizes the state laws that disenfranchise (deny the right to vote) convicted felons at various stages such as while incarcerated (all but two states) and while on parole (33 states). Describes the impact in terms of numbers permanently or temporarily disenfranchised, as well as the disparate impact on African Americans. “Redistricting Case Summaries.” National Conference of State Legislatures. Available online. URL: http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/ redistrict/casesumm.htm. Downloaded on March 13, 2003. Summarizes dozens of redistricting cases, including Supreme Court decisions in the 1990s, early 2000s, and pending cases. “Redistricting Data.” United States Census Bureau. Available online. URL: http://www.census.gov/clo/www/redistricting.html. Updated on March 19, 2002. Contains 2000 census data in spreadsheet form, mainly relating to racial proportions, to be used for redistricting. “Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election.” United States Commission on Civil Rights. URL: http://www.usccr.gov/ pubs/vote2000/report/main.htm. Posted on June 2001. After investigation and hearing testimony at public hearings, the commission concluded that violations of the Voting Rights Act had occurred during the election in Florida. While the report did not find that election officials deliberately sought to disenfranchise voters, it did find that certain actions (or inactions) by officials and others did in effect deny some citizens their full voting rights. In particular, African Americans had a disproportionate share of their ballots “spoiled” or rejected for various reasons.

Term Limits This section covers the debate over term limits, including legality and effects.

BOOKS Benjamin, Gerald, and Michael J. Malbin, ed. Limiting Legislative Terms. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1992. The volume begins by laying out the basic issues involving term limits. Contributors then look at the underlying

223

Campaign and Election Reform political theory, the history of term limits campaigns, and the long-term outcomes of this reform. Appendices include material on retention rates for legislators and the actual text of representative term limit measures. Carey, John M., Richard G. Niemi, and Lynda W. Powell. Term Limits in State Legislatures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000. A detailed study of the effects of limiting the terms of state legislators, based on a survey of 3,000 state legislators in 1995 and in-depth interviews with 22 leading legislators in states that have term limits. Effects studied include changes in the “professionalization” of legislators, changes in individual and institutional behavior, and effects on the overall electoral process. Results of the study suggest that term limits have not significantly changed the composition of state legislatures but do reduce the amount of focus by legislators on securing legislative “pork” for their constituents. There may also be a long-term shift in power from legislators to professional staff and possibly to state governors. Coyne, and James K., and John H. Fund. Cleaning House: America’s Campaign for Term Limits. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1992. The authors begin their argument for congressional term limits by giving examples of how unlimited terms in office make representatives too cozy with special interests and not responsive enough to ordinary constituents. They then defend term limits on legal grounds and rebut common objections to the reform. Farmer, Rick. The Test of Time: Coping with Legislative Term Limits. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2002. A collection of 15 articles, including indepth case studies of term limits in California, Michigan, Maine, and Colorado. The studies and articles measure and assess the effects of state term limit legislation, including on the linkages between legislators and lobbyists, the competitiveness of election races, and the representation of various groups, including women. In general, the contributors find a number of problematic consequences to this well-intended reform. There is also a comprehensive annotated bibliography and a historical overview. Kamber, Victor. Giving Up on Democracy: Why Term Limits Are Bad for America. Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 1995. The author argues that term limits amount to an admission of defeat for democracy and that removing experienced legislators would make the system less, not more, responsive to constituents’ needs. Campaign finance reform and greater citizen participation, not term limits, is the real solution. Will, George F. Restoration: Congress, Term Limits, and the Recovery of Deliberative Democracy. New York: Free Press, 1992. The author begins his argument for term limits by giving anecdotes showing how congressional representatives have become self-serving, careerist seekers of “pork” rather than the kind of deliberative legislators envisaged by the framers of America’s political system. Will relates this to the growth of big, intrusive

224

Annotated Bibliography government and believes that Congress can be “restored” to its important but limited functions by having legislators with limited terms who retain their ties to the larger community.

ARTICLES Edwards, Catherine. “The Promise of Term Limits.” Insight on the News, vol. 15, June 28, 1999, p. 46. An overview of the debate on term limits and developments in the 1990s, with a focus on voluntary term limit pledges. A study by the National Taxpayers’ Union found that self-limited legislators spend about one-third as much taxpayers’ money than do their “unlimited” colleagues. A group called the Citizen Legislators’ Caucus (CLC) has been formed to help legislators keep voluntary term limit pledges and to ease their transition after leaving office. Elhauge, Einer. “What Term Limits Do That Ordinary Voting Cannot.” Cato Institute Policy Analysis, No. 328, December 16, 1998. Also available online. URL: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa328.pdf. The author argues that elections alone are ineffective for removing entrenched officeholders, because voters are afraid of the loss of local “clout” involved in replacing a senior legislator with a new one. Voters’ “rational” behavior thus puts them in conflict with whatever support they might have for term limits. But to the extent that term limits can be enacted widely, they would overcome the cost of voting out entrenched legislators and put everyone on a more level playing field. Hicks, Jonathan P. “Seats in Albany Beckon Ex-Officeholders.” New York Times, June 9, 2002, p. 44ff. Not surprisingly, politicians who have been “termed out” often look for ways to continue their political career. In this case, many New York City politicians are taking advantage of redistricting in the state legislature to vie for seats there. Lynch, Michael W. “Exit Interviews.” Reason, vol. 32, October 2000, p. 39. A retrospective on the term-limits movement and its effects. The Supreme Court overturned congressional term limits in 1995, but 18 states have enacted term limits for their own legislators. In 2000, 380 state legislators will be “termed out” and have to seek a different position. The author interviews a selection of these individuals and asks them about issues and their careers. Wilson, Ethan. “The Legislative Shuffle.” Washington Monthly, vol. 32, September 2000, p. 39. As a case study, the Ohio state legislature suggests that term limits are likely to have a deleterious effect on legislation and public life. Some legislators have left early to take advantage of attractive job opportunities, depriving the legislature of its most experienced members. With the term limit clock ticking, new legislators feel pressured to “make their mark” quickly, perhaps with ill-considered legislation. Mean-

225

Campaign and Election Reform while, incumbents are likely to face fewer challenges while serving their allotted limit of terms. This is because challenging an incumbent is difficult and expensive, and it may make more sense for a would-be challenger to wait until the incumbent has been “termed out.”

WEB DOCUMENTS “State Gubernatorial Term Limits.” U.S. Term Limits, Inc., 2003. Available online. URL: http://termlimits.org/Current_Info/State_TL/ gubernatorial. html. Updated on February 13, 2003. Lists term limits for governors by state, including the year the law took effect and the percentage of voters who voted to enact it. “State Legislative Term Limits.” U.S. Term Limits, Inc., 2002. Available online. URL: http://termlimits.org/Current_Info/State_TL/index.html. Updated on February 6, 2002. Lists legislative term limits by state, including the length of term, the year the law took effect and the percentage of voters who voted to enact it. “Term Limits & Frequent Rotation in Office: Historical Background.” Oregon Term Limits. Available online. URL: http://www.oregontermlimits. org/background.html. Downloaded on March 10, 2003. This page offers historical background, cartoons, and quotations relating to the fight over term limits in Oregon as well as the issue in general. Buckley, James. “Corruption, Campaign Finance, and Term Limits.” CATO Policy Report. March/April 2000. Also available online. URL: http:// www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v22n2/buckley.html. Posted in 2000. The author, a federal appellate judge and former U.S. senator, was the lead plaintiff in the famous Buckley v. Valeo case, in which the Supreme Court overturned campaign spending limits. Buckley points out that the campaign reform debate is interesting in that it does not divide along traditional liberal/conservative lines but rather sets political “insiders” and reformers against libertarians. He suggests that besides being constitutionally problematic, campaign finance reform misses the larger point that “the currency of corruption in elective office is not money, but votes.” Trading votes for policy is inevitable in a democracy and that often subordinates public interest to special interests. Buckley argues that only term limits can effectively control this inherent flaw in the political system.

Voting Procedures and Problems This section deals with voter registration and what goes on at the polling place. Issues covered include problems with voting and counting votes and

226

Annotated Bibliography the use of new voting technology. Relevant events of the 2000 election in Florida are included.

BOOKS Gritzalis, Dimitris, ed. Secure Electronic Voting. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002. A collection of articles on current and proposed electronic and Internet-based voting systems. Developing such systems will require the meeting of high standards for reliability, accuracy, privacy, and resistance to fraud or tampering. Designers of electronic voting systems must also take into account the legal framework for elections and the possible social impact of new technology. Three case studies of actual electronic voting systems are included. Lane, Janet B., ed. Voter Registration. Hauppauge, N.Y.: Nova Science Publishers, 2002. The contributors discuss issues relating to voter registration using data from elections in the second half of the 20th century. Topics include the relationship between voter registration and turnout and voter registration by state and party affiliation. Montjoy, Robert S. Innovations in Election Administration: Mail Voter Registration Programs. Collingdale, Pa.: DIANE Publishing Company, 1994. Describes the operation and considerations (such as prevention of fraud) for mail-in voter registration systems now used in about half the states. National Commission on Federal Election Reform. To Assure Pride and Confidence in the Electoral Process: Report of the National Commission on Federal Election Reform. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2002. Following the 2000 presidential election, a commission was formed under the sponsorship of the University of Virginia’s Miller Center for Public Affairs and the Century Foundation to investigate problems with election administration and to recommend reforms. The recommendations of the commission, whose chairpersons included former presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, include making voter registration and votecounting standards uniform in each state, ensuring voting rights and access to the polls for all citizens, establishing standards for accuracy of voting equipment, and restraining the media from projecting election results while the polls are still open.

ARTICLES Barstow, David, and Don Van Natta, Jr. “Examining the Vote: How Bush Took Florida: Mining the Overseas Absentee Vote.” New York Times, July 15, 2001, p. 1ff. According to a six-month-long New York Times investigation, the decisive factor in Bush’s strategy to capture Florida’s electoral

227

Campaign and Election Reform votes (and the presidency) lay in a stream of absentee votes coming in from overseas Republican-leaning voters. The Bush campaign mounted a legal and public-relations offensive to have these votes counted, including hundreds that were invalid under election laws because they had missing or improper postmarks or lacked signatures. Ironically, the many different standards used to count these votes violated the equal protection principles for which Bush’s lawyers were arguing in the courts. It is uncertain whether discarding all the questionable absentee votes would have made Gore the winner. Becker, Ted, and Deborah M. Phillips. “Symposium.” Insight on the News, vol. 17, June 25, 2001, p. 40. A debate between Becker, political science professor at Auburn University in Alabama and a proponent of electronic voting, and Phillips, founder of the Voting Integrity Project, who opposes this technology. While acknowledging that there are legitimate concerns about fraud, election security, and the “digital divide” disadvantaging voters, Becker believes that these concerns are used as window dressing for the real agenda of the “political class”—keeping ordinary people from rocking the electoral boat and challenging the comfortable power structure. He points out that in its limited trials (such as in the Arizona Democratic primary) electronic voting has not had problems and that the traditional systems have their share of flaws and vulnerabilities as well. Phillips counters that electronic voting will not solve voter fraud problems or necessarily enfranchise more voters. She cites the conclusion of a consortium of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the California Institute of Technology that studied the matter and concluded that emphasis should be placed on voter education and poll-worker training rather than on new voting technology. Further, electronic technology is likely to lack means of independent verification of both registration and voting, leading to many possibilities for abuse. Canedy, Dana. “Florida Official Criticized amid Familiar Election Chaos.” New York Times, January 25, 2003, p. A12. Broward County, Florida, supervisor of elections Miriam M. Oliphant has had a rough few months following widespread problems with voting equipment and procedures during the November 2000 election, and her office is now well over budget. There were so many problems that Florida officials have decided to postpone voting on a number of state referendums. Some of Oliphant’s supporters (she is a black Democrat) have accused critics of racism. Guinier, Lani. “Fiasco 2000 Shows Need for Overhaul to Reach Fair Representation.” Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service, December 20, 2000, p. K6171. The author, an electoral reform advocate, argues that the Florida election debacle revealed deep, underlying problems not only with the technology of voting but also with the electoral system itself. Many black

228

Annotated Bibliography voters were disenfranchised because their counties used the oldest, least reliable voting technology. Technology to verify registration of voters who had moved was slow or unavailable, leading to thousands being turned away at the polls. About 400,000 people (many of them black) were stripped of their right to vote because they had been convicted of a felony, even though they had served their time. Further, many names were erroneously included on lists of ineligible felons. Besides the need to reform voting procedures and equipment, structural reform such as proportional representation should be used to give all voters a more meaningful say in their governance. Hicks, Jonathan P. “Survey Finds Poll Workers Often Misinformed Voters Last Election.” New York Times, January 21, 2003, p. B3. Reports that a survey by the New York Public Interest Group has found little improvement in the accuracy of instructions given by poll workers in New York City elections, nor in their ability to correctly follow procedures intended to assist voters. Keating, Dan. “Fla. Vote Uncovers a Problem: Overwhelmed Poll Workers.” Washington Post, September 14, 2002, p. A6. Reports that in the 2002 primary election, Florida’s poll workers were unable to cope with complicated new rules and procedures that had been adopted in the wake of the 2000 presidential election. Some of the poll workers, who are mainly elderly volunteers, never showed up at all. As a result, many precincts opened late and vote counts were delayed. Keyssar, Alex. “Reform and an Evolving Electorate.” New York Times, August 5, 2001, Section 4, p. 13. In this Op-Ed article, the author takes the report by the National Commission on Federal Election Reform (led by former presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford) to task. He believe the report is naive in treating the many things that happened to Florida voters (including being forced to use antiquated equipment and not having votes properly counted) as merely accidental rather than reflecting strategies intended to disenfranchise black and poor voters. This resistance to democracy has many historical antecedents, particularly in the South. Rutenberg, Jim. “Joint Service for Exit Polls Is in Danger of Dissolution.” New York Times, December 30, 2002, p. C1. Most major television networks as well as the Associated Press are ending their relationship with the Voter News Service, the polling organization that was responsible for problems with exit polls in the 2000 presidential election. In particular, faulty data for Florida led the networks to prematurely “call” the election for Gore. Republicans claim that this may have cost Bush much of his winning margin. Seelye, Katharine Q. “The 2002 Elections: The Pitfalls; In Florida, Police (and Millions of Dollars) Avert Calamity.” New York Times, November 6,

229

Campaign and Election Reform 2002, p. B8. In the presidential election of 2000 and again in the September 2002 primary, there were massive problems with many polling places in Florida. Florida officials were determined to not have a repeat disaster in the November 2002 general election, so they put thousands of police to work helping to train poll workers and secure ballots (although they did not enter the polls themselves). This time they were successful, but at an as yet unknown (but undoubtedly high) cost. Meanwhile, there were scattered voting problems in other parts of the country, including malfunctioning touch-screen voting machines in Georgia. Vilbig, Peter. “Debugging the Ballot.” New York Times Upfront, vol. 135, November 1, 2002, p. 14ff. Despite reform efforts following the 2000 election, many first-time voters (including many young people) will face confusing ballots and voting procedures. Indeed, the September 11, 2002, primary in Florida experienced another rash of voting problems as machines broke down and the number of staff available proved inadequate. Voters should be sure they are registered and prepare themselves by studying the sample ballot they receive before the election. The article also includes a summary of the major types of voting systems in use in the United States.

WEB DOCUMENTS Adler, Jim. “Internet Voting Primer.” VoteHere.net, 2002. Available online. URL: http://www.votehere.net/ada_compliant/ourtechnology/ whitepapers/primer.html. Downloaded on February 4, 2003. This paper introduces Internet voting, discussing the criteria needed for a satisfactory system. These include screening out ineligible voters, preventing voters from voting more than once, protecting voters’ privacy, “soundness” (preventing tampering or making it evident), verifiability of results, and the ability of voters to change their mind (within a limited time). Adler, Jim. “Internet Voting Security.” VoteHere.net. Available online. URL: h t t p : / / w w w. v o t e h e r e . n e t / a d a _ c o m p l i a n t / o u r t e c h n o l o g y / technicaldocs/security.html. Posted in January 2000. Describes the necessity of balancing two conflicting issues in designing Internet voting systems: ballot secrecy and election integrity. Secrecy requires removing identifying information from the electronic ballot, but once the information has been removed, it may be impossible to verify that the votes have not been tampered with. Describes the system used by VoteHere.net, which provides secret but secure voting by using certain cryptographic principles and by providing for distributed trust (in which no one person or institution has the sole ability to authenticate the vote). Arent, Lindsey. “Vote in Your Underwear.” Wired News. Available online. URL: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,32266,00.html. Posted

230

Annotated Bibliography on November 2, 1999. Describes Internet voting technology that is already being tried out for mock elections. Also describes how voters are increasingly getting information about candidates online and how candidates are reaching out to voters via the Internet. Burke, Lynn. “The Tangled Web of E-Voting.” Wired News. Available online. URL: http://www.wired.com/new/politics/0,1283,37050,00.html. Posted on June 26, 2000. Reports on the efforts of companies such as Election.com (which ran the first Internet election primary in Arizona), VoteHere.net, and eBallot.net. The companies are trying to become certified (like makers of conventional voting equipment), but the results of the Arizona election and various straw polls show that electronic voting systems still have numerous kinks to be ironed out. “Citizens’ Guide to Voting Equipment.” Center for Voting and Democracy. Available online. URL: http://www.fairvote.org/administration/index. html. Posted in October 2002. Includes discussion and links to FEC standards for voting equipment and attempts to improve voting equipment in the aftermath of the 2000 Florida election. The Center for Voting and Democracy has evaluated new voting technologies (including optical scanners and electronic voting systems) and believes that it can “provide extremely accurate and reliable results.” “Election Integrity Index.” Administration and Cost of Elections Project. Available online. URL: http://www.aceproject.org/main/english/ei. Updated on November 18, 2000. Describes many aspects of integrity in elections. Divided into four main topics: integrity in election administration, integrity in participation, monitors of election integrity, and enforcement of election integrity. “Motor Voter Act.” League of Women Voters. Available online. URL: http://www.motorvoter.com/motorhome.htm. Downloaded on February 4, 2003. Introduction and links relating to the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, commonly called the “Motor Voter Act.” The site reports that the law has had considerable impact on increasing voter registration, particularly among young people. “States Call for Voting Reforms.” About.com.2001. Available online. URL: http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa021401a.htm. Reports on recommendations issued on February 6, 2001, by the Election Standards Task Force of the National Association of Secretaries of State. In all, they recommended 12 different state reforms and four to be implemented by Congress. Recommendations include promoting standards for voting systems, enforcing antidiscrimination policies to ensure access to the polls for all (including the disabled and overseas voters), modernizing voting equipment and procedures, providing uniform standards for both vote counting and for handling election

231

Campaign and Election Reform challenges and recounts, improving training for election officials, and expanding voter education. “What Do You Want to Know about the Florida Vote Count.” Available online. URL: http://www.geocities.com/floridavotecount. Downloaded on February 4, 2003. A well-balanced site that attempts to answer many questions about the Florida election debacle including the vote count and legal strategies of the two sides. The site includes questions and answers and links to short pieces on various topics. The explanations appear to be clear and unbiased, however the author does not identify him or herself.

Alternative Electoral Systems The final section of this bibliography deals with the ultimate ground rules of elections, including the debate over the Electoral College and proposed alternative electoral systems such as instant runoff, cumulative, or preference voting, and proportional representation.

BOOKS Amy, Douglas. Behind the Ballot Box: A Citizen’s Guide to Voting Systems. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2000. Most Americans have not considered alternatives to the usual voting system—plurality voting, where the candidate with the most votes wins, or majority systems, where if a candidate does not get more than 50 percent of votes, a runoff election between the top two candidates is held. The author explains a variety of systems used in other democracies. These include proportional representation in which seats are awarded to parties in proportion to their vote, and systems in which the voter lists candidates in order of preference and the secondary preferences are used to resolve elections in which there is no majority. The relationship between voting systems and the dominance of the two-party system is also explored. Barber, Kathleen L. A Right of Representation: Proportional Election Systems for the Twenty-first Century. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 2000. The author surveys the development of various forms of proportional representation (PR) and single transferable vote (STV) systems. Such systems were used by a number of cities in the Progressive era, earlier in the 20th century, but now have largely been abandoned. She argues that such systems were eventually rejected not because of inherent flaws, but because of opposition by various political interests. Arguing that recent political and legal thinking has extended the right to vote to a “right to

232

Annotated Bibliography representation,” the author asserts that proportional representation is the next logical step in implementing that right. Best, Judith. The Choice of the People? Debating the Electoral College. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield, 1996. The author surveys the history of the debate over the Electoral College and then defends the institution by arguing that it reflects the balance between state and national interest in the design of the federal system itself. Thus, if the Electoral College is obsolete, so would be the Senate. Using the Electoral College also promotes stability and avoids splintering of parties. Bullock, Charles S., III, and Loch K. Johnson. Runoff Elections in the United States. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992. A discussion of the little-studied problem of whether the runoff election (as opposed to, for example, electing by plurality) is the fairest way of deciding among multiple substantial candidates. One problem discussed, called Condorcet’s Paradox, represents a situation in which the winner is determined not by absolute preference but by the ordering of the voting process. The relationship between the two-party system, runoffs, and racial minorities is also considered. Cox, Gary W. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997. The author studies various electoral systems (such as single-seat and multiple-seat districts and single elections versus runoff systems) using a game theoretic analysis of constituents’ “strategic voting” interests. The data is drawn from 77 democracies throughout the world. Dummett, Michael. Principles of Electoral Reform. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. The author uses criteria to analyze and evaluate competing proposals for electoral reform, including proportional representation, the single transferable vote, and multimember districts. He argues that one need not hold to the “constituency principle” in which all representatives in a legislature represent specific constituencies that elected them. Guinier, Lani. The Tyranny of the Majority: Fundamental Fairness in Representative Democracy. New York: Free Press, 1994. When Lani Guinier was nominated for assistant attorney general by the President Clinton in 1993, opponents branded her a “quota queen” and an extremist primarily because she advocated a new cumulative voting system in which the ability of a voter to cast multiple votes for multiple candidates could help ensure minority representation. In this collection of papers, Guinier gives the justifications for such a voting system and explains how it might work. Hardaway, Robert M. The Electoral College and the Constitution: The Case for Preserving Federalism. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1994. As indicated by the title, this author (like Judith Best) believes that the case for the Electoral College is essentially the case for federalism itself, and he believes

233

Campaign and Election Reform that federalism still serves an important function today. The author does support modest electoral reforms that preserve the federalist principle. Hill, Steven. Fixing Elections: The Failure of America’s Winner Take All Politics. New York: Routledge, 2002. This provocative book suggests that the root of many U.S. political problems is the winner-take-all nature of U.S. legislative elections. Because there is only one seat to be won in a given race, only the two entrenched major parties have a realistic chance of winning it—and in many areas where one party dominates, people with differing views have no voice at all. The winner-take-all system also promotes negative campaigning at the expense of serious engagement with the issues. The author suggests that multiseat elections with proportional representation and possibly cumulative preference voting would give many more voters a stake in the political process. This would increase election turnout, provide for a more representative government and strengthen democracy. Rakove, Jack N. “The E-College in the E-Age.” In Rakove, Jack N., ed. The Unfinished Election of 2000. New York: Basic Books, 2001, pp. 201–251. Argues that the “federalist” (state-oriented) justification for retention of the Electoral College no longer has relevance to the way voters think and decide about electing a president (if it ever did). Rakove evaluates three possible reforms: assigning electors by congressional district, assigning electors proportional to a statewide vote, and abolishing the Electoral College entirely in favor of a straightforward national popular vote. Richie, Robert, and Steven Hill. Reflecting All of Us: The Case for Proportional Representation. Boston: Beacon Press, 1999. The authors, associated with the Center for Voting and Democracy, argue that the traditional American winner-take-all elections discourage voter participation because people with minority views have no hope of influencing policy. Proportional representation, as found in many European democracies, would give voices to a much greater variety of interests. It would also avoid the contentious political and legal battles over reapportionment, since minority groups would have potential representation equal to their proportion in the population. A number of invited commentators then respond to the authors’ argument. Rule, Wilma, and Joseph F. Zimmermann, eds. United States Electoral Systems: Their Impact on Women and Minorities. Westport, Conn.: Praeger Publishers, 1992. A collection of studies that explore how the choice of different electoral systems (such as cumulative voting or multimember districts) might affect the ability of women and minorities to be elected to office. The book includes recommendations for making the electoral system more inclusive, representative and responsive. Schumaker, Paul D., and Budett A. Loomis, eds. Choosing a President: The Electoral College and Beyond. New York: Chatham House, 2002. One result of the near deadlock in the 2000 presidential election was a renewed in-

234

Annotated Bibliography terest in reforming or replacing the Electoral College as the means of electing the president. This volume offers background on the Electoral College as well as evaluation of six different possible reforms. Each alternative is explored in terms of fundamental fairness and social values as well as possible impact on other aspects of electoral politics such as federalism, campaign strategy, and the role of the political parties.

ARTICLES “Amarillo Adopts Cumulative Voting.” The New Rules Journal, Spring 2001, p. 2. Reports that the Amarillo, Texas, school board, which had not elected a minority member for more than 20 years, elected an African American and a Latina member after adopting a form of cumulative voting. In this system, each voter has as many votes as there are seats to be decided, and the voter can cast more than one of his or her votes for a given candidate. This allows voters who strongly want a candidate to be elected to “weight” the vote for that candidate. One effect is the ability of minority voters to improve their chances of having at least some representation. Amy, Douglas. “Proportional Representation: A New Option for Local Elections.” National Civic Review, vol. 82, Summer, p. 275ff. The author introduces proportional representation (PR) as a fairer and more responsive way to conduct municipal elections. He shows how various versions of PR would work and how they would give voters more and better choices. The cumulative result would give minorities representation while reflecting the interest of the majority. It would also eliminate contentious redistricting battles and gerrymandering. The author also responds to common criticisms of PR. “Electoral College: Anachronism or Bulwark of Democracy?” Congressional Digest, vol. 80, January 2001, n.p. This entire issue of Congressional Digest focuses on the formerly obscure Electoral College and the debate over whether it should be modified or even replaced. The issue includes an overview of the Electoral College (including which states bind their electors by law to vote for their pledged candidate) and a summary of the main arguments for and against the Electoral College. Opponents of the institution point out that it can lead to a president who actually received a minority of the popular vote and that it is arbitrary and undemocratic. Supporters argues that the Electoral College can actually help protect regional and minority interests and that it reflects the federal system, with its separate spheres for states and the national government. Guterman, Lila. “When Votes Don’t Add Up: Mathematical Theory Reveals Problems in Election Procedures.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, vol. 47, November 3, 2000, p. A 18ff. Also available online at http://

235

Campaign and Election Reform chronicle.com/free/v47/i10/10a01801.htm. According to mathematicians, if there are more than two candidates in an election, the candidate considered acceptable by the largest percentage of the population can actually lose because of votes for minor candidates. One intriguing alternative is “approval voting,” where the voter can vote for any and all candidates that are considered acceptable. This would ensure both that voters could safely support minor candidates and that the winner actually has the approval of a majority of the voters. A weighted preference vote called the Borda Count (where a first place vote for a candidate might be worth 5 points, second place 4 points, and so on) might give even better results. Klarreich, Erica. “Election Selection: Are We Using the Wrong Procedure?” Science News, vol. 162, November 2, 2002, p. 280ff. There are many alternative electoral procedures that would allow voters to express more than just their single top choice. These include preference, or “instant runoff ” voting and approval voting, in which a voter may vote for as many of a pool of candidates as he or she wants. The standard plurality system works fine when there are only two candidates, but when there are many candidates the winner may actually be supported only by a minority of the voters. According to “Arrow’s Theorem,” no voting procedure can guarantee that if candidate A is preferred by everyone over candidate B, the presence of a candidate C (or D) will not sometimes lead to B winning despite the preference for A. However, systems such as preference or instant runoff voting have the best chance of honoring the majority of voters’ preferences. Lind, Michael. “Alice Doesn’t Vote Here Anymore.” Mother Jones, April/ May 1998, p. 52ff. Available online. URL: http://www.motherjones.com/ mother_jones/MA98/lind.html. An amusing critique of the current singlemember plurality electoral system via an “explanation” of it to a bemused Alice. Along the way, the reader learns about the idea of proportional representation, which is portrayed as being much more rational.

WEB DOCUMENTS Amy, Douglas. “Common Criticisms of PR and Responses to Them.” PR Library: Department of Politics, Mount Holyoke College. Available online. U R L : h t t p : / / w w w. m t h o l y o k e . e d u / a c a d / p o l i t / d a m y / a r t i c l e s / common_criticisms_of_pr.htm. Downloaded on February 4, 2003. An expert on electoral systems reviews 11 criticisms of proportional representation (PR) and offers refutations. He concludes that the advantages of PR compared to the current single-seat majority or plurality systems outweigh the relatively minor drawbacks.

236

Annotated Bibliography ———. “Instant Runoff Voting: No Substitute for Proportional Representation.” Mount Holyoke College Politics Program. Available online. URL: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/articles/irv.htm. Downloaded on February 4, 2003. The author, an advocate of proportional representation (PR), distinguishes it from the currently popular instant runoff voting (IRV) system. IRV does have important advantages over the plurality system for single-office elections (such as for mayor or governor) where it ensures that the winner reflects a majority preference and eliminates the role of minor candidates as “spoilers.” However, for legislative elections IRV would still be a single-winner system and would not provide representation for minority interests as would proportional representation with multimember districts. Advocates of IRV might actually hurt the cause of reform if they lead to the adoption of that system for legislative as well as executive offices. Bonsor, Kevin. “How E-Voting Will Work.” HowStuffWorks. Available online. URL: http://computer.howstuffworks.com/e-voting.htm. Downloaded on March 13, 2003. The author shows how e-voting systems work, using a touch-screen system as an example. E-voting is compared with several traditional voting systems and its advantages and possible risks are discussed. Holcombe, Randall G. “Origins of the Electoral College.” Ludwig von Mises Institute. Available online. URL: http://www.mises.org/fullstory. asp?control=545. Posted on November 9, 2000. The author explains that the Electoral College was based not on democracy but on “republican” principles intended to limit the power of the majority and thus the power of government. The changing role of the electors (who gradually lost their status as independent agents) is traced through the 19th century. Public attitudes toward (and criticism of) this institution mirror the growth of democracy (and direct democracy) as political ideals. “Instant Runoff Voting.” Center for Voting and Democracy. Available online. URL: http://www.fairvote.org/irv/index.html. Updated on January 15, 2003. Explains the system of instant runoff voting, in which voters rank candidates and second choices are used to determine the winner if no candidate wins an initial majority. The site includes fact sheets, frequently asked questions, and PowerPoint and animated demonstrations of this voting system. Kimport, Ky. “Approval Voting,” personal website. Available online. URL: http://idhop.cjb.net/av. Downloaded on March 13, 2003. The author describes a system in which each voter can indicate approval of as many of the candidates as he or she wishes, and argues that the system is superior to majority voting because voters can vote their preferences without having to “vote strategically”—the winner reflects broad approval. The value of targeting particular candidates (negative campaigning) is minimized.

237

Campaign and Election Reform Lanphier, Rob. “A Case for Condorcet’s Method,” personal website. Available online. URL: http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/politics/condorcetexplain.html. Downloaded on March 13, 2003. Describes and justifies an unusual voting method in which voters’ ranked preferences are used to simulate all possible two-way elections among the candidates, and the winner is the one who wins all relevant two-way pairings. The result is effectively the “compromise candidate” who arguably best represents the wishes of the electorate. “Proportional Representation (PR).” Center for Voting and Democracy. Available online. URL: http://www.fairvote.org/pr/index.html. Updated on December 23, 2002. Explains the case for proportional representation over winner-take-all voting, provides answers to frequently asked questions, and gives examples of the use of proportional representation around the world.

238

CHAPTER 8

ORGANIZATIONS AND AGENCIES Following are listings for selected organizations and agencies involved with electoral regulation and reform. Government agencies are listed first, then private advocacy and research groups.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES The federal government has several agencies involved with campaign and election regulation as well as voter rights and assistance.

Department of Commerce U.S. Census Bureau URL: http://www.census.gov E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (301) 457-4100 or (301) 457-4608 Washington, DC 20233-0900 Although not directly involved with elections, the U.S. Census Bureau provides the data used for reapportioning congressional districts and state legislative districts every 10 years. For information about this function of the census, see the page at http://www.census.gov/clo/www/ redistricting.html. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division

Voting Section URL: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ voting Phone: (800) 253-3931 or (202) 307-2767 Room 7254—NWB Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 The Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice is charged with enforcing the Voting Rights Act and related regulation. It responds to complaints of discrimination against voters in any election by investigation and, if necessary, sending federal observers. See the web page at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/

239

Campaign and Election Reform misc/faq.htm for answers to frequently asked questions about voting rights and the agency’s work. Federal Election Commission URL: http://www.fec.gov Email: [email protected] Phone: (800) 424-9530 or (202) 694-1100 999 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20463 The Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulates federal (congressional and presidential) elections. Its original charter followed the passage of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) and its amendments in the early 1970s. With the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) in 2002 the FEC has new enforcement responsibilities, particularly in the area of soft money and issue ads. The FEC web site includes helpful links, such as to campaign finance laws and to the data gathered from the required disclosures. This data is available in tabular or database form and is used by many political scientists studying campaign finance issues and trends in American politics. The FEC web site also contains guides for finding and researching disclosure information at the state level, including a directory of state offices that collect campaign finance data. Federal Voting Assistance Program URL: http://www.fvap.gov/ index.html

E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (800) 438-8683 Director Federal Voting Assistance Program Office of the Secretary of Defense Washington Headquarters Services 1155 Defense Pentagon Washington, DC 20301-1155 The Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) was established to implement the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986. As the name of the law suggests, its purpose is to provide uniform procedures, voter education, and other support for the several million voters in the military or otherwise overseas during an election. The FVAP is under the office of the secretary of defense and works closely with the Defense Department to support voters in the military and to implement the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). The FVAP trains voting assistance officers throughout the military and arranges for voter registration and military recruiting stations.

STATE ELECTORAL AGENCIES Each state has its own elections office (often as part of the office of the secretary of state). This office is charged with overseeing and regulating statewide elections. In some states, the elections office also ad-

240

Organizations and Agencies ministers such campaign finance and disclosure laws as the state may have passed. In other states, there is a separate agency charged with campaign finance–related matters. Of course, cities and counties also have their own election departments. The following list gives contact information for election offices in all 50 states. Note that most provide online access to election and campaign finance reports and/or searchable databases of candidates, committees, and contributors.

ALABAMA Office of the Secretary of State of Alabama, Elections Division URL: http://www.sos.state.al.us/ election/index.cfm Email: Web form Phone: (334) 242-7210 or (800) 274-8683 P.O. Box 5616 Montgomery, AL 36103-5616 The Elections Division provides information about contributions to state election campaigns, lists of PACs, and a summary and text of campaign finance regulations.

ALASKA Alaska Division of Elections URL: http://www.gov.state.ak.us/ Itgov/elections/homepage.html E-mail: Elections_Webmaster@ gov.state.ak.us Phone: (907) 465-4611 P.O. Box 110017 Juneau, AK 99811-0017

The Division of Elections provides basic information about registration, voting, and elections. Campaign finance–related matters are administered by the Alaska Public Offices Commission (see above). Alaska Public Offices Commission URL: http://www.state.ak.us/ apoc/index.htm Phone: (907) 276-4176 or (800) 478-4176 Email: Nancy_Freeman@admin. state.ak.us 2221 East Northern Lights, #128 Anchorage, AK 99508-4149 This agency is responsible for enforcing state laws requiring disclosure of campaign and lobbying activities, and provides disclosure statements online. Their web site also includes the text of laws and related legal decisions and advisory opinions.

ARIZONA Secretary of State, State of Arizona URL: http://www.sosaz.com E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (602) 542-4285 1700 West Washington Seventh Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007-2888 Election-related services are included within the secretary of state’s office rather than in a separate department. The Election Services links on the home page

241

Campaign and Election Reform include provisions of state campaign finance laws, online searching for expenditure filings for state races (including PACs and other committees), as well as links to information about congressional races.

ARKANSAS Arkansas Ethics Commission URL: http://www.arkansasethics. com E-mail: ContactUS@ ArkansasEthics.com Phone: (501) 324-9600 P.O. Box 1917 Little Rock, AR 72203-4917 The Arkansas Ethics Commission administers ethics and campaign finance regulations and provides information about rules as well as the ability to search for disclosure information. Arkansas Secretary of State URL: http://www.sosweb.state. ar.us E-mail: General_info@sosmail. state.ar.us Phone: (501) 682-1010 State Capitol Room 256 Little Rock, AR 72201 The secretary of state’s office provides basic information about elections, election districts, and registration.

CALIFORNIA California Secretary of State, Elections Division

URL: http://www.ss.ca.gov/ elections/elections.htm E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (916) 657-2166 1500 11th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 The Elections Division provides basic information about elections (including ballot initiatives) and registration. California Secretary of State, Political Reform Division URL: http://www.ss.ca.gov/prd/ prd.htm E-mail: Web form Phone: (916) 653-6224 1500 11th Street Room 495 Sacramento, CA 95814 The Political Reform Division reviews all required disclosures by candidates and committees and enforces applicable regulations. It makes all disclosure documents available for public scrutiny.

COLORADO Colorado Secretary of State, Elections Center URL: http://www.sos.state.co. us/pubs/elections/main.htm E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (303) 894-2200 ext. 6307 (303) 894-2200 ext. 6306 (Fair Campaign Practices Information) 1560 Broadway Suite 200 Denver, CO 80202-5169

242

Organizations and Agencies The Elections Center provides information including results of recent elections, current campaign finance laws, listings of registered lobbyists, and searchable candidate financial disclosures.

CONNECTICUT Connecticut Secretary of State, Election Services Division URL: http://www.sots.state.ct.us/ ElectionsDivision/Election Index.html E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (860) 509-6212 30 Trinity Street Hartford, CT 06106 Election-related services provided include general election information as well as a link to the state’s Campaign Finance Information System, which can be searched online for information about candidates, political committees, and individual contributors.

DELAWARE State of Delaware, Commissioner of Elections URL: http://www.state.de.us/ election E-mail: [email protected] Phone: 1 (800) 273-9500 32 West Loockerman Street, M101 Dover, DE 19904 The Delaware election commissioner’s office provides complete election information including on-

line searching of campaign disclosure records.

DISTRICT

OF

COLUMBIA

District of Columbia, Board of Elections and Ethics URL: http://www.dcboee.org E-mail: wofi[email protected] Phone: (202) 727-2525 441 Fourth Street, NW Suite 250 N Washington, DC 20001 This office provides general administration and information about elections in the District of Columbia. For campaign finance–related information, see the following entry. District of Columbia, Office of Campaign Finance URL: http://ocf.dc.gov/index. shtm 2000 14th Street, NW Washington, DC 20009 E-mail: Web form Phone: (202) 671-0550 The Office of Campaign Finance provides guidelines for candidates and committees as well as candidate and committee reports and summaries for the public.

FLORIDA Florida. Department of State, Division of Elections URL: http://election.dos.state.fl. us E-mail: [email protected]. state.fl.us

243

Campaign and Election Reform Phone: (850) 245-6200 107 West Gaines Street The Collins Building Room 100 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 The Division of Elections provides administration and enforcement of election laws. The searchable campaign finance information database can be found on the home page, at the link “Candidates & Committees.”

GEORGIA Georgia. Secretary of State, Elections Division URL: http://www.sos.state.ga. us/elections/default.htm E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (404) 656-2881 2 Martin Luther King, Jr., Drive, SE Suite 1104 West Tower Atlanta, GA 30334-1530 The Elections Division is divided into four areas: Elections Section, Commissions Section, Registration Section, and Campaign Disclosure Section, which provides reports that can be viewed or downloaded in PDF format.

HAWAII State of Hawaii. Campaign Spending Commission URL: http://www.hawaii.gov/ campaign

235 South Beretania Street Room 300 Honolulu, Hl 96813 E-mail [email protected] Phone: (808) 586-0285 The Campaign Spending Commission enforces state campaign finance and disclosure laws (including public funding of campaigns) and provides reports about complying and noncomplying candidates and committees. State of Hawaii, Office of Elections URL:http://www.state.hi.us/ index/elections.htm E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (808) 453-8683 802 Lehua Avenue Pearl City, HI 96782 The Office of Elections administers elections and election law, and provides services to voters and candidates.

IDAHO State of Idaho, Secretary of State, Election Division URL:http://www.idsos.state.id. us/elect/eleindex.htm E-mail: [email protected]. us Phone: (208) 334-2300 700 West Jefferson Room 203 P.O. Box 83720 Boise, ID 83720-0080 The Election Division administers elections and provides information

244

Organizations and Agencies for voters and candidates. A searchable database of campaign contributions is available online.

ILLINOIS State of Illinois, Illinois State Board of Elections URL: http://www.elections. state.il.us E-mail: webmaster@elections. state.il.us Phone: (312) 814-6440 1020 South Spring Street P.O. Box 4187 Springfield, IL 62708 The Board of Elections provides election services, including enforcement and reporting of campaign finance laws. There are “quick links” online to disclosure reports and a searchable contributions database.

INDIANA State of Indiana, Secretary of State, Election Division URL: http://www.state.in.us/ sos/elections.html E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (317) 232-3939 302 West Washington Street Room E-204 Indianapolis, IN 46204 The Elections Division administers elections including campaign finance laws. Its Campaign Finance Manual is available online, as are candidate and committee spending reports in PDF format.

IOWA Iowa Campaign Disclosure Board URL: http://www.state.ia.us/ government/iecdb/Entry.html E-mail: None Phone: (515) 281-4028 514 East Locust Suite 104 Des Moines, IA 50309-1912 The Campaign Disclosure Board enforces state laws relating to political campaign and lobbying disclosures. Electronically filed and scanned disclosure reports are available online. State of Iowa, Secretary of State URL: http://www.sos.state.ia.us E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (515) 281-8993 Lucas Building First Floor 321 East 12th Street Des Moines, IA 50319 In Iowa, the secretary of state also serves as the commissioner of elections. Links to election-related services are provided online under the link “Voter/Elections Center.”

KANSAS Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission URL: http://www.accesskansas. org/ethics E-mail: [email protected] 109 Southwest Ninth Avenue Suite 504 Topeka, KS 66612

245

Campaign and Election Reform The Governmental Ethics Commission is charged with administering, interpreting, and enforcing the state’s Campaign Finance Act. It receives required disclosure forms from candidates, committees, individual contributors, and lobbyists and makes them available online. State of Kansas, Secretary of State, Elections and Legislative Division URL: http://www.kssos.org/ elections/elections.html E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (785) 296-4559 Memorial Hall First Floor 120 Southwest 10th Avenue Topeka, KS 66612-1594 The Elections and Legislative Division of the Kansas secretary of state’s office administers state elections and provides general information for voters.

KENTUCKY Kentucky Registry of Election Finance URL: http://www.state.ky.us/ agencies/kref/krefhome.htm E-mail: stephen.smith@mail. state.ky.us Phone:(502) 573-2226 140 Walnut Street Frankfort, KY 40601 The Registry of Election Finance administers state campaign finance and disclosure laws. It provides forms, legal reference information,

and a searchable online database of financial disclosures. Kentucky State Board of Elections URL: http://www.kyelect.com/ %5Cindex%5Cmain%5 Celecdiv.asp E-mail: natalie.jensen@mail. state.ky.us Phone: (502) 573-7100 140 Walnut Street Frankfort, KY 40601 The State Board of Elections administers elections and provides information for voters and candidates.

LOUISIANA Louisiana Board of Ethics, Ethics Administration Program, Supervisory Committee on Campaign Finance Disclosure URL: http://www.ethics.state.la. us E-mail [email protected]. la.us Phone: (225) 763-8777 or (800) 842-6630 2415 Quail Drive Third Floor Baton Rouge, LA 70808 The ethics program includes responsibility for enforcing campaign finance regulations. Disclosure reports from candidates, committees, lobbyists, and public officials can be viewed online. Louisiana Department of Elections and Registration

246

Organizations and Agencies URL: http://www.elections. state.la.us E-mail: webmaster@laelections. org Phone: (225) 219-9600 P.O. Box 4729 Baton Rouge, LA 70821-4729 The Department of Elections and Registration administers the electoral process and provides information for voters and candidates.

MAINE State of Maine, Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices URL: http://www.state.me.us/ ethics Phone: (207) 287-4179 E-mail: webmaster_ethics@ state.me.us 242 State Street Augusta, ME 84333-0135 The Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices enforces the Maine Clean Elections Act, including the system of public campaign financing. Campaign finance disclosure data can be viewed through the “Maine Campaign Finance Electronic Filing” link. State of Maine, Department of the Secretary of State, Bureau of Corporations, Elections and Commissions URL: http://www.state.me.us/ sos/cec/elec/elec.htm E-mail: [email protected]. us Phone: (207) 624-7650

Division of Elections and Commissions 101 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333-0101 This office is charged with the general administration of elections, including registration, voting procedures, and candidacy filings.

MARYLAND Maryland State Board of Elections URL: http://www.elections. state.md.us E-mail: [email protected]. us Phone: (410) 269-2840 P.O. Box 6486 Annapolis, MD 21401-0486 The board of elections administers both electoral procedures and the state campaign finance laws. Campaign finance disclosures can be searched and viewed online.

MASSACHUSETTS Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Office of Campaign and Political Finance URL: http://www.state.ma.us/ ocpf E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (617) 727-8352 or (800) 462-OCPF John W. McCormack Building One Ashburton Place Room 411 Boston, MA 02108

247

Campaign and Election Reform The Office of Campaign and Political Finance is an independent state agency that enforces the state’s campaign finance law and the Clean Elections Law. A searchable online database of campaign finance activity is available. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Secretary of the Commonwealth, Elections Division URL: http://www.state.ma.us/ sec/ele/eleidx.htm E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (617) 727-2828 or 1 (800) 462-VOTE McCormack Building Room 1705 One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 The elections office administers state election laws and procedures and provides information for voters and candidates.

MICHIGAN State of Michigan, Secretary of State URL: http://www.michigan.gov/sos E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (517) 373-2540 208 North Capitol Avenue Fourth Floor Lansing, MI 48918-1700 Election administration (including enforcement of campaign finance regulations) is handled within the office of the secretary of state. Candidate and lobbyist financial

disclosure information is available online.

MINNESOTA Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board URL: http://www.cfboard.state. mn.us 190 Centennial Office Building 658 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55155 E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (651) 296-5148; (800) 657-3889 This board administers state political ethics and campaign finance regulations. Summaries, lists, and a searchable database are available under the “For Citizens” link. Minnesota Secretary of State, Elections Division URL: http://www.sos.state.mn.us E-mail: secretary.state@state. mn.us Phone: (877) 600-8683 or (651) 215-1440 180 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155-1299 The Elections Division administers elections and provides information for voters and candidates.

MISSISSIPPI Mississippi Secretary of State URL: http//www.sos.state.ms.us E-mail: None Phone: (800) 829-6786 or (601) 359-1350

248

Organizations and Agencies P.O. Box 136 Jackson, MS 39205-0136 The secretary of state’s office administers elections and provides information for voters and candidates as well as enforcing state campaign finance laws. Campaign finance reports are available in PDF format.

MISSOURI Missouri Ethics Commission URL: http://www.moethics. state.mo.us E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (573) 751-2020 or (800) 392-8660 3411-A Knipp Drive P.O. Box 1370 Jefferson City, MO 65102 The Missouri Ethics Commission is charged with enforcing the state’s campaign finance, officeholder finance, and lobbyist regulations. Disclosures by committees and lobbyists can be searched online. Missouri Secretary of State, Elections Division URL: http://www.sos.state.mo. us/elections E-mail: [email protected]. mo.us Phone: (573) 751-2301 P.O. Box 1767 Jefferson City, MO 65102 The Elections Division administers all statewide elections and ballot initiatives. It provides information for voters and candidates.

MONTANA Montana Commissioner of Political Practices URL: http://www2.state.mt.us/ cpp/css/default.asp E-mail: Web form Phone: (406) 444-2942 1205 Eighth Avenue P.O. Box 202401 Capitol Station Helena, MT 59620-2401 This office enforces political practices laws including campaign finance regulations. Disclosure information does not appear online as of early 2003. Montana Secretary of State URL: http://sos.state.mt.us/css/ index.asp E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (406) 444-4732 Room 260 Capitol Building P.O. Box 202801 Helena, MT 59620-2801 The secretary of state’s office is responsible for administering statewide elections and enforcing state election laws.

NEBRASKA Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission URL http://nadc.nol.org E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (402) 471-2522 State Capitol 11th Floor

249

Campaign and Election Reform P.O. Box 95086 Lincoln, NE 68509 This office enforces Nebraska’s state campaign finance laws. Information about PACs and candidate committees is available. Additional searchable information is available through the following URL: http:// www.searchsystems.net/list.php?ni d=36 (see items beginning with “Campaign Finance”). Nebraska Secretary of State, Election Administration URL: http://www.sos.state.ne.us E-mail: [email protected]. us Phone: (402) 471-3229 Suite 2300 State Capitol Lincoln, NE 68509 This office administers statewide elections and provides information for voters, candidates, and election officials.

NEVADA Nevada Secretary of State, Elections Division URL: http://sos.state.nv.us/ nvelection/index.htm E-mail: [email protected]. nv.us Phone: (775) 684-5705 101 North Carson Street Suite 3 Carson City, NV 89701 The Elections Division administers elections and enforces election laws including campaign finance regulations. Reports and

searchable information are available online, including some for city elections.

NEW HAMPSHIRE New Hampshire Secretary of State, Election Division URL: http://www.state.nh.us/ sos/elections.htm E-mail: [email protected]. us Phone: (603) 271-3242 107 North Main Street Concord, NH 03301 This office administers and provides basic information about state elections. Expenditure reports for candidates, committees, and lobbyists are available online.

NEW JERSEY New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Elections URL: http://www.njelections.org E-mail: [email protected]. state.nj.us Phone: (609) 292-3760 25 Market Street PO Box 304 Trenton, NJ 08625-0304 This office administers statewide elections and provides basic information for voters and candidates. New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission URL: http://www.elec.state.nj.us E-mail: None Phone: (609) 292-8700

250

Organizations and Agencies P.O. Box 185 Trenton, NJ 08625-0185 This office enforces election laws including campaign finance and disclosure rules. Regulations and reports can be viewed online and searched by contributor.

NEW MEXICO New Mexico Office of the Secretary of State, Bureau of Elections URL: http://web.state.nm.us/ Election/ElectionInfo.htm E-mail: [email protected]. us Phone: (505) 827-3600 or (800) 477-3632 State Capitol Annex North 325 Don Gaspar Suite 300 Santa Fe, NM 87503 This office administers statewide elections and provides information for voters and candidates. Campaign disclosure forms can be viewed online.

NEW YORK New York State Board of Elections URL: http://www.elections. state.ny.us E-mail: [email protected]. us Phone: (518) 474-6220 40 Steuben Street Albany, NY 12207-2109 The Board of Elections administers elections and provides infor-

mation for voters and candidates. It also provides online access to its Financial Disclosure Information System.

NORTH CAROLINA North Carolina State Board of Elections URL: http://www.sboe.state.nc. us E-mail: None Phone: (919) 733-7173 P.O. Box 27255 Raleigh, NC 27611-7255 The Board of Elections administers elections and provides information for voters and candidates. Some campaign finance information is available online via the “Data and Statistics/Campaign Finance Reports” link.

NORTH DAKOTA North Dakota Secretary of State, Elections Division URL: http://www.state.nd.us/ sec/Elections/Elections.htm E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (701) 328-4146 or (800) 352-0867 ext. 8-4146 600 East Boulevard Avenue First Floor, Department 108 Bismarck, ND 58505-0500 The Board of Elections administers elections and provides information for voters and candidates. Summary reports on campaign finance disclosures are available online.

251

Campaign and Election Reform OHIO Ohio Secretary of State URL: http://www.state.oh.us/sos E-mail: cfi[email protected] Phone: (614) 466-2585 180 East Broad Street 16th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 The secretary of state’s office administers elections and provides information, including a searchable online campaign finance database.

OKLAHOMA Oklahoma State Election Board URL: http://www.oklaosf.state. ok.us/~elections E-mail: [email protected]. ok.us Phone: (405) 521-2391 State Capitol Building Room B-6 P.O. Box 53156 Oklahoma City, OK 73152 The State Election Board administers state elections, overseeing country election boards. It provides general information for voters and candidates. Oklahoma State Ethics Commission URL: http://www.ethics.state. ok.us E-mail: Web link Phone: (405) 521-4905 2300 North Lincoln Boulevard Room 85 Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4812 The Ethics Commission compiles the legally required disclosure

forms from candidates and lobbyists. However, electronic filing is currently not required and only information from candidates who filed electronically is available online.

OREGON Oregon Secretary of State, Elections Division URL: http://www.sos.state.or.us/ elections/elechp.htm E-mail: elections-division@ sosinet.sos.state.or.us 141 State Capitol Salem, OR 97310 The Elections Division of the secretary of state’s office administers elections and provides information for voters and candidates, including disclosure reports and a searchable online campaign finance database.

PENNSYLVANIA Pennsylvania Department of State, Bureau of Commissions, Elections, and Legislation URL: http://www.dos.state.pa.us/bce l/site/default.asp E-mail:[email protected] Phone: (717) 787-5280 210 North Office Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 This office oversees elections and provides information for voters and candidates, including a searchable online campaign finance database for statewide candidates.

252

Organizations and Agencies RHODE ISLAND Rhode Island Board of Elections URL:http://www.elections.state. ri.us E-mail: campaignfinance@ electionsstate.ri.us Phone: (401) 222-4424 (for campaign finance department) 50 Branch Avenue Providence, RI 02904-2790 This office enforces the state’s election laws, including those relating to campaign finance. An online database for campaign finance reports for state elections is available. (Filings for federal candidates in Rhode Island are handled by the Elections Division of the secretary of state’s office—see the next entry.) State of Rhode Island, Secretary of State, Elections Division URL:http://www.corps.state.ri. us/ELECTIONS/elections_ division.htm E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (401) 222-2340 100 North Main Street Second Floor Providence, RI 02903-1335 This office administers elections and provides information for voters and candidates. It also provides campaign finance disclosure information for federal candidates and committees in Rhode Island.

SOUTH CAROLINA South Carolina State Election Commission

URL:http://www.state.sc.us/scsec E-mail: [email protected]. sc.us Phone: (803) 734-9060 P.O. Box 5987 Columbia, SC 29250-5987 The State Election Commission’s primary purpose is to manage voter registration, the preparation of ballots, and the electoral process in general. South Carolina State Ethics Commission URL:http://www.state.sc.us/ ethics E-mail: None Phone: (803) 253-4192 5000 Thurmond Mall Suite 250 Columbia, SC 29201 This office enforces state ethics and campaign finance regulations. Although it has information about laws and guidance for candidates, it does not appear to have disclosure information available online as of early 2003.

SOUTH DAKOTA South Dakota State Board of Elections URL:http://www.state.sd.us/sos/ Elections%20home%20page. htm E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (605) 773-3537 Capitol Building 500 East Capitol Avenue Suite 204 Pierre, SD 57501-5070

253

Campaign and Election Reform The State Board of Elections administers elections and provides information including campaign finance information and report summaries online.

TENNESSEE Tennessee Registry of Election Finance URL:http://www.state.tn.us/ tref/contact.htm E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (615) 741-7959 404 James Robertson Parkway Suite 1614 Nashville, TN 37243 This office was created to enforce state laws relating to campaign finance, lobbying, and officeholder conflict of interest. Disclosure information was not available online as of early 2003. Tennessee Secretary of State Division of Elections URL:http://www.state.tn.us/sos/ election.htm E-mail: Tennessee.Elections@ state.tn.us Phone: (615) 741-7956 312 Eighth Avenue North William R. Snodgrass Tower Eighth Floor Nashville, TN 37243 This office coordinates the efforts of the county election boards and provides uniform materials and guidelines for interpreting state election laws.

TEXAS Texas Ethics Commission URL: http://www.ethics.state.tx. us E-mail: Web form Phone: (512) 463-5800 or (800) 325-8506 201 East 14th Street 10th Floor P.O. Box 12070 Austin, TX 78711-2070 This agency enforces the state’s campaign finance laws and provides online access to disclosure reports. Texas Secretary of State, Elections Division URL: http://www.sos.state.tx.us/ elections/index.shtml E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (800) 252-8683 P.O. Box 12887 Austin, TX 78711-2887 This department within the secretary of state’s office administers elections and enforces state election laws. It also provides general information for voters and candidates.

UTAH Utah State Elections Office URL: http://elections.utah.gov E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (801) 538-1041 115 State Capitol Building Salt Lake City, UT 84114 This office administers state elections and enforces election laws, including campaign finance laws.

254

Organizations and Agencies Disclosure reports are available online.

VERMONT Vermont Secretary of State URL: http://vermont-elections. org/soshome.htm E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (802) 828-2464 or (800) 439-8683 Elections and Campaign Finance Division 26 Terrace Street Montpelier, VT 05609-1101 The secretary of state’s office is responsible for administering elections and enforcing election laws, including campaign finance regulations. Disclosure reports for state candidates and PACs are available online.

VIRGINIA Virginia State Board of Elections URL: http://www.sbe.state.va.us E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (804) 786-6551 or (800) 552-9745 200 North Ninth Street Suite 101 Richmond, VA 23219-3485 The Board of Elections administers elections and enforces election laws, including campaign finance regulations. Disclosure reports for state candidates and committees are available online.

WASHINGTON Washington Secretary of State, Department of Elections URL: http://www.secstate.wa. gov/elections E-mail: [email protected]. gov Phone: (360) 902-4180 or (800) 448-4881 520 Union Avenue, SE Olympia, WA 98504-0229 This office administers state elections and provides general information about the electoral process. Washington State Public Disclosure Commission URL: http://www.pdc.wa.gov/ default.asp E-Mail: [email protected] 7111 Capital Way Room 206 P.O. Box 40908 Olympia, WA 98504-0908 Phone (360) 753-1111 Fax: (360) 753-1112 The Public Disclosure Commission is charged with enforcing disclosure requirements for candidates, committees, lobbyists, and officeholders. It provides extensive background information, including a searchable database.

WEST VIRGINIA West Virginia Secretary of State, Elections and Licensing Division URL: http://www.wvsos.com/ elections/main.htm

255

Campaign and Election Reform E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (304) 558-6000 Building 1 Suite 157-K 1900 Kanawha Boulevard East Charleston, WV 25305-0770 In West Virginia, the secretary of state is responsible for administering elections and enforcing election laws, including campaign finance regulations. Campaign finance disclosures can be searched for and viewed online.

WISCONSIN Wisconsin State Elections Board URL: http://elections.state.wi.us E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (608) 266-8005 132 East Wilson Street Suite 200 P.O. Box 2973 Madison, WI 53701-2973

This office administers state elections and enforces election laws, including campaign finance regulations. Summary reports of contributions activity are available online.

WYOMING Wyoming Secretary of State, Election Administration URL: http://soswy.state.wy.us/ election/election.htm E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (307) 777-7186 Capitol Building Room B-38 200 West 24th Street Cheyenne, WY 82002-0020 This office is responsible for overseeing state electoral procedures. Limited information about registered lobbyists and PACs is available online. Currently candidates are not required to file disclosure forms until after the election.

ADVOCACY AND RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS A considerable number of national organizations are devoted to researching and/or promoting various forms of campaign finance and electoral reform. Some of the major ones are listed below. Note that most of these organizations favor campaign reform, but several (such as the American Civil Liberties Union) oppose some reform provisions on civil libertarian grounds. In addition to these national organizations, there are a number of state organizations promoting campaign finance reform, term limits, or electoral reforms such as preference voting or proportional representation. Links to these organizations can often be found on web sites for national reform organizations.

256

Organizations and Agencies Alliance for Better Campaigns URL: http://www. bettercampaigns.org E-mail: alliance@ bettercampaigns.org Phone: (202) 659-1300 1150 17th Street, NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 This organization promotes better campaigns through getting more (and better) information to voters. Their principle goal is to pass laws that would provide free broadcast time for candidates. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) URL: http://www.aclu.org E-mail: http://www.aclu.org/ feedback/feedback.cfm (form) 125 Broad Street 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 The ACLU opposes campaign contribution limits as an unconstitutional infringement on free speech and supports public funding of campaigns as an alternative. For more information about the ACLU’s analysis and litigation regarding campaign finance laws, see its web page at http://www. aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeechlist.cfm?c=20. Americans for Limited Terms URL: http://www.limitedterms. org E-mail: [email protected] Phone: 888-TLIMITS 504 East Madison Street

P.O. Box 279 Spring Green, WI 53588 This education and advocacy organization is working for term limits as a way to promote “citizen legislators” as an alternative to “career incumbency and perpetual electioneering.” Campaign Finance Information Center URL: http://www. campaignfinance.org E-mail: cfi[email protected] Phone: (573) 882-2042 c/o Investigative Reporters and Editors Missouri School of Journalism 138 Neff Annex Columbia, MO 65211 This center supports investigative journalists with seminars, tools and information to aid them in reporting on campaign finance issues. In turn this will promote voter awareness of these issues. Campaign Finance Institute (CFI) URL: http://www.cfinst.org E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (202) 969-8890 1990 M Street, NW Suite 380 Washington, DC 20036 The CFI is a nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute affiliated with George Washington University. It performs research on topics relating to campaign finance reform, publishes books and articles, and makes policy recommendations.

257

Campaign and Election Reform Cato Institute URL: http://www.cato.org Phone: (202) 842-0200 1000 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001-5403 This libertarian think tank promotes limited government, free markets, and individual liberty. It opposes regulation of campaign contributions and spending, except for disclosure. See http://www.cato. org/research/crg/finance.html for the organization’s news and views on campaign finance–related issues. Center for Public Integrity URL: http://www. publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/ home.asp Phone: 202-466-1300 910 17th Street, NW Seventh Floor Washington, DC 20006 The center develops high-quality investigative journalism to promote a better-informed citizenry and more accountable government. It draws its contributors from more than 80 investigative reporters working in more than 40 countries. Center for Responsive Politics URL: http://www.opensecrets. org E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (202) 857-0044 1101 14th Street NW Suite 1030 Washington, DC 20005-5635 This nonpartisan, nonprofit organization researches and tracks the

flow of money in politics and its effect on elections and public policy. It carries out extensive statistical research that is made available to academics, activists, and the media. Center for Voting and Democracy URL: http://www.fairvote.org E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (301) 270-4616 6930 Carroll Avenue Suite 610 Takoma Park, MD 20912 This nonprofit organization “is dedicated to fair elections where every vote counts and all voters are represented.” It promotes this objective through research, analysis, education and advocacy. Common Cause URL: http://www.commoncause. org Phone: (202) 833-1200 or 1 (800) 926-1064 1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 This large grassroots organization (with more than 200,000 members) calls itself a “nonprofit, nonpartisan citizen’s lobbying organization promoting open, honest, and accountable government.” Campaign reform plays an important part in the organization’s broad progressive reform agenda. The “Soft Money Laundromat” on the Common Cause web site provides an accessible way to search for large political contributors by name and industry.

258

Organizations and Agencies ElectionReform.org URL: http://www.electionreform. org/ERMain E-mail: [email protected] c/o Chris McGrath 1600 Wilson Boulevard Suite 800 Arlington, VA 22209 This organization promotes electoral reform, including Electoral College reform, instant runoff voting, Internet voting, and access by smaller parties to the ballot and to presidential debates. Institute for Global Ethics Project on Campaign Conduct URL: http://www. campaignconduct.org E-mail: mailto:info@ campaignconduct.org Phone: (207) 236-6658 P.O. Box 563 Camden, ME 04843-0563 This project promotes voluntary codes of campaign ethics in which candidates would renounce the use of attack ads and other negative campaign tactics. National Association of Secretaries of State URL: http://www.nass.org E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (202) 624-3525 Hall of States 444 North Capitol Street, NW Suite 401 Washington, DC 20001 The secretary of state of each state is generally in charge of election

administration and regulation. This site provides links to cooperate efforts for voter education and election reform being undertaken by state governments. National Civic League URL: http://www.ncl.org/about/ contact.html E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (303) 571-4343 1445 Market Street Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 The National Civic League was founded in 1894 to improve municipal government. Today its New Politics Program continues to promote political reform, including local campaign finance legislation. The league produces numerous publications, such as model city charters and plans for improving local government. National Voting Rights Institute (NVRI) URL: http://www.nvri.org/ contact/index.shtml E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (617) 368-9100 One Bromfield Street Third Floor Boston, MA 02108 The National Voting Rights Institute promotes campaign finance reform as the latest stage in the struggle to secure meaningful voting rights for all citizens. It pursues its agenda through public education and litigation.

259

Campaign and Election Reform Project Vote Smart URL: http://www.vote-smart.org E-mail: comments@vote-smart. org Phone: 1 (888) 868-3762 One Common Ground Philipsburg, MT 59838 Project Vote Smart is dedicated to providing accurate information about candidates and issues in a nonprofit, nonpartisan effort. For each election cycle it publishes the “Voter’s Self Defense Manual,” listing key votes and special interest group ratings for each member of Congress. The 2002 edition is available for download at http:// www.vote-smart.org/index.phtml. Public Campaign URL: http://www.publicampaign. org

E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (202) 293-0222 1320 19th Street, NW Suite M-1 Washington, DC 20036 This is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that advocates and educates for campaign reform. They build coalitions with other organizations and develop educational kits. U.S. Term Limits URL: http://www.termlimits.org E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (800) 733-6440 or (202) 379-3000 10 G Street, NE Suite 410 Washington, DC 20002 This organization promotes term limits at the state, local and congressional levels.

260

PART III

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

STATISTICS RELATED TO CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS The following charts, which are based on Federal Election Commission (FEC) statistics, show some important trends in campaign contributions through the 2000 presidential election. Updates can be expected around 2004.

263

Campaign and Election Reform

TOTAL PARTY FUND-RAISING As seen in the following chart, both major parties about doubled their total fund-raising between the 1991–92 and 1999–2000 presidential election cycles, but the Republicans raised substantially more funds than did the Democrats.

TOTAL PARTY FUND-RAISING, 1991–2001 $1,500 Democrats 1200

Republicans

Totals in Millions

Total 900

600

300

0 1991–92

1993–94

1995–96 1997–98 Year

1999–2000

Source: Federal Election Commission. “Campaign Finance Reports and Data.” URL: http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney/softglance.asp and http://www.fec.gov/finance_reports.html.

264

2001

Appendix A

THE GROWTH IN POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES (PACS) The following chart summarizes the growth in different types of political action committees from 1977 through 1998. Clearly, PACs became an increasingly important vehicle for many kinds of organizations and interests to contribute to political campaigns.

POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES (PACS) COUNT, 1977–1998 2,000 1,800 1,600

Number of PACs

1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200

19

7 19 7 7 19 8 7 19 9 8 19 0 81 19 8 19 2 8 19 3 8 19 4 8 19 5 8 19 6 8 19 7 8 19 8 8 19 9 9 19 0 9 19 1 9 19 2 9 19 3 9 19 4 9 19 5 9 19 6 9 19 7 98

0 Year Corporate Trade/Membership/Health Labor

Nonconnected Corporate without stock Cooperative

Source: Federal Election Commission. “PAC Count: 1977 to Present.” URL: http://www.fec.gov/press/paccnt_grph.html.

265

Campaign and Election Reform

SOFT AND HARD MONEY In the 1990s, “soft money” contributions (contributions not subject to federal regulations under the Federal Election Campaign Act) became an increasingly large component of fund-raising for both major parties.

SOFT MONEY FUND-RAISING The following chart shows the amounts of soft money raised by the two major parties from 1991 to 2001. The amount raised is higher in presidential than in midterm elections, but has generally been increasing in both. Note that in the 1999–2000 cycle the Democrats had become about equal to the Republicans in their ability to raise soft money.

SOFT MONEY FUND-RAISING, 1991–2001 $500 Democrats 400

Republicans

Totals in Millions

Total 300

200

100

0 1991–92

1993–94

1995–96

1997–98 Year

1999–2000

Source: Federal Election Commission. “Campaign Finance Reports and Data.” URL: http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney/softglance.asp and http://www.fec.gov/finance_reports.html.

266

2001

Appendix A RATIO OF SOFT MONEY TO HARD MONEY As the following chart shows, the percentage (proportion) of party funds consisting of soft money increased steadily through the 1990s. Note that in general, Democrats are more dependent on soft money, and Republicans raise more hard money.

PROPORTION OF PARTY FUNDS RAISED FROM SOFT MONEY, 1991–2001 60% Democrats 50

Republicans Total

Percent

40

30

20

10 0 1991–92

1993–94

1995–96

1997–98 Year

1999–2000

Source: Federal Election Commission. “Campaign Finance Reports and Data.” URL: http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney/softglance.asp and http://www.fec.gov/finance_reports.html.

267

2001

APPENDIX B

BUCKLEY V. VALEO (1976) Following are excerpts from the majority and dissenting opinions in this landmark case, which limited the ability of Congress to regulate campaign finance. These excerpts focus on the First Amendment issues involved in regulating campaign contributions and expenditures, since these are the most controversial parts of the decision and the most relevant to the ongoing debate over campaign finance reform. Footnotes and many case citations have been omitted for space.

U.S. SUPREME COURT BUCKLEY V. VALEO, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) 424 U.S. 1 BUCKLEY ET AL. v. VALEO, SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE, ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. No. 75-436. Argued November 10, 1975. Decided January 30, 1976.

PER CURIAM These appeals present constitutional challenges to the key provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (Act), and related provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, all as amended in 1974. . . . In this Court, appellants argue that the Court of Appeals failed to give this legislation the critical scrutiny demanded under accepted First Amendment and equal protection principles. In appellants’ view, limiting the use of

268

Appendix B money for political purposes constitutes a restriction on communication violative of the First Amendment, since virtually all meaningful political communications in the modern setting involve the expenditure of money . . .

I. CONTRIBUTION AND EXPENDITURE LIMITATIONS The intricate statutory scheme adopted by Congress to regulate federal election campaigns includes restrictions on political contributions and expenditures that apply broadly to all phases of and all participants in the election process. The major contribution and expenditure limitations in the Act prohibit individuals from contributing more than $25,000 in a single year or more than $1,000 to any single candidate for an election campaign and from spending more than $1,000 a year “relative to a clearly identified candidate.” Other provisions restrict a candidate’s use of personal and family resources in his campaign and limit the overall amount that can be spent by a candidate in campaigning for federal office. The constitutional power of Congress to regulate federal elections is well established and is not questioned by any of the parties in this case. Thus, the critical questions presented here go not to the basic power of Congress to legislate in this area, but to whether the specific legislation that Congress has enacted interferes with First Amendment freedoms or invidiously discriminates against nonincumbent candidates and minor parties in contravention of the Fifth Amendment.

A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES The Act’s contribution and expenditure limitations operate in an area of the most fundamental First Amendment activities. Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution. The First Amendment affords the broadest protection to such political expression in order “to assure [the] unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.” . . . The First Amendment protects political association as well as political expression. The constitutional right of association explicated in NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 460 (1958), stemmed from the Court’s recognition that “[e]ffective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association.” Subsequent decisions have made clear that the First and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee “‘freedom to associate with others for the common

269

Campaign and Election Reform advancement of political beliefs and ideas,’” a freedom that encompasses “‘[t]he right to associate with the political party of one’s choice.’” It is with these principles in mind that we consider the primary contentions of the parties with respect to the Act’s limitations upon the giving and spending of money in political campaigns. Those conflicting contentions could not more sharply define the basic issues before us. Appellees contend that what the Act regulates is conduct, and that its effect on speech and association is incidental at most. Appellants respond that contributions and expenditures are at the very core of political speech, and that the Act’s limitations thus constitute restraints on First Amendment liberty that are both gross and direct. In upholding the constitutional validity of the Act’s contribution and expenditure provisions on the ground that those provisions should be viewed as regulating conduct, not speech, the Court of Appeals relied upon United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968). . . . The O’Brien case involved a defendant’s claim that the First Amendment prohibited his prosecution for burning his draft card because his act was “‘symbolic speech’” engaged in as a “‘demonstration against the war and against the draft.’” On the assumption that “the alleged communicative element in O’Brien’s conduct [was] sufficient to bring into play the First Amendment,” the Court sustained the conviction because it found “a sufficiently important governmental interest in regulating the non-speech element” that was “unrelated to the suppression of free expression” and that had an “incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms . . . no greater than [was] essential to the furtherance of that interest.” We cannot share the view that the present Act’s contribution and expenditure limitations are comparable to the restrictions on conduct upheld in O’Brien. The expenditure of money simply cannot be equated with such conduct as destruction of a draft card. Some forms of communication made possible by the giving and spending of money involve speech alone, some involve conduct primarily, and some involve a combination of the two. Yet this Court has never suggested that the dependence of a communication on the expenditure of money operates itself to introduce a non speech element or to reduce the exacting scrutiny required by the First Amendment . . . Nor can the Act’s contribution and expenditure limitations be sustained, as some of the parties suggest, by reference to the constitutional principles reflected in [previous decisions.] Those cases stand for the proposition that the government may adopt reasonable time, place, and manner regulations, which do not discriminate among speakers or ideas, in order to further an important governmental interest unrelated to the restriction of communication. . . . The critical difference between this case and those time, place, and manner cases is that the present Act’s contribution and expenditure lim-

270

Appendix B itations impose direct quantity restrictions on political communication and association by persons, groups, candidates, and political parties in addition to any reasonable time, place, and manner regulations otherwise imposed. A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today’s mass society requires the expenditure of money. The distribution of the humblest handbill or leaflet entails printing, paper, and circulation costs. Speeches and rallies generally necessitate hiring a hall and publicizing the event. The electorate’s increasing dependence on television, radio, and other mass media for news and information has made these expensive modes of communication indispensable instruments of effective political speech. The expenditure limitations contained in the Act represent substantial rather than merely theoretical restraints on the quantity and diversity of political speech. The $1,000 ceiling on spending “relative to a clearly identified candidate,” 18 U.S.C. 608 (e) (1) (1970 ed., Supp. IV), would appear to exclude all citizens and groups except candidates, political parties, and the institutional press from any significant use of the most effective modes of communication. Although the Act’s limitations on expenditures by campaign organizations and political parties provide substantially greater room for discussion and debate, they would have required restrictions in the scope of a number of past congressional and Presidential campaigns and would operate to constrain campaigning by candidates who raise sums in excess of the spending ceiling. By contrast with a limitation upon expenditures for political expression, a limitation upon the amount that any one person or group may contribute to a candidate or political committee entails only a marginal restriction upon the contributor’s ability to engage in free communication. A contribution serves as a general expression of support for the candidate and his views, but does not communicate the underlying basis for the support. . . . While contributions may result in political expression if spent by a candidate or an association to present views to the voters, the transformation of contributions political debate involves speech by someone other than the contributor . . . The overall effect of the Act’s contribution ceilings is merely to require candidates and political committees to raise funds from a greater number of persons and to compel people who would otherwise contribute amounts greater than the statutory limits to expend such funds on direct political expression, rather than to reduce the total amount of money potentially available to promote political expression.

271

Campaign and Election Reform The Act’s contribution and expenditure limitations also impinge on protected associational freedoms. Making a contribution, like joining a political party, serves to affiliate a person with a candidate. In addition, it enables like-minded persons to pool their resources in furtherance of common political goals. The Act’s contribution ceilings thus limit one important means of associating with a candidate or committee, but leave the contributor free to become a member of any political association and to assist personally in the association’s efforts on behalf of candidates. And the Act’s contribution limitations permit associations and candidates to aggregate large sums of money to promote effective advocacy. By contrast, the Act’s $1,000 limitation on independent expenditures “relative to a clearly identified candidate” precludes most associations from effectively amplifying the voice of their adherents, the original basis for the recognition of First Amendment protection of the freedom of association. See NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. . . . In sum, although the Act’s contribution and expenditure limitations both implicate fundamental First Amendment interests, its expenditure ceilings impose significantly more severe restrictions on protected freedoms of political expression and association than do its limitations on financial contributions.

B. CONTRIBUTION LIMITATIONS 1. The $1,000 Limitation on Contributions by Individuals and Groups to Candidates and Authorized Campaign Committees Appellants contend that the $1,000 contribution ceiling unjustifiably burdens First Amendment freedoms, employs overbroad dollar limits, and discriminates against candidates opposing incumbent officeholders and against minor-party candidates in violation of the Fifth Amendment. We address each of these claims of invalidity in turn.

(A) As the general discussion in Part I-A, supra, indicated, the primary First Amendment problem raised by the Act’s contribution limitations is their restriction of one aspect of the contributor’s freedom of political association. The Court’s decisions involving associational freedoms establish that the right of association is a “basic constitutional freedom,” that is “closely allied to freedom of speech and a right which, like free speech, lies at the foundation of a free society.” . . . In view of the fundamental nature of the right to associate, governmental “action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny.” Yet, it is clear that “[n]either the right to associate nor the right to participate in political ac-

272

Appendix B tivities is absolute.” CSC v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 567 (1973). Even a “‘significant interference’ with protected rights of political association” may be sustained if the State demonstrates a sufficiently important interest and employs means closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgment of associational freedoms. Appellees argue that the Act’s restrictions on large campaign contributions are justified by three governmental interests. According to the parties and amici, the primary interest served by the limitations and, indeed, by the Act as a whole, is the prevention of corruption and the appearance of corruption spawned by the real or imagined coercive influence of large financial contributions on candidates’ positions and on their actions if elected to office. Two “ancillary” interests underlying the Act are also allegedly furthered by the $1,000 limits on contributions. First, the limits serve to mute the voices of affluent persons and groups in the election process and thereby to equalize the relative ability of all citizens to affect the outcome of elections. Second, it is argued, the ceilings may to some extent act as a brake on the skyrocketing cost of political campaigns and thereby serve to open the political system more widely to candidates without access to sources of large amounts of money. It is unnecessary to look beyond the Act’s primary purpose—to limit the actuality and appearance of corruption resulting from large individual financial contributions—in order to find a constitutionally sufficient justification for the $1,000 contribution limitation. Under a system of private financing of elections, a candidate lacking immense personal or family wealth must depend on financial contributions from others to provide the resources necessary to conduct a successful campaign. The increasing importance of the communications media and sophisticated mass-mailing and polling operations to effective campaigning make the raising of large sums of money an ever more essential ingredient of an effective candidacy. To the extent that large contributions are given to secure a political quid pro quo from current and potential office holders, the integrity of our system of representative democracy is undermined. Although the scope of such pernicious practices can never be reliably ascertained, the deeply disturbing examples surfacing after the 1972 election demonstrate that the problem is not an illusory one. Of almost equal concern as the danger of actual quid pro quo arrangements is the impact of the appearance of corruption stemming from public awareness of the opportunities for abuse inherent in a regime of large individual financial contributions. . . . Congress could legitimately conclude that the avoidance of the appearance of improper influence “is also critical . . . if confidence in the system of representative Government is not to be eroded to a disastrous extent.”

273

Campaign and Election Reform Appellants contend that the contribution limitations must be invalidated because bribery laws and narrowly drawn disclosure requirements constitute a less restrictive means of dealing with “proven and suspected quid pro quo arrangements.” But laws making criminal the giving and taking of bribes deal with only the most blatant and specific attempts of those with money to influence governmental action. And while disclosure requirements serve the many salutary purposes discussed elsewhere in this opinion, Congress was surely entitled to conclude that disclosure was only a partial measure, and that contribution ceilings were a necessary legislative concomitant to deal with the reality or appearance of corruption inherent in a system permitting unlimited financial contributions, even when the identities of the contributors and the amounts of their contributions are fully disclosed. The Act’s $1,000 contribution limitation focuses precisely on the problem of large campaign contributions—the narrow aspect of political association where the actuality and potential for corruption have been identified—while leaving persons free to engage in independent political expression, to associate actively through volunteering their services, and to assist to a limited but nonetheless substantial extent in supporting candidates and committees with financial resources. Significantly, the Act’s contribution limitations in themselves do not undermine to any material degree the potential for robust and effective discussion of candidates and campaign issues by individual citizens, associations, the institutional press, candidates, and political parties. We find that, under the rigorous standard of review established by our prior decisions, the weighty interests served by restricting the size of financial contributions to political candidates are sufficient to justify the limited effect upon First Amendment freedoms caused by the $1,000 contribution ceiling.

(C) Apart from these First Amendment concerns, appellants argue that the contribution limitations work such an invidious discrimination between incumbents and challengers that the statutory provisions must be declared unconstitutional on their face. In considering this contention, it is important at the outset to note that the Act applies the same limitations on contributions to all candidates regardless of their present occupations, ideological views, or party affiliations. Absent record evidence of invidious discrimination against challengers as a class, a court should generally be hesitant to invalidate legislation which on its face imposes evenhanded restrictions. . . . There is no such evidence to support the claim that the contribution limitations in themselves discriminate against major-party challengers to incumbents. Challengers can and often do defeat incumbents in federal

274

Appendix B elections. Major-party challengers in federal elections are usually men and women who are well known and influential in their community or State. Often such challengers are themselves incumbents in important local, state, or federal offices. . . . The charge of discrimination against minor-party and independent candidates is more troubling, but the record provides no basis for concluding that the Act invidiously disadvantages such candidates. As noted above, the Act on its face treats all candidates equally with regard to contribution limitations. And the restriction would appear to benefit minor-party and independent candidates relative to their major-party opponents because major-party candidates receive far more money in large contributions. Although there is some force to appellants’ response that minor-party candidates are primarily concerned with their ability to amass the resources necessary to reach the electorate rather than with their funding position relative to their major-party opponents, the record is virtually devoid of support for the claim that the $1,000 contribution limitation will have a serious effect on the initiation and scope of minor-party and independent candidacies. Moreover, any attempt to exclude minor parties and independents en masse from the Act’s contribution limitations overlooks the fact that minor-party candidates may win elective office or have a substantial impact on the outcome of an election. In view of these considerations, we conclude that the impact of the Act’s $1,000 contribution limitation on major-party challengers and on minorparty candidates does not render the provision unconstitutional on its face.

2. THE $5,000 LIMITATION ON CONTRIBUTIONS POLITICAL COMMITTEES

BY

. . . Appellants argue that these qualifications unconstitutionally discriminate against ad hoc organizations in favor of established interest groups and impermissibly burden free association. The argument is without merit. Rather than undermining freedom of association, the basic provision enhances the opportunity of bona fide groups to participate in the election process, and the registration, contribution, and candidate conditions serve the permissible purpose of preventing individuals from evading the applicable contribution limitations by labeling themselves committees. . . .

4. THE $25,000 LIMITATION ON TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS DURING ANY CALENDAR YEAR In addition to the $1,000 limitation on the nonexempt contributions that an individual may make to a particular candidate for any single election, the Act contains an overall $25,000 limitation on total contributions by an

275

Campaign and Election Reform individual during any calendar year. . . . The overall $25,000 ceiling does impose an ultimate restriction upon the number of candidates and committees with which an individual may associate himself by means of financial support. But this quite modest restraint upon protected political activity serves to prevent evasion of the $1,000 contribution limitation by a person who might otherwise contribute massive amounts of money to a particular candidate through the use of unearmarked contributions to political committees likely to contribute to that candidate, or huge contributions to the candidate’s political party. . . .

C. EXPENDITURE LIMITATIONS . . . 1. THE $1,000 LIMITATION ON EXPENDITURES “RELATIVE TO A CLEARLY IDENTIFIED CANDIDATE” The plain effect of [this provision] is to prohibit all individuals, who are neither candidates nor owners of institutional press facilities, and all groups, except political parties and campaign organizations, from voicing their views “relative to a clearly identified candidate” through means that entail aggregate expenditures of more than $1,000 during a calendar year. The provision, for example, would make it a federal criminal offense for a person or association to place a single one-quarter page advertisement “relative to a clearly identified candidate” in a major metropolitan newspaper. Before examining the interests advanced in support of [this] expenditure ceiling, consideration must be given to appellants’ contention that the provision is unconstitutionally vague. . . . The key operative language of the provision limits “any expenditure . . . relative to a clearly identified candidate.” Although “expenditure,” “clearly identified,” and “candidate” are defined in the Act, there is no definition clarifying what expenditures are “relative to” a candidate. The use of so indefinite a phrase as “relative to” a candidate fails to clearly mark the boundary between permissible and impermissible speech, unless other portions of make sufficiently explicit the range of expenditures covered by the limitation. The section prohibits “any expenditure . . . relative to a clearly identified candidate during a calendar year which, when added to all other expenditures . . . advocating the election or defeat of such candidate, exceeds $1,000.” This context clearly permits, if indeed it does not require, the phrase “relative to” a candidate to be read to mean “advocating the election or defeat of ” a candidate. . . . The constitutional deficiencies . . . can be avoided only by reading [it] as limited to communications that include explicit words of advocacy of election or defeat of a candidate . . . We agree that in order to preserve the provision against invalidation on vagueness grounds, [these provisions] must be

276

Appendix B construed to apply only to expenditures for communications that in express terms advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for federal office. We turn then to the basic First Amendment question—whether [these provisions], even as thus narrowly and explicitly construed, impermissibly burdens the constitutional right of free expression. The Court of Appeals summarily held the provision constitutionally valid on the ground that “[it] is a loophole-closing provision only” that is necessary to prevent circumvention of the contribution limitations. We cannot agree. The [earlier] discussion . . . , explains why the Act’s expenditure limitations impose far greater restraints on the freedom of speech and association than do its contribution limitations. The markedly greater burden on basic freedoms caused by [this provision] thus cannot be sustained simply by invoking the interest in maximizing the effectiveness of the less intrusive contribution limitations. Rather, the constitutionality of [this provision] turns on whether the governmental interests advanced in its support satisfy the exacting scrutiny applicable to limitations on core First Amendment rights of political expression. We find that the governmental interest in preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption is inadequate to justify [the] ceiling on independent expenditures. . . . Unlike the contribution limitations’ total ban on the giving of large amounts of money to candidates, [this provision] prevents only some large expenditures. So long as persons and groups eschew expenditures that in express terms advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, they are free to spend as much as they want to promote the candidate and his views. The exacting interpretation of the statutory language necessary to avoid unconstitutional vagueness thus undermines the limitation’s effectiveness as a loophole-closing provision by facilitating circumvention by those seeking to exert improper influence upon a candidate or office-holder. It would naively underestimate the ingenuity and resourcefulness of persons and groups desiring to buy influence to believe that they would have much difficulty devising expenditures that skirted the restriction on express advocacy of election or defeat but nevertheless benefited the candidate’s campaign. . . . Second, quite apart from the shortcomings of [the provision] in preventing any abuses generated by large independent expenditures, the independent advocacy restricted by the provision does not presently appear to pose dangers of real or apparent corruption comparable to those identified with large campaign contributions. . . . Unlike contributions, such independent expenditures may well provide little assistance to the candidate’s campaign and indeed may prove counterproductive. The absence of prearrangement and coordination of an expenditure with the candidate or his agent not only

277

Campaign and Election Reform undermines the value of the expenditure to the candidate, but also alleviates the danger that expenditures will be given as a quid pro quo for improper commitments from the candidate. Rather than preventing circumvention of the contribution limitations, [this provision] severely restricts all independent advocacy despite its substantially diminished potential for abuse. While the independent expenditure ceiling thus fails to serve any substantial governmental interest in stemming the reality or appearance of corruption in the electoral process, it heavily burdens core First Amendment expression. For the First Amendment right to “‘speak one’s mind . . . on all public institutions’” includes the right to engage in “‘vigorous advocacy’ no less than ‘abstract discussion.’” . . . Advocacy of the election or defeat of candidates for federal office is no less entitled to protection under the First Amendment than the discussion of political policy generally or advocacy of the passage or defeat of legislation. It is argued, however, that the ancillary governmental interest in equalizing the relative ability of individuals and groups to influence the outcome of elections serves to justify the limitation on express advocacy of the election or defeat of candidates imposed by [the] expenditure ceiling. But the concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment, which was designed “to secure ‘the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources,’” and “‘to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.’ . . . The First Amendment’s protection against governmental abridgment of free expression cannot properly be made to depend on a person’s financial ability to engage in public discussion . . . For the reasons stated, we conclude that [the] independent expenditure limitation is unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

2. LIMITATION ON EXPENDITURES BY CANDIDATES FROM PERSONAL OR FAMILY RESOURCES . . . The ceiling on personal expenditures by candidates on their own behalf, like the limitations on independent expenditures, imposes a substantial restraint on the ability of persons to engage in protected First Amendment expression. The candidate, no less than any other person, has a First Amendment right to engage in the discussion of public issues and vigorously and tirelessly to advocate his own election and the election of other candidates. Indeed, it is of particular importance that candidates have the unfettered opportunity to make their views known so that the electorate may intelligently evaluate the candidates’ personal qualities and their positions on vital

278

Appendix B public issues before choosing among them on election day. . . . [the] ceiling on personal expenditures by a candidate in furtherance of his own candidacy thus clearly and directly interferes with constitutionally protected freedoms. The primary governmental interest served by the Act—the prevention of actual and apparent corruption of the political process—does not support the limitation on the candidate’s expenditure of his own personal funds. . . . Indeed, the use of personal funds reduces the candidate’s dependence on outside contributions and thereby counteracts the coercive pressures and attendant risks of abuse to which the Act’s contribution limitations are directed. The ancillary interest in equalizing the relative financial resources of candidates competing for elective office, therefore, provides the sole relevant rationale for [the] expenditure ceiling. That interest is clearly not sufficient to justify the provision’s infringement of fundamental First Amendment rights. . . . The First Amendment simply cannot tolerate [this] restriction upon the freedom of a candidate to speak without legislative limit on behalf of his own candidacy. We therefore hold that [the] restriction on a candidate’s personal expenditures is unconstitutional.

3. LIMITATIONS

ON

CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES . . .

No governmental interest that has been suggested is sufficient to justify the restriction on the quantity of political expression imposed by . . . campaign expenditure limitations. The major evil associated with rapidly increasing campaign expenditures is the danger of candidate dependence on large contributions. The interest in alleviating the corrupting influence of large contributions is served by the Act’s contribution limitations and disclosure provisions rather than by [the] campaign expenditure ceilings. . . . The interest in equalizing the financial resources of candidates competing for federal office is no more convincing a justification for restricting the scope of federal election campaigns. Given the limitation on the size of outside contributions, the financial resources available to a candidate’s campaign, like the number of volunteers recruited, will normally vary with the size and intensity of the candidate’s support. There is nothing invidious, improper, or unhealthy in permitting such funds to be spent to carry the candidate’s message to the electorate. Moreover, the equalization of permissible campaign expenditures might serve not to equalize the opportunities of all candidates, but to handicap a candidate who lacked substantial name recognition or exposure of his views before the start of the campaign. The campaign expenditure ceilings appear to be designed primarily to serve the governmental interests in reducing the allegedly skyrocketing costs of political campaigns . . . [but] the First Amendment denies government the power to determine that spending to promote one’s political views

279

Campaign and Election Reform is wasteful, excessive, or unwise. In the free society ordained by our Constitution it is not the government, but the people—individually as citizens and candidates and collectively as associations and political committees—who must retain control over the quantity and range of debate on public issues in a political campaign. For these reasons we hold that 608 (c) is constitutionally invalid. . . .

CONCLUSION In summary, we sustain the individual contribution limits, the disclosure and reporting provisions, and the public financing scheme. We conclude, however, that the limitations on campaign expenditures, on independent expenditures by individuals and groups, and on expenditures by a candidate from his personal funds are constitutionally infirm. Finally, we hold that most of the powers conferred by the Act upon the Federal Election Commission can be exercised only by “Officers of the United States,” appointed in conformity with Art. II, 2, cl. 2, of the Constitution, and therefore cannot be exercised by the Commission as presently constituted. . . . So ordered. MR. JUSTICE STEVENS took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

(2)

CONTRIBUTION AND EXPENDITURE LIMITS I agree fully with that part of the Court’s opinion that holds unconstitutional the limitations the Act puts on campaign expenditures which “place substantial and direct restrictions on the ability of candidates, citizens, and associations to engage in protected political expression, restrictions that the First Amendment cannot tolerate.” Yet when it approves similarly stringent limitations on contributions, the Court ignores the reasons it finds so persuasive in the context of expenditures. For me contributions and expenditures are two sides of the same First Amendment coin. By limiting campaign contributions, the Act restricts the amount of money that will be spent on political activity and does so directly. Appellees argue, as the Court notes, that these limits will “act as a brake on the sky-

280

Appendix B rocketing cost of political campaigns,” In treating campaign expenditure limitations, the Court says that the “First Amendment denies government the power to determine that spending to promote one’s political views is wasteful, excessive, or unwise.” Limiting contributions, as a practical matter, will limit expenditures and will put an effective ceiling on the amount of political activity and debate that the Government will permit to take place. . . . The Court attempts to separate the two communicative aspects of political contributions—the “moral” support that the gift itself conveys, which the Court suggests is the same whether the gift is $10 or $10,000, and the fact that money translates into communication. The Court dismisses the effect of the limitations on the second aspect of contributions: “[T]he transformation of contributions into political debate involves speech by someone other than the contributor.” On this premise—that contribution limitations restrict only the speech of “someone other than the contributor”—rests the Court’s justification for treating contributions differently from expenditures. The premise is demonstrably flawed; the contribution limitations will, in specific instances, limit exactly the same political activity that the expenditure ceilings limit, and at least one of the “expenditure” limitations the Court finds objectionable operates precisely like the “contribution” limitations. The Court’s attempt to distinguish the communication inherent in political contributions from the speech aspects of political expenditures simply “will not wash.” We do little but engage in word games unless we recognize that people—candidates and contributors—spend money on political activity because they wish to communicate ideas, and their constitutional interest in doing so is precisely the same whether they or someone else utters the words. . . .

(4) I cannot join in the attempt to determine which parts of the Act can survive review here. The statute as it now stands is unworkable and inequitable. I agree with the Court’s holding that the Act’s restrictions on expenditures made “relative to a clearly identified candidate,” independent of any candidate or his committee, are unconstitutional. Paradoxically the Court upholds the limitations on individual contributions, which embrace precisely the same sort of expenditures “relative to a clearly identified candidate” if those expenditures are “authorized or requested” by the “candidate or his agents.” The Act as cut back by the Court thus places intolerable pressure on the distinction between “authorized” and “unauthorized” expenditures on behalf of a candidate; even those with the most sanguine hopes for the Act might well concede that the distinction cannot be maintained. . . . Moreover, the Act—or so much as the Court leaves standing—creates significant inequities. A candidate with substantial personal resources is now

281

Campaign and Election Reform given by the Court a clear advantage over his less affluent opponents, who are constrained by law in fundraising, because the Court holds that the “First Amendment cannot tolerate” any restrictions on spending. Minority parties, whose situation is difficult enough under an Act that excludes them from public funding, are prevented from accepting large single-donor contributions. At the same time the Court sustains the provision aimed at broadening the base of political support by requiring candidates to seek a greater number of small contributors, it sustains the unrealistic disclosure thresholds of $10 and $100 that I believe will deter those hoped-for small contributions. Minor parties must now compete for votes against two major parties whose expenditures will be vast. Finally, the Act’s distinction between contributions in money and contributions in services remains, with only the former being subject to any limits. . . . One need not call problems of this order equal protection violations to recognize that the contribution limitations of the Act create grave inequities that are aggravated by the Court’s interpretation of the Act. . . . In my view Congress can no more ration political expression than it can ration religious expression; and limits on political or religious contributions and expenditures effectively curb expression in both areas. There are many prices we pay for the freedoms secured by the First Amendment; the risk of undue influence is one of them, confirming what we have long known: Freedom is hazardous, but some restraints are worse. MR. JUSTICE WHITE, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I I dissent . . . from the Court’s view that the expenditure limitations of 18 U.S.C. 608 (c) and (e) (1970 ed., Supp. IV) violate the First Amendment. Concededly, neither the limitations on contributions nor those on expenditures directly or indirectly purport to control the content of political speech by candidates or by their supporters or detractors. What the Act regulates is giving and spending money, acts that have First Amendment significance not because they are themselves communicative with respect to the qualifications of the candidate, but because money may be used to defray the expenses of speaking or otherwise communicating about the merits or demerits of federal candidates for election. The act of giving money to political candidates, however, may have illegal or other undesirable consequences: it may be used to secure the express or tacit understanding that the giver will enjoy political favor if the candidate is elected. Both Congress and this Court’s cases have recognized this as a

282

Appendix B mortal danger against which effective preventive and curative steps must be taken. Since the contribution and expenditure limitations are neutral as to the content of speech and are not motivated by fear of the consequences of the political speech of particular candidates or of political speech in general, this case depends on whether the nonspeech interests of the Federal Government in regulating the use of money in political campaigns are sufficiently urgent to justify the incidental effects that the limitations visit upon the First Amendment interests of candidates and their supporters. . . . It would make little sense to me, and apparently made none to Congress, to limit the amounts an individual may give to a candidate or spend with his approval but fail to limit the amounts that could be spent on his behalf. Yet the Court permits the former while striking down the latter limitation. . . . In any event, as it should be unnecessary to point out, money is not always equivalent to or used for speech, even in the context of political campaigns. I accept the reality that communicating with potential voters is the heart of an election campaign and that widespread communication has become very expensive. There are, however, many expensive campaign activities that are not themselves communicative or remotely related to speech. . . . The judgment of Congress was that reasonably effective campaigns could be conducted within the limits established by the Act and that the communicative efforts of these campaigns would not seriously suffer. In this posture of the case, there is no sound basis for invalidating the expenditure limitations, so long as the purposes they serve are legitimate and sufficiently substantial, which in my view they are. In the first place, expenditure ceilings reinforce the contribution limits and help eradicate the hazard of corruption. . . . Without limits on total expenditures, campaign costs will inevitably and endlessly escalate. Pressure to raise funds will constantly build and with it the temptation to resort in “emergencies” to those sources of large sums, who, history shows, are sufficiently confident of not being caught to risk flouting contribution limits. . . . I have little doubt in addition that limiting the total that can be spent will ease the candidate’s understandable obsession with fundraising, and so free him and his staff to communicate in more places and ways unconnected with the fundraising function. There is nothing objectionable—indeed it seems to me a weighty interest in favor of the provision—in the attempt to insulate the political expression of federal candidates from the influence inevitably exerted by the endless job of raising increasingly large sums of money. I regret that the Court has returned them all to the treadmill. It is also important to restore and maintain public confidence in federal elections. It is critical to obviate or dispel the impression that federal elections are purely and simply a function of money, that federal offices are

283

Campaign and Election Reform bought and sold or that political races are reserved for those who have the facility—and the stomach—for doing whatever it takes to bring together those interests, groups, and individuals that can raise or contribute large fortunes in order to prevail at the polls. . . . I also disagree with the Court’s judgment that 608 (a), which limits the amount of money that a candidate or his family may spend on his campaign, violates the Constitution. Although it is true that this provision does not promote any interest in preventing the corruption of candidates, the provision does, nevertheless, serve salutary purposes related to the integrity of federal campaigns. By limiting the importance of personal wealth, 608 (a) helps to assure that only individuals with a modicum of support from others will be viable candidates. . . . As with the campaign expenditure limits, Congress was entitled to determine that personal wealth ought to play a less important role in political campaigns than it has in the past. Nothing in the First Amendment stands in the way of that determination. MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I join in all of the Court’s opinion except Part I-C-2, which deals with 18 U.S.C. 608 (a) (1970 ed., Supp. IV). That section limits the amount a candidate may spend from his personal funds, or family funds under his control, in connection with his campaigns during any calendar year. See ante, at 51–52, n. 57. . . . To be sure, 608 (a) affects the candidate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights. But unlike the other expenditure limitations contained in the Act and invalidated by the Court—the limitation on independent expenditures relative to a clearly identified candidate, 608 (e), and the limitations on overall candidate expenditures, 608 (c)—the limitations on expenditures by candidates from personal resources contained in 608 (a) need never prevent the speaker from spending another dollar to communicate his ideas. Section 608 (a) imposes no overall limit on the amount a candidate can spend; it simply limits the “contribution” a candidate may make to his own campaign. The candidate remains free to raise an unlimited amount in contributions from others. So long as the candidate does not contribute to his campaign more than the amount specified in 608 (a), and so long as he does not accept contributions from others in excess of the limitations imposed by 608 (b), he is free to spend without limit on behalf of his campaign. . . . Large contributions are the less wealthy candidate’s only hope of countering the wealthy candidate’s immediate access to substantial sums of money. With that option removed, the less wealthy candidate is without the

284

Appendix B means to match the large initial expenditures of money of which the wealthy candidate is capable. In short, the limitations on contributions put a premium on a candidate’s personal wealth. In view of 608 (b)’s limitations on contributions, then, 608 (a) emerges not simply as a device to reduce the natural advantage of the wealthy candidate, but as a provision providing some symmetry to a regulatory scheme that otherwise enhances the natural advantage of the wealthy. Regardless of whether the goal of equalizing access would justify a legislative limit on personal candidate expenditures standing by itself, I think it clear that that goal justifies 608 (a)’s limits when they are considered in conjunction with the remainder of the Act. I therefore respectfully dissent from the Court’s invalidation of 608 (a).

285

APPENDIX C

THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT OF 1974 The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) was the basic federal campaign finance reform law until the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Below is a summary of the law prepared by the Federal Election Commission. For additional text and resources, see http://www. fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.htm#The%20Campaign%20Finance% 20Law.

THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT The basic provisions of the FECA are described below. Disclosure The FECA requires candidate committees, party committees and PACs to file periodic reports disclosing the money they raise and spend. Candidates must identify, for example, all PACs and party committees that give them contributions, and they must identify individuals who give them more than $200 in a year. Additionally, they must disclose expenditures exceeding $200 per year to any individual or vendor. Contribution Limits The FECA places limits on contributions by individuals and groups to candidates, party committees and PACs. The chart below shows how the limits apply to the various participants in federal elections.

286

Appendix C CONTRIBUTION LIMITS

Contribution Amount Amount individual may give Amount multicandidate committee† may give Amount other political committee may give

To a Candidate To a National or Candidate Party Committee Committee Total per per Calendar Election Year

To Any Other Political Committee Total per per Calendar Calendar Year* Year

$1,000 $5,000

$20,000 $15,000

$5,000 $5,000

$25,000 No limit

$1,000

$20,000

$5,000

No limit

* Exception: If a contributor gives to a committee knowing that a substantial portion of the contribution will be used to support a particular candidate, then the contribution counts against the donor’s limit for that candidate (first column on the chart). † A multicandidate committee is a political committee with more than 50 contributors which has been registered for at least six months and, with the exception of state party committees, has made contributions to five or more candidates for federal office.

Prohibited Contributions and Expenditures The FECA places prohibitions on contributions and expenditures by certain individuals and organizations. The following are prohibited from making contributions or expenditures to influence federal elections: • • • •

Corporations; Labor organizations; Federal government contractors; and Foreign nationals.

Furthermore, with respect to federal elections: • No one may make a contribution in another person’s name. • No one may make a contribution in cash of more than $100. In addition to the above prohibitions on contributions and expenditures in federal election campaigns, the FECA also prohibits foreign nationals, national banks and other federally chartered corporations from making contributions or expenditures in connection with state and local elections.

287

Campaign and Election Reform Independent Expenditures Under federal election law, an individual or group (such as a PAC) may make unlimited “independent expenditures” in connection with federal elections. An independent expenditure is an expenditure for a communication which expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate and which is made independently from the candidate’s campaign. To be considered independent, the communication may not be made with the cooperation or consent of the candidate or his or her campaign; nor may it be made upon a request or suggestion of either the candidate or the campaign. While there is no limit on how much anyone may spend on an independent expenditure, the law does require persons making independent expenditures to report them and to disclose the sources of the funds they used. The public can review these reports at the FEC’s Public Records Office. Corporate and Union Activity Although corporations and labor organizations may not make contributions or expenditures in connection with federal elections, they may establish PACs. Corporate and labor PACs raise voluntary contributions from a restricted class of individuals and use those funds to support federal candidates and political committees. Apart from supporting PACs, corporations and labor organizations may conduct other activities related to federal elections, within certain guidelines. For more information, call the FEC or consult 11 CFR Part 114. Political Party Activity Political parties are active in federal elections at the local, state and national levels. Most party committees organized at the state and national levels as well as some committees organized at the local level are required to register with the FEC and file reports disclosing their federal campaign activities. Party committees may contribute funds directly to federal candidates, subject to the contribution limits. National and state party committees may make additional “coordinated expenditures,” subject to limits, to help their nominees in general elections. Finally, state and local party committees may spend unlimited amounts on certain grassroots activities specified in the law without affecting their other contribution and expenditure limits (for example, voter drives by volunteers in support of the party’s Presidential nominees and the production of campaign materials for volunteer distribution). Party committees must register and file disclosure reports with the FEC once their federal election activities exceed certain dollar thresholds specified in the law.

288

Appendix C THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN FUND ACT Under the Internal Revenue Code, qualified Presidential candidates receive money from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, which is an account on the books of the U.S. Treasury. The Fund is financed exclusively by a voluntary tax checkoff. By checking a box on their income tax returns, individual taxpayers may direct $3 of their tax to the Fund (up to $6 for joint filers). Checking the box does not increase the amount a taxpayer owes or reduce his or her refund; it merely directs that three dollars from the U.S. Treasury be used in Presidential elections. Checkoff funds may not be spent for other federal programs. The funds are distributed under three programs: Primary Matching Payments Eligible candidates in the Presidential primaries may receive public funds to match the private contributions they raise. While a candidate may raise money from many different sources, only contributions from individuals are matchable; contributions from PACs and party committees are not. Furthermore, while an individual may give up to $1,000 to a primary candidate, only the first $250 of that contribution is matchable. To participate in the matching fund program, a candidate must demonstrate broad-based support by raising more than $5,000 in matchable contributions in each of 20 different states. Candidates must agree to use public funds only for campaign expenses, and they must comply with spending limits. Beginning with a $10 million base figure, the overall primary spending limit is adjusted each Presidential election year to reflect inflation. In 1996, the limit was $30.91 million. General Election Grants The Republican and Democratic candidates who win their parties’ nominations for President are each eligible to receive a grant to cover all the expenses of their general election campaigns. The basic $20 million grant is adjusted for inflation each Presidential election year. In 1996, the grant was $61.82 million. Nominees who accept the funds must agree not to raise private contributions (from individuals, PACs or party committees) and to limit their campaign expenditures to the amount of public funds they receive. They may use the funds only for campaign expenses. A third party Presidential candidate may qualify for some public funds after the general election if he or she receives at least five percent of the popular vote.

289

Campaign and Election Reform Party Convention Grants Each major political party may receive public funds to pay for its national Presidential nominating convention. The statute sets the base amount of the grant at $4 million for each party, and that amount is adjusted for inflation each Presidential election year. In 1996, the major parties each received $12.36 million. Other parties may also be eligible for partial public financing of their nominating conventions, provided that their nominees received at least five percent of the vote in the previous Presidential election.

290

APPENDIX D

LEGISLATIVE SUMMARY OF THE BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 2002 The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) substantially amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which for about 30 years formed the basis for federal campaign finance regulation. The following summary of the BCRA was prepared by the Congressional Research Service and can be found on the Library of Congress THOMAS web site by searching for Public Law 107-155. 155. H.R. 2356 : To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide bipartisan campaign reform. Sponsor: Rep. Shays, Christopher Committees: House Administration; House Energy and Commerce; House Judiciary Latest Major Action: 3/27/2002 Became Public Law No: 107-155 Note: H.R. 2356 [Shays-Meehan] was originally introduced as H.R. 380. A Senate companion bill, S. 27 [McCain-Feingold] was passed by the Senate on 4/2/2001. On 2/13/2002, H.R. 2360 [Ney-Wynn], with some modifications, was offered as a substitute amendment [H.Amdt. 430] to H.R. 2356. The amendment was not agreed to. H.R. 2356 was passed by the House on 2/14/2002 and by the Senate on 3/20/2002. [notes] SUMMARY AS OF: 2/14/2002—Passed House, amended. (There are 2 other summaries) Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002—Title I: Reduction of Special Interest Influence—Amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) to prohibit: (1) national political party committees (includ-

291

Campaign and Election Reform ing any officer, agent, or entity they directly or indirectly establish, finance, maintain, or control) (officer, agent, or entity) from soliciting, receiving, directing, transferring, or spending money that is subject to FECA limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements; (2) soft money spending (not currently subject to FECA) for a Federal election activity, in general, by State, district, and local political party committees (including any officer, agent, or entity) or by an association or similar group of candidates for State or local office or State or local officials; (3) soft money spending for fundraising costs by any such committee, officer, agent, or entity; (4) national, State, district, or local political party committees (including national political party congressional campaign committees, entities, officers, or agents) from soliciting, any funds for, or making or directing any donations to certain tax-exempt organizations; and (5) candidates for Federal office, Federal office holders, or their agents from soliciting, receiving, directing, transferring, or spending funds in connection with a Federal election, including funds for any Federal election activity, unless they are subject to FECA limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements, or in connection with any non-Federal election unless such funds meet specified requirements. (Sec. 101) Prohibits any funds for soft money accounts from being solicited, received, directed, transferred, or spent in the name of national political parties, Federal candidates or officials, or by joint fundraising activities by two or more party committees. Defines Federal election activity to include: (1) voter registration activity in the last 120 days of a Federal election; (2) voter identification, get-out-the-vote, or generic campaign activity conducted in connection with an election in which a Federal candidate is on the ballot; (3) public communications that refer to a clearly identified Federal candidate and promote, support, attack, or oppose a candidate for Federal office (regardless of whether they expressly advocate a vote for or against); or (4) services by a State, district, or local political party employee who spends at least 25 percent of paid time per month on activities in connection with a Federal election. Defines generic campaign activity as a campaign activity that promotes a political party and does not promote a candidate or non-Federal candidate. Defines public communications as communications by means of any broadcast, cable, satellite communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing (over 500 identical or substantially similar pieces mailed within any 30-day period), or phone bank (over 500 identical or substantially similar telephone calls made within any 30-day period) to the general public, or any other form of general public political advertising. (Sec. 102) Increases limit on individual contributions to a State committee of a political party from $5,000 to $10,000 per year.

292

Appendix D (Sec. 103) Codifies Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulations on disclosure of all national political party committee activity, both Federal and non-Federal. Requires disclosure by State and local parties of spending on Federal election activities, including any soft money permitted to be used for such activities. Terminates the building fund exception to the definition of contribution. Title II: Noncandidate Campaign Expenditures—Subtitle A: Electioneering Communications—Amends FECA to require disclosure to the FEC of electioneering communications by any spender exceeding an aggregate of $10,000 per year in disbursements for them (including contracts to disburse), within 24 hours of each specified disbursement date (disclosure date). (Sec. 201) Requires such disclosure to include: (1) identification of spender, of any person with control over the activities of such person, and of the custodian of the spender’s books and accounts; (2) the spender’s principal place of business (if the spender is not an individual); (3) amount of disbursements of over $200 and identification of recipient; (4) the election and candidates to which communications pertain; and (5) identification of all contributors of $1,000 or more (either to a separate segregated fund or, if none, to the spender). Defines electioneering communication as any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that refers to a clearly identified Federal candidate, made within 60 days of a general, special, or runoff election, or within 30 days of a primary or preference election, or a convention or caucus of a political party that has authority to nominate a candidate, for the office the candidate seeks, and, in the case of a communication that refers to a candidate for an office other than President or Vice President, is targeted to the relevant electorate. Provides an alternative definition of the term if the first definition is held to be constitutionally insufficient. Lists exceptions to the definition of electioneering communication. Provides that a communication that refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office is “targeted to the relevant electorate” if the communication can be received by 50,000 or more persons in the district the candidate seeks to represent, in the case of a candidate for Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, Congress or in the State the candidate seeks to represent, in the case of a candidate for Senator. Directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to compile, maintain, and publicize on its website any information the FEC may require to carry out these requirements. (Sec. 202) Treats an electioneering communication that is coordinated with a candidate or an authorized committee of such candidate, a Federal,

293

Campaign and Election Reform State, or local political party or committee thereof, or an agent or official of any such candidate, party, or committee as a contribution to, and expenditure by, such candidate or such party. (Sec. 203) Bans disbursements for electioneering communications from union or certain corporate funds, except certain tax-exempt corporations making electioneering communications: (1) paid for exclusively with funds provided directly by individuals who are citizens or permanent resident aliens; and (2) which are not targeted electioneering communications. Subtitle B: Independent and Coordinated Expenditures—Amends FECA to define independent expenditure as an expenditure by a person expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, and that is not made in concert or cooperation with or at the request or suggestion of such candidate, the candidate’s authorized political committee, or their agents, or a political party committee or its agents. (Sec. 212) Outlines reporting requirements for certain independent expenditures, including the time frame for filing reports with the FEC on independent expenditures aggregating $1,000 or more and $10,000 or more. (Sec. 213) Prohibits a committee of a political party from making both independent and coordinated expenditures for a general election candidate. (Sec. 214) Provides that expenditures made by any person (other than a candidate or candidate’s authorized committee) in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a national, State, or local committee of a political party, shall be considered to be contributions made to such party committee. Repeals current FEC regulations, and directs the FEC to promulgate new regulations on coordinated communications paid for by persons other than candidates, authorized committees of candidates, and party committees. Prohibits such regulations from requiring agreement or formal collaboration to establish coordination. Title III: Miscellaneous—Amends FECA to codify FEC regulations on permissible uses for contributions and donations, while retaining the ban on the conversion of a contribution or donation to personal use. (Sec. 302) Revises the ban under the Federal criminal code against solicitation or receipt of campaign contributions by Federal officials and from anyone located in any Federal government building used to discharge official duties. Extends the ban to: (1) specify State and local as well as Federal elections; and (2) cover soft money. (Sec. 303) Amends FECA to revise the ban on campaign contributions from foreign nationals to include donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, disbursements for an electioneering communication, as well as contributions or donations to any political party committee.

294

Appendix D (Sec. 304) Specifies formulae for increasing the limits on individual and political party committee contributions for a Senate candidate whose opponent exceeds the threshold level of spending from personal funds in the campaign, whose basic formula shall be $150,000 plus $0.04 times the voting age population. Limits repayment of a candidate’s personal loans incurred in connection with his or her campaign to $250,000 from contributions made to the candidate or any authorized committee of the candidate after the election. (Sec. 305) Declares that a candidate for Federal office shall not be entitled to the lowest unit rate broadcast time unless he or she certifies to the broadcast station that the candidate (or any of his or her authorized committees) will not refer directly to another candidate for the same office unless a broadcast ad includes the candidate’s photo or image on TV and a statement of the candidate’s approval printed for display on TV and spoken by the candidate on radio. (Sec. 306) Amends FECA to require: (1) the FEC to promulgate standards for and to provide standardized software for filing FEC reports electronically; (2) candidates’ use of such software; and (3) the FEC to post any information received electronically on the Internet as soon as practicable. (Sec. 307) Raises: (1) the limit on aggregate individual contributions to national political party committees from $20,000 to $25,000 per year; (2) the limit on annual aggregate individual contributions to Federal candidates, political action committees (PACs), and parties from $25,000 to $37,500 in the case of contributions to candidates and the authorized committees of candidates, and to $57,500 in the case of any other contributions, of which not more than $37,500 may be attributable to contributions to political committees which are not political committees of national political parties during a specified period; and (3) the special limit on combined contributions to Senate candidates by national and senatorial party committees $17,500 to $35,000 in year of election. Provides for indexing for inflation of limits on certain contributions and expenditures. (Sec. 308) Amends Federal law on presidential inaugural ceremonies to require disclosure to the FEC by Presidential Inaugural Committees of any donation made to them in an aggregate amount equal to or greater than $200. Bans foreign national donations to a Presidential Inaugural Committee. Directs the FEC to make any report filed by such a Committee accessible to the public at FEC offices and on the Internet. (Sec. 309) Amends FECA to prohibit fraudulent misrepresentation in the solicitation of campaign funds.

295

Campaign and Election Reform (Sec. 310) Directs the Comptroller General to study and report to Congress on statistics for and effects of public financing (clean money clean elections) of the 2000 elections in Arizona and Maine. (Sec. 311) Amends FECA to require: (1) sponsorship identification on all election-related advertising (including on electioneering communications) by the political committee or other person paying for the communication and the name of any connected organization of the payor; and (2) enhanced visibility or other disclosure of such identification in the communication. (Sec. 312) Increases criminal penalties for knowing and willful violations involving: (1) contributions, expenditures, or donations in amounts aggregating from $2,000 to $25,000 per year; and (2) contributions, expenditures, or donations in amounts aggregating $25,000 or more per year. (Sec. 313) Changes from three to five years the statute of limitations for criminal violations of Federal election law. (Sec. 314) Directs the United States Sentencing Commission to promulgate penalty guidelines and to make legislative or administrative recommendations to Congress regarding enforcement of Federal election law. (Sec. 315) Imposes specific civil money and criminal penalties for knowing and willful violations of the ban on contributions made in the name of another person (conduit contribution ban). (Sec. 316) Provides that: (1) for purposes of determining the aggregate amount of expenditures from a candidate’s personal funds used in determining the opposition personal funds amount in Senate elections, such aggregate amount shall include the gross receipts advantage of the candidate’s authorized committee; and (2) the ban on contributions and donations from foreign nationals does not include U.S. nationals. (Sec. 318) Prohibits contributions to candidates and donations to political party committees by individuals age 17 or younger. (Sec. 319) Amends FECA to provide that if the opposition personal funds amount with respect to a candidate for election to Congress exceeds $350,000: (1) the individual contribution limit with respect to the House of Representatives candidate shall be tripled (from $1,000 to $3,000); (2) the aggregate annual individual contribution limit ($25,000) shall not apply with respect to any contribution made with respect to the candidate if the contribution is made under such increased limit; and (3) the limits on any expenditure by a State or national committee of a political party on behalf of the candidate shall not apply. Title IV: Severability; Effective Date—Sets forth severability, effective date, and judicial review provisions. Title V: Additional Disclosure Provisions—Amends FECA to require all designations, statements, reports, and notifications filed with the FEC to

296

Appendix D be available for public inspection in FEC offices and to be accessible to the public on the Internet within 48 hours after FEC receipt. (Retains the current law requirement that such disclosure materials filed electronically with FEC be accessible to the public on the Internet within 24 hours after FEC receipt.) (Sec. 502) Directs the FEC to maintain a central site on the Internet to make accessible to the public all publicly available election-related reports and information. (Sec. 503) Amends FECA to require: (1) principal campaign committees of candidates for the House or for the Senate to file additional quarterly reports in non-election years; and (2) national committees of a political party to file monthly reports in all years. (Sec. 504) Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to require a licensee to maintain, and make available for public inspection, records of broadcast time purchase requests by or on behalf candidates, or to communicate messages relating to any political matter of national importance.

297

INDEX Page numbers in boldface indicate main topics. Page numbers followed by b indicate biographical entries. Page numbers followed by c indicate chronology entries. Page numbers followed by g indicate glossary entries.

A ABC Network 29 abolitionism 124, 125 absentee ballot 33, 134g accessibility 118c ACLU. See American Civil Liberties Union ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) 118c Adams, Abigail 15 Adams, John 104c Adams, John Quincy election of 1824 105c,106c election of 1828 8 Adams County, Ohio 110c advertising issue ads 56, 102 print v. broadcast 20, 102 African Americans. See also voting rights for minorities; white primary effects of Voting Rights Act 115c election of 2000 5 and the Electoral College 39 voting rights 17–18 age requirements for House of Representatives 46 for Senate 47 for voting 51, 116c A.H. Belo Corp. 29 Alabama Gomillion v. Lightfoot 67–68 Reynolds v. Sims 68–70

Alien and Sedition Laws 105c Allen v. State Board of Elections 115c Alliance for Better Campaigns 257 alternative ballot systems 39–42, 232–238 amendments to the Constitution. See also specific amendments and the Electoral College 38 relating to voting rights 49–51 American Bar Association 37 American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) 134g, 257 and BCRA 32 Buckley v. Valeo 75–78 and campaign finance reform 27 Laughlin McDonald 129 web site 158 American Conservative Union 76 American Independent Party 74 American (“Know-Nothing”) Party 106c Americans for Limited Terms 257 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 118c American Woman Suffrage Association (AWSA) 107c Amy, Douglas J. 124b anonymous pamphleteering 89–90

298

Anthony, Susan Brownell 124b–125b Carrie Chapman Catt and 126 and NWSA 107c Elizabeth Cady Stanton and 132 and woman suffrage 16 Anti-Masonic Party 106c appeals rulings, on BCRA 56–57 appointments, political 51 apportionment (districting) 18–19, 134g. See also reapportionment Colegrove v. Green 63–64, 112c constitutional provisions for 46 court cases 57 Reynolds v. Sims 68–70 Shaw v. Reno 86–87 Wesbury v. Sanders 70–71 Arkansas Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes 94–96, 120c state campaign finance legislation 30 U.S. Term Limits, Inc., v. Thornton 91–92 Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes 94–96, 120c armed forces members 113c, 118c assembly, freedom of 49 “assessments” 10

Index association, freedom of 49, 134g Brown v. Socialist Workers ’74 Campaign Committee 82–84 California Democratic Party v. Jones 99–100 court cases 57 Democratic Party of the United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette 81–82 and freedom of speech 81 right of political parties to 81–82 Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut 84–85 Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party 92–94 Astor, John Jacob 12 at large 134g “Australian” ballot 93, 107c, 108c Richard Henry Dana III 127 electoral reform 11 AWSA (American Woman Suffrage Association) 107c

B Baker v. Carr 64, 70 ballot 33, 96, 97, 134g, 135g ballot access requirements 74, 75 ballot initiatives. See initiatives ballot reform 32–42 ballot security measures 129 ballot tampering 62–63 banking associations 78–80 Bank of the United States 9 base 135g battleground state 135g BCRA. See Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 Belmont, Perry 12, 125b Beyond the Ballot Box (Douglas J. Amy) 124 bibliography 174–238 alternative electoral systems 232–238

campaign finance reform 187–214 elections and the electorate 178–187 electoral reform 214–238 general debate on campaign finance reform 197–203 general reference 175–178 the influence of money on politics 187–197 legal issues relating to campaign finance reform 211–214 legislation and its consequences 203–211 reference and background 175–187 term limits 223–226 voting procedures and problems 226–232 voting rights, minorities, and redistricting 214–223 bicameral legislatures 69 bipartisan 135g Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) 31–32, 53, 55–57, 135g, 143g Buckley v. Valeo 75–78 filibuster 120c legal challenges 123c legislative summary 291–297 John McCain 128, 129 McConnell v. FEC 101–103 passage of 121c soft money changes 122c Biracial Politics (Chandler Davidson) 127 Black, Hugo and Colegrove v. Green 64 and Wesbury v. Sanders 71 and Williams v. Rhodes 74–75 and Wright v. Rockefeller 72 “black codes” 17 Blackmun, Harry 87

299

blanket primary 99–100 California Democratic Party v. Jones 120c–121c and primary election reform 36 bloc 135g “Bonus Plan” 39 Breedlove v. Suttles 72, 111c Brennan, Walter 75 Breyer, Stephen 87, 98 broadcast media advertising via 56 FECA of 1971 and 21 Political Campaign Broadcast Activity Improvements Act 122c print advertising vs. 102 Brown v. Socialist Workers ‘74 Campaign Committee 82–84 Bryan, William Jennings 110c Buchanan, Patrick 131 Buckley v. Valeo 75–78, 117c, 268–285 FECA amendments to comply with 55 FECA and 54 First Amendment rights 21–22 First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti 80 harassment vs. disclosure requirements of 83, 84 “Bull Moose” Party 132 bundling 28, 135g Burger, Warren 80–81 Burr, Aaron 105c Bush, George W. See also Bush v. Gore BCRA 121c election of 2000 4, 121c and the Electoral College 37 John McCain 129 Ralph Nader 130 Bush v. Gore 34, 96–99, 121c Bush v. Vera 87 Bustamante, Cruz 123c butterfly ballot 33, 96, 97, 135g

Campaign and Election Reform C California California Democratic Party v. Jones 36, 99–100, 120c–121c Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley 80–81 and primary election reform 36 public funding 120c recall election (2003) 123c state campaign finance legislation 30 term limits 36 California Democratic Party v. Jones 36, 99–100, 120c–121c California Political Reform Act of 1996 30 campaign 135g campaign consultant 135g Campaign Finance Information Center 57, 257 Campaign Finance Institute (CFI) 257 campaign finance reform 135g–136g. See also Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) bibliography 187–214, 197–203 Brown v. Socialist Workers ’74 Campaign Committee 82–84 Buckley v. Valeo 75–78 Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley 80–81 Day v. Holahan 87–89 debate over 25–32 Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1910 110c First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti 78–80 introduction of first bill 106c Landell v. Sorrell 100–101 legislation for state campaigns 30 John McCain 128, 129

McConnell v. FEC 101–103 NPLA 110c during Progressive Era 11–13 public attitudes toward 25 Theodore Roosevelt’s efforts 110c Shrink Missouri Government PAC v. Maupin 90–91 Tillman Act of 1907 12, 110c campaign finance regulations 58 candidate coendorsements 92–94 candidates campaign contributions by 53 coendorsements of 92–94 Carter, James Coolidge 11, 125b–126b Carter, James Earl (Jimmy) 35, 126b Carver v. Nixon 89 Cato Institute 101, 258 Catt, Carrie Clinton Lane Chapman 16, 126b caucus 136g CBS 29 census 46 Center for Public Integrity 258 Center for Responsive Politics 26, 258 Center for Voting and Democracy 258 CFI (Campaign Finance Institute) 257 chad 34, 136g checks and balances 7 Chicago 10 CIO. See Congress of Industrial Organizations Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley 80–81 citizenship requirements under Fourteenth Amendment 49 for House of Representatives 46 for Senate 47

300

city government reform 125–126 civil rights 113c, 127 Civil Rights Act of 1957 17 Civil Rights Act of 1964 18, 114c Civil Rights Division (Justice Department) 128 civil service 136g Richard Henry Dana III 127 Hatch Act 111c–112c Pendleton Act 51 reform of system 10 Theodore Roosevelt 132 Civil Service Reform Act. See Pendleton Act of 1883 Civil Service Reform Record 127 Civil War. See Reconstruction Clark, Thomas 70 Clay, Henry 105c Clean Elections Act 120c Clean Politics Act. See Hatch Act of 1939 Cleveland, Grover election of 1888 108c and the Electoral College 37 Clinton, Bill contribution reporting legislation 121c electoral reform commission proposal 119c fund-raising controversy 120c Lani Guinier 128 closed primary 84–85, 136g Cloward, Richard 131 Cockran, William Burke 12 coendorsements of candidates 92–94 Colegrove v. Green 63–64, 70, 112c, 114c Colorado public funding 120c women’s suffrage 109c and women’s suffrage 16 Commission on Campaign Costs 20 Common Cause 24, 136g, 258

Index Common Cause v. Federal Election Commission 24 Compromise of 1877 108c Congress. See also House of Representatives; Senate and Alien and Sedition Laws 105c and BCRA 31 establishment of 104c federal election regulation by 47, 60, 61 Publicity Act amendments 13 state districting regulation by 70 term limits 112c congressional campaign committee 136g congressional districts. See apportionment (districting); gerrymander; reapportionment Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) 15, 112c Congress Watch 130 Connecticut Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut 84–85 constituency 136g constituent 136g Constitutional Convention 7 Constitution of the United States 45–51 adoption of 104c amendments to 49–51. See also specific amendments Article 1 of 45–47 Article 2 of 48–49 election of president and vice president 48–49 election to House of Representatives 45–46 election to Senate 46–47 right to vote in 49–51 contributions aggregate limits on 54 for ballot measures 80–81 Buckley v. Valeo 75–78, 117c for campaigns in early 1800s 9

by candidate or immediate family 53 by candidates. See Federal Election Commission Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley 80–81 by civil service employees 51. See also Pendleton Act of 1883 by corporations 24, 51, 53, 109c disclosure of 52 expenditures vs. 77–78 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971 116c federal officeholder solicitation of 56 and freedom of speech 66–67, 76 Hatch Act 111c–112c by labor unions 53 limits on 27, 88, 89, 119c limits on individual 52, 54, 56 by national banks 51 Naval Appropriations Bill of 1867 107c Newberry v. United States 111c nonprofit advocacy group regulations 123c NPLA and 110c return of unused 90 Smith-Connally Act of 1943 112c Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 112c Westminster (Colorado) referendum 120c when opponent spends large amounts of personal funds 56 Controversies in Minority Voting: The Voting Rights Act in Perspective 127 conventions 106c, 137g Democratic Party of the United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette 81–82 public funding for 55 “core political speech” 90, 93, 102

301

corporate reform 130 corporations campaign contributions by 12, 51, 110c court cases 58 First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of 78–79 First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti 78–80 freedom of speech for individuals v. 81 freedom of speech rights of 79–80 political contributions by 53 corruption 137g Adams County, Ohio 110c Brown v. Socialist Workers ’74 Campaign Committee 82–84 election of 1832 106c and political machines 10 and return of unused contributions 91 Tammany Hall 10 Watergate 116c counting of votes 58. See also alternative ballot systems; Bush v. Gore court cases apportionment 57 Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes 94–96 Brown v. Socialist Workers ’74 Campaign Committee 82–84 Buckley v. Valeo 75–78 Bush v. Gore 96–99 California Democratic Party v. Jones 99–100 campaign finance regulations 58 Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley 80–81 Colegrove v. Green 63–64 corporations 58 counting of votes 58 Day v. Holahan 87–89 Democratic Party of the United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette 81–82

Campaign and Election Reform court cases (continued) equal protection of the law 58 federal authority to regulation elections 58 First Amendment 57, 58 First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti 78–80 Fourteenth Amendment 58 freedom of association 57 freedom of speech 58 Gomillion v. Lightfoot 67–68 Guinn v. United States 59–60 Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections 72–73 labor unions 58 Landell v. Sorrell 100–101 McConnell v. FEC 101–103 McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission 89–90 minor parties and independents 58 Newberry v. United States 60–62 Nixon v. Herndon 61–62 political parties 58 poll taxes 58 primary elections 58 Reynolds v. Sims 68–70 Shaw v. Reno 86–87 Shrink Missouri Government PAC v. Maupin 90–91 Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut 84–85 term limits 58 Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party 92–94 by topic 57–58 United Public Workers v. Mitchell 65–66 United States v. Classic 62–63 United States v. Congress of Industrial Organizations 66–67 U.S. Term Limits, Inc., v. Thornton 91–92

voting rights for minorities 58 Wesbury v. Sanders 70–71 Williams v. Rhodes 73–75 Wright v. Rockefeller 71–72 Cousins v. Wigoda 82 Cox Enterprises 29 Crawford, William H. 105c criminal records, of voters 4–5. See also felons, voting rights and Critical Mass Energy Project 130 CSC v. Letter Carriers 66 cumulative voting. See preference voting

D Dana, Richard Henry, III 11, 127b Dartmouth College v. Woodward 79–80 Davidson, Chandler 19, 127b Davis, Gray 123c Dawkins, Andy 93 Day v. Holahan 87–89 debates. See also KennedyNixon debates Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes 120c for congressional district candidates 94 and definition of public forum 94–96 presidential 96, 137g decline to state voter 137g Democratic Party 137g–138g “assessments” 10 Bush v. Gore 96–99 election of 1828 8 election of 1876 108c election of 1910 13 election of 1976 117c Georgia redistricting (2003) 123c and Hatch Act restrictions 66 and political machines 10 Smith v. Allwright 112c

302

“Super Tuesday” 118c and voter registration liberalization 35 and white primaries 17, 61, 62 Democratic Party of the United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette 81–82 Democratic-Republican Party 7, 105c Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau 239 Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Voting Section 239–240 designated public forum 95 direct democracy 138g direct election of president 38, 115c, 117c direct election of senators 12, 110c. See also Seventeenth Amendment disclosure 138g. See also Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1910; Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925 Perry Belmont and 125 Brown v. Socialist Workers ’74 Campaign Committee 82–84 and campaign finance reform 27 early laws 11 FECA of 1971 and 21 FECA requirements for 54 FEC information and 22 Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925 13–14 for independent expenditures 55 McConnell v. FEC 101–103 and NPLA 12 NPLA advocacy of 13 of political contributions 52 Publicity Act of 1910 13 discrimination Gomillion v. Lightfoot 67–68 in voting 53. See also voting rights for minorities

Index disenfranchise 138g election of 2000 33 southern United States 109c districting. See apportionment; reapportionment District of Columbia contribution limits for local elections 119c electors for 50 Twenty-third Amendment 113c districts, congressional. See apportionment (districting); gerrymander; reapportionment Douglas, William O. and Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections 73 draft cards, burning of 77 due process 138g. See also Fourteenth Amendment Durbin, Richard 122c

E EDS (Electronic Data Systems) 130 election day, federal 106c election debates. See debates electioneering statements and BCRA 32 reporting of spending on 56 election of 1796 104c–105c election of 1800 105c election of 1824 105c–106c election of 1828 8 election of 1832 9, 106c election of 1876 9, 37, 108c election of 1888 11, 37, 108c election of 1896 12 election of 1900 12, 132 election of 1904 12 election of 1910 13 election of 1912 132 election of 1960 20, 37 election of 1972 116c–117c election of 1976 Jimmy Carter and 126 Democratic Party rules reform 117c

election of 1992 119c and the Electoral College 38 H. Ross Perot and 31 election of 1996 120c election of 2000 3–5, 121c. See also Bush v. Gore Jimmy Carter and 126 Electoral College and 37 Electoral Count Act 108c flaws in voting process 33–35 Ralph Nader and 31 total spending by major parties 3 ElectionReform.org 259 elections bibliography 178–187 challenges to 113c disputed 49 federal. See federal elections federal regulation of. See federal authority to regulate elections state regulation of 82 elector 104c, 138g Electoral College 138g–139g constitutional provision for 48 election of 1800 105c election of 1824 106c election of 2000 4 establishment of 104c origins of 7 and political parties 104c–105c reform debate 37–39 replacement proposal 115c and technological change 5 electoral commission 108c Electoral Count Act 108c electoral reform bibliography 214–238 Frances Fox Piven 131 during Progressive Era 11–13 proposed changes 5–6 electoral votes 96–99 electors election of 2000 4 Guinn v. United States 59–60

303

for House of Representatives 45, 46 for Senate 47 and Twelfth Amendment 105c Electronic Data Systems (EDS) 130 elites, early voting rights and 7 enumeration (census) 46 equal protection of the law 139g. See also Fourteenth Amendment Bush v. Gore 34, 96–99 court cases 58 election of 2000 4, 34 Fourteenth Amendment 9 Fourteenth Amendment provisions for 49, 50 Nixon v. Herndon 61–62 Reynolds v. Sims 19 Shaw v. Reno 86–87 undiluted vote as requirement of 69 equal representation for minorities 50 equal time provision 139g executive branch 48–49 exit poll 139g expenditures. See also spending limits Brown v. Socialist Workers ’74 Campaign Committee 82–84 contributions vs. 77–78 by corporations for influencing/affecting vote 78 Day v. Holahan 87–89

F faction 7, 139g faithless electors 38 false vote counts 62–63 FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) 83 FEC. See Federal Election Commission FECA. See Federal Election Campaign Act; Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971

Campaign and Election Reform federal authority to regulate elections court cases 58 in jurisdictions with discrimination history 53 Newberry v. United States 60–62 United States v. Classic 62–63 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 83 federal contractors, contributions by 112c Federal Corrupt Practices Act Amendments of 1911 13 Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1910 52, 115c amendments 111c Perry Belmont and 125 Newberry v. United States 60–62 passage of 13 Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925 13–14, 52 Perry Belmont and 125 campaign finance reform 110c United States v. Congress of Industrial Organizations 66–67 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) Amendments of 1974 21, 54–55, 116c–117c, 286–290 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) Amendments of 1979 22–23, 117c Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971 20–22, 53–54, 75–76, 116c, 117c. See also FECA Amendments of 1974 Federal Election Commission (FEC) 117c, 139g–140g, 240 “About Elections and Voting” web page 158 and BCRA 31, 32 BCRA soft-money provisions 121c Buckley v. Valeo 117c change in disclosure rules 24

and issue ads 28–29 outside expenditure regulation 122c powers of 55 and soft money 23 web site 57, 156 federal election day 106c federal elections congressional regulation of 47 constitutional provisions for 45–49 Electoral College 48 and FECA Amendments of 1979 23 to House of Representatives 45–46 of president and vice president 48–49 to Senate 46–47 federal employees “assessments” 10 and Democratic Party contributions 14 Hatch Act amendments 119c political management/campaign involvement of 65–66 prohibition on political solicitation of and by 52, 106c. See also Hatch Act of 1939 U.S. Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers 116c federalism 37 Federalist Party 7, 105c federal political reform legislation 51–57 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 55–57 Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1910 52 Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925 52 Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974 54–55 Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 53–54 Hatch Act of 1939 52

304

Long Act 53 National Voter Registration Act of 1993 55 Pendleton Act 51 Revenue Act of 1971 54 Smith-Connally Act 52–53 Taft-Hartley Act 53 Tillman Act 51 Voting Rights Act of 1965 53 Federal Voting Assistance Program 113c, 115c, 240 Feingold, Russell and BCRA 31, 32 John McCain 129 Political Campaign Broadcast Activity Improvements Act 122c felons, voting rights and election of 2000 33 Richardson v. Ramirez 117c female suffrage. See women’s suffrage Fifteenth Amendment 50, 107c and African-American voting rights 17 Susan B. Anthony 125 election of 2000 5 Gomillion v. Lightfoot 67–68, 113c Guinn v. United States 59–60 Nixon v. Herndon 61–62 ratification of 9, 107c United States v. Cruikshank 108c United States v. Reese 108c Voting Rights Act of 1965 114c Wright v. Rockefeller 71–72 Fifth Amendment McConnell v. FEC 101–103 United Public Workers v. Mitchell 65–66 First Amendment 49, 140g. See also association, freedom of; speech, freedom of Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes 94–96

Index and BCRA 32 BCRA legal challenges 123c Brown v. Socialist Workers ’74 Campaign Committee 82–84 Buckley v. Valeo 21–22, 75–78, 117c Bush v. Gore 96–99 California Democratic Party v. Jones 99–100 Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley 80–81 court cases 57, 58 Day v. Holahan 87–89 Democratic Party of the United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette 81–82 First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti 78–80 and issue ads 29 Landell v. Sorrell 100–101 McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission 89–90 nonprofit advocacy group contribution regulations 123c Shrink Missouri Government PAC v. Maupin 90–91 Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party 92–94 United Public Workers v. Mitchell 65–66 United States v. Congress of Industrial Organizations 66–67 First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti 78–80 “first past the post” 140g “527” groups 140g “floaters” 11 Florida Bush v. Gore 96–99 election of 1876 9 election of 2000 4, 33–34, 121c state campaign finance legislation 30

Florida primary (2002) 121c, 122c Florida Supreme Court 121c Forbes, Ralph 94, 95 Ford, Gerald 35, 126 Ford, Henry 13 Fourteenth Amendment 49–50, 140g. See also Equal protection of the law and African-American voting rights 17 Susan B. Anthony 125 Baker v. Carr and 114c Bush v. Gore 34, 96–99 Colegrove v. Green 63–64 court cases 58 Democratic Party of the United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette 81–82 election of 2000 4 First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti 78–80 and former Confederate states 107c Gomillion v. Lightfoot 67–68 Gomillion v. Lightfoot and 19 Guinn v. United States 59–60 Nixon v. Herndon 17, 61–62 ratification of 9 Reynolds v. Sims 19, 68–70 Shaw v. Reno 86–87, 119c Voting Rights Act of 1965 114c Wesbury v. Sanders 70–71 Williams v. Rhodes 73–75 and women’s suffrage 16 Wright v. Rockefeller 71–72 Frankfurter, Felix and Colegrove v. Green 64 and Gomillion v. Lightfoot 68 freedom of speech and the press 27, 140g. See also First Amendment “freeholders” 8 front loading 140g Fundraising, Soft Money, 1991–2001 266

305

Fundraising, Total Party, 1991–2001 264 fusion 92–94, 140g

G Garfield, James A. 10 general election 140g Georgia redistricting plan (2003) 123c Wesbury v. Sanders 70–71 Williams v. Rhodes 73–75 Gerry, Elbridge 105c gerrymander 105c, 140g–141g. See also apportionment Allen v. State Board of Elections 115c and apportionment 86–87 Baker v. Carr 114c Colegrove v. Green 112c Gomillion v. Lightfoot 67–68, 113c racial 19, 86–87 and reapportionment 18 “get out the vote” campaigns 55, 56 Gilded Age 9–11 Giles v. Harris 109c Giles v. Teasley 109c Gingrich, Newt 119c Ginsburg, Ruth Bader 87, 98 Gomillion v. Lightfoot 67–68, 72, 113c reapportionment 18–19 Gompers, Samuel 110c Gore, Al 96, 97. See also Bush v. Gore election of 2000 4 and the Electoral College 37 fund-raising controversy 120c Ralph Nader 130 GOTV (“get out the vote”) 141g Gould, Jay 12 graft 141g “grandfather clauses” 141g Guinn v. United States 59–60, 110c–111c literacy tests 109c

Campaign and Election Reform grassroots 141g Gray v. Sanders 69 Green Party 41, 42, 130 Grovey v. Townsend 111c Guinier, Lani 127b–128b Guinn v. United States 17, 59–60, 110c–111c

H Haddock, Doris 31 Hamilton, Alexander 7 Hanna, Mark 12 harassment 82–84 hard money 56, 122c, 141g Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections 72–73, 114c–115c Harris, Katherine 96, 97 Harris, Thomas E. 23 Harrison, Benjamin election of 1888 108c and the Electoral College 37 Hatch Act of 1939 52, 111c–112c, 141g passage of 14 passage of amendments 14–15, 119c United Public Workers v. Mitchell 65–66 U.S. Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers 116c Hayes, Rutherford B. election of 1876 9, 108c and the Electoral College 37 Hill, Stephen 41 Hilliard, Earl 102 Holmes, Oliver Wendell 61–62 House of Representatives and campaign contribution disclosure 52 campaign spending limits for 52 candidate campaign contributions for 53 constitutional election provisions for 45–46 direct election of president proposal 115c election day for members 107c

election of 1824 106c and election of 1800 105c establishment of 104c establishment of fixed number of members 110c limits on individual campaign contributions 56 John McCain 128–129 presidential election decisions by 48–49 secret ballots 107c spending limits for campaigns 54 term limit for 91–92, 120c Hughes, Charles Evans 110c human rights 126

I IBM 130 Idaho 16 Illinois 63–64 imbalances of power 131 incumbent 141g and campaign finance reform 27 incumbent, retention of contributions by 90–91 independent expenditure 28–29, 141g–142g independents 36, 141g Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes 94–96 court cases 58 and requirement of party membership for voting in primaries 84–85 Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party 92–94 Williams v. Rhodes 73–75 Indiana 11 industry contributions 24 initiatives 142g contribution disclosure for 122c contribution limits for 80–81 Progressive reforms 12 in-kind contributions 142g instant runoff system 123c. See also preference voting

306

Institute for Global Ethics 259 interest group 142g Internet 30. See also web sites issue ads 28–29, 31–32, 56, 102, 122c, 142g

J Jackson, Andrew election of 1824 105c, 106c election of 1828 8 election of 1832 9, 106c Jefferson, Thomas 104c Alien and Sedition Laws 105c Democratic-Republican Party 7 election of 1800 105c Jeness v. Fortson 75 Jennings, W. Pat 115c Jim Crow laws 142g Johnson v. Grandy 87 Jordan, Vernon 39 Joyce Foundation of Chicago 24 jurisdiction 64 Justice Department. See U.S. Department of Justice

K Keating, Charles 129 “Keating Five” 129 Kennedy, Anthony and Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes 95 and Shaw v. Reno 87 Kennedy, John F. See also Kennedy-Nixon debates and campaign finance commission 114c and Commission on Campaign Costs 20 and Electoral College 37, 38 Kennedy-Nixon debates 20, 113c Kentucky easing of property requirements 8 voting rights in 1790s 104c “Know-Nothing” Party 106c

Index L Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. See Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 labor unions court cases 58 political contributions by 53. See also SmithConnally Act of 1943; Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 regulation of contributions 14–15 United Public Workers v. Mitchell 65–66 United States v. Congress of Industrial Organizations 66–67 voluntary political funds requirement for 79 Landell v. Sorrell 100–101 language groups 18, 117c Lassiter v. Northampton Election Board 73, 113c law. See also specific laws bibliography 211–214 constitutional elections provisions 45–51 court cases 57–103 electoral 49 federal 51–57 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971 116c First Amendment attacks on 49 state campaign finance regulations 57 League of Women Voters 142g Carrie Chapman Catt and 126 establishment of 16, 111c Legal Defense and Education Fund (NAACP) 128 legal issues. See law legislation bibliography 203–211 federal 51–57 state 57 legislative branch 45–47 legislative summary of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 291–297

LexisNexis 173 Libertarian Party 100 line-item veto 129 literacy tests (for voting) 46, 109c and African-American voting rights 17 Civil Rights Act of 1964 18, 114c Guinn v. United States 59–60 Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections 72–73 Lassiter v. Northampton Election Board 73, 113c permanent ban on 18 Voting Rights Act amendments 117c Voting Rights Act of 1965 18, 114c Litigation under the Voting Rights Act (Laughlin McDonald) 129 lobbying 142g against free access to media 29 and term limits 35 Locke, John 7 Lodge-Gossett Amendment 38 Long, Russell 20 Long Act of 1966 20, 21, 53, 115c Louisiana election of 1876 9 United States v. Classic 62–63 Lucas v. 44th General Assembly of Colorado 70

M machine 10, 142g–143g mail-in voter registration 55 Maine Clean Elections Act 30, 120c presidential elector changes 116c public funding 120c majority-minority district 143g and Voting Rights Act of 1965 19

307

majority system 143g major parties 27. See also Democratic Party; Republican Party Makinson, Larry 26 Marshall, John 79–80 Marshall, Thurgood and Brown v. Socialist Workers ‘74 Campaign Committee 83 and Munro v. Socialist Workers Party 75 Massachusetts First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti 78–80 gerrymandering 105c Massachusetts Civil Service Reform Act 127 matching funds 143g Day v. Holahan 87–89 under FECA 55 McBride, Bill 122c McCain, John Sidney 31, 32, 122c, 128b–129b McCain-Feingold Bill. See Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 McConnell, Mitch 32, 101–102 McConnell v. FEC 101–103 McDonald, Laughlin 19, 129b McIntyre, Margaret 89 McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission 89–90 McKinley, William and corporate contributions 12 and Theodore Roosevelt 132 media, free access to 29–30 media, power of 29 media coverage of elections 29 media spending for broadcast ads 56 Buckley v. Valeo 75–78 limits on 53–54 Meehan, Martin and BCRA 31, 32 John McCain 129 Meredith Corp. 29 midterm election 143g

Campaign and Election Reform military personnel 113c, 118c Miller v. Johnson 87 Minnesota Day v. Holahan 87–89 Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party 92–94 minorities, voting rights for. See voting rights for minorities minority 143g and congressional districting 46 and the Electoral College 39 Minority Vote Dilution (Chandler Davidson) 127 minor parties Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes 94–96 California Democratic Party v. Jones 99–100 and contribution limits 27 court cases 58 and fusion 92–94 harassment vs. disclosure requirements for 82–84 public funding for conventions 55 Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party 92–94 Williams v. Rhodes 73–75 and winner-take-all election 5 Mississippi 109c Missouri Carver v. Nixon 89 Shrink Missouri Government PAC v. Maupin 90–91 state campaign finance reform 119c monopolies political contributions by 12 political influence 10 Theodore Roosevelt 132 Montana state campaign finance reform 119c women’s suffrage 109c

“Motor Voter Act” 143g. See also National Voter Registration Act of 1993 Mott, Lucretia 16 multiparty system 143g–144g multistate campaign committees 52 multistate party committee 52 Munro v. Socialist Workers Party 75

N NAACP. See National Association for the Advancement of Colored People NAACP v. Alabama 83–84 NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) 29 Nader, Ralph 129b–130b election of 2000 31 and presidential debates 96 The Nation 11 National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA) 16, 126 National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) 128, 144g National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) 29 National Association of Secretaries of State 259 national banks, campaign contributions by 51 National Civic League 259 National Civil Service Reform League 127 National Commission on Federal Election Reform 35, 126 national committee 144g national conventions. See conventions National Municipal League James Coolidge Carter and 126 and city government reform 11 National Municipal Reform League 109c

308

national party committees disclosure of contributions by 52 limits on contributions to 52 limits on individual contributions to 56 National Publicity Law Association (NPLA) 110c Perry Belmont and 125 and campaign disclosure regulations 13 and election of 1904 12 National Republican Party 8 National Rifle Association (NRA) 32, 101 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 130 National Voter Registration Act of 1993 35, 55, 119c National Voting Rights Institute (NVRI) 101, 102, 259 National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA) Susan B. Anthony and 125 establishment of 107c Elizabeth Cady Stanton 132 Naval Appropriations Bill of 1867 107c NAWSA. See National American Woman Suffrage Association negative advertising 144g negative campaigning 144g Newberry, Truman H. 13, 60–61 Newberry v. United States 13, 52, 60–62 New Deal, labor unions and 14, 15 New Hampshire easing of property requirements 8 voting rights in 1790s 104c New York City election of 1832 106c and political machines 10 Theodore Roosevelt 132 Wright v. Rockefeller 71–72

Index New York State and city government reform 11 Theodore Roosevelt 132 Nineteenth Amendment 16, 50, 111c, 126 Ninth Amendment 65 Nixon, Richard M. See also Kennedy-Nixon debates election of 1972 116c–117c and the Electoral College 37 Nixon v. Condon 62 Nixon v. Herndon 17, 61–62 Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC 89 nomination 144g nonbinding primary 144g nonfederal funds 23 nonprofit advocacy groups 123c nonpublic forum 95 North Carolina 86–87 North Dakota 109c NPLA. See National Publicity Law Association NRA. See National Rifle Association NRVI. See National Voting Rights Institute nuclear power industry 130 NWSA. See National Woman Suffrage Association Nyhart, Nick 30

O O’Connor, Sandra Day 86, 87 O’Daniel, W. Lee 112c off-year election 144g Ohio Brown v. Socialist Workers ’74 Campaign Committee 82–84 McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission 89–90 Williams v. Rhodes 73–75 Ohio American Independent Party 74 Ohio Campaign Expense Reporting Law 83

Ohio Socialist Workers Party 82–84 Oklahoma 59–60 “one man, one vote” 144g and the Electoral College 37 Lucas v. 44th General Assembly of Colorado 70 Reynolds v. Sims 68–70 Wesbury v. Sanders 70–71 open primary 144g Democratic Party of the United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette 81–82 and primary election reform 36 Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut 84–85 Oregon 119c Oregon v. Mitchell 116c Ornstein, Norman 30 outside expenditures 122c overseas ballots 97 Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act 115c overvote 144g

P PAC. See political action committee Parker, Alton B. 12 parliamentary government 144g–145g partisan 145g party-building and FECA Amendments of 1979 22, 23 spending on 55 party slates 105c patronage 145g Peace and Freedom Party 100 Pendleton Act of 1883 51 Hatch Act and 14 passage of 10, 108c Theodore Roosevelt 132 Perot, H. Ross 38, 96, 130b–131b petition 145g Petracca, Mark P. 35, 131b Pipefitters v. United States 67

309

Piven, Frances Fox 131b platform 145g plurality 145g policy work 145g political action committee (PAC) 51, 120c, 145g Buckley v. Valeo 117c establishment of first PAC 15, 112c and independent expenditures 28 Political Action Committees (PACs) Count 265 Political Campaign Broadcast Activity Improvements Act 122c political corruption. See federal political reform legislation political landscape, changes in 6–19 political parties 145g–146g California Democratic Party v. Jones 99–100 combining of independent expenditures and candidate committee expenditures by 56 conventions, origin of 106c court cases 58 Democratic Party of the United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette 81–82 and FECA Amendments of 1979 22–23 FECA’s effect on 22 freedom of association and restrictions on 49 freedom of association for 84–85 freedom of association of 81–82 and fusion 92–94 public funding for national conventions 55 Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut 84–85 and Twelfth Amendment 105c polity 146g

Campaign and Election Reform polling place 96, 146g poll tax 146g and African-American voting rights 17 Breedlove v. Suttles 111c court cases 58 forbidding of 50 Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections 72–73, 114c–115c Mississippi 109c Twenty-fourth Amendment 114c poll watcher 146g populism 8–9, 146g Powell, Adam Clayton 71 Powell, Lewis 79 Powell v. McCormack 92 preference voting 39–41, 146g president candidate campaign contributions for 53 Constitutional election provisions for 48–49 House of Representatives vote on 48–49 rules for succession of 51 term limits for 50 presidential campaigns John McCain 129 Ralph Nader 129–130 Ross Perot 130–131 public financing of 53–55 spending limits for 54 presidential succession 115c presidential term limits 113c press, freedom of 49 primary elections 146g blanket 99–100 California Democratic Party v. Jones 99–100 and campaign contribution disclosure 52 campaign spending limits for 54 congressional regulation of 52 court cases 58 Democratic Party of the United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette 81–82

equal vote in 69 freedom of association and restrictions on 49 Newberry v. United States 13, 60–62, 111c Nixon v. Herndon 61–62 reform efforts 36 requirement of party membership for voting in 84–85 Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut 84–85 United States v. Classic 62–63, 112c white primaries 61–62 print advertising, broadcast vs. 102 privileges and immunities of citizens in Fourteenth Amendment 49 Supreme Court interpretation of 50 Progressive Era reform efforts 11–13 Progressive Party 146g Project Vote Smart 260 property ownership 7, 8 property rights of corporations, “liberty” rights v. 79 voting rights in 1790s 104c proportional delegate selection election of 1976 117c and the Electoral College 38 proportional representation 41–42, 146g Douglas J. Amy 124 legislation requiring 115c Proportion of Party Funds Raised from Soft Money, 1991-2001 267 Proposition 208. See California Political Reform Act of 1996 Public Campaign 30, 260 public campaign financing (funding) 147g. See also Long Act of 1966; Revenue Act of 1971 Clean Elections Act 120c

310

Commission on Campaign Costs and 20 Day v. Holahan 87–89 FECA Amendments of 1974 and 21 for presidential campaigns 54 of presidential campaigns 55 of presidential candidates 53 Progressive Era proposals 12 Tucson, Arizona 118c Vote Choice, Inc. v. Di Stefano 89 Washington state 119c Public Citizen 130 public forum, access to |94 public interest, media coverage of elections and 29 Publicity Act of 1910. See Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1910 punch-card voting machines 33 “pure speech” 90 purging, of voter rolls 33 push poll 147g

Q qualifications of candidates 91–92 Quiet Revolution in the South: The Impact of the Voting Rights Act, 1965-1990 127 “quota politics” 128

R racial gerrymandering 19 racial minorities and apportionment 67–68, 71–72 and gerrymandering 86–87 and literacy tests 59–60 voting rights for 50 and white primaries 61–62 radio advertising, spending on 54

Index Reagan, Ronald 126 Real Choices, New VoicesL The Case for Proportional Representation Elections in the United States (Douglas J. Amy) 124 reapportionment (redistricting) 18–19, 147g. See also apportionment (districting) bibliography 214–223 Georgia (2003) 123c House of Representatives 110c Reynolds v. Sims 114c Shaw v. Reno 119c Thornburg v. Gingles 118c Voting Rights Act of 1965 114c Wesbury v. Sanders 114c recall 123c, 147g Reconstruction election of 1876 108c end of, and AfricanAmerican voting rights 17 minority voting rights 107c and voting rights for African Americans 9 recount 147g Bush v. Gore 96–99 election of 2000 4, 34 redistricting. See apportionment (districting); reapportionment redress of grievances 49 referendum 12, 147g. See also initiatives Reform Party 130, 131, 147g–148g registration. See voter registration Regulating the Poor (Frances Piven and Richard Cloward) 131 Rehnquist, William and First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti 79 and Shaw v. Reno 87 and Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party 93 religion, freedom of 49 Reno, Janet 121c, 122c

reporting. See also disclosure Brown v. Socialist Workers ’74 Campaign Committee 82–84 of campaign contributions 52 of electioneering statement spending 56 under 1976 FECA amendments 55 by multistate campaign committees 52 by national party committees 52 representative 148g representative democracy 148g republic 148g Republican National Committee 11 Republican Party 148g “assessments” 10 corporate contributions in 1904 election 12 election of 1876 108c and Hatch Act restrictions 66 and political influence of monopolies 10 Publicity Act of 1910 13 Theodore Roosevelt 132 and voter registration liberalization 35 research resources for campaign and electoral reform 155–173 bibliographies, indexes, and databases 168 bookstore catalogs 167–168 campaign finance reform websites 156–160 court decisions, finding 172–173 elections/electoral system websites 156–158 finding organizations/people on the web 165–166 government web sites 156 laws, finding 170–171 legal research 169–173 legislative developments, tracking of 171–172

311

LexisNexis and Westlaw 173 library catalogs 166–167 media web sites 162 online resources 156–166 periodical indexes 169 print sources 166–169 related topics, websites for 160–162 search engines 163–165 web portals 163 web searches and research 162–166 reserved state powers 92 residency requirements 116c The Return to Secret Party Funds (Perry Belmont) 125 Revenue Act of 1971 21, 54, 116c Reynolds v. Sims 68–70, 114c Colegrove v. Green 64 “one man, one vote” principle 71 redistricting 19 Richardson v. Ramirez 117c right of assembly 148g–149g The Rights of Racial Minorities (Laughlin McDonald) 129 right to vote. See voting rights “robust speech” 102 Rock the Vote 149g Rodham, Hillary 128 Roosevelt, Franklin 14, 52 Roosevelt, Theodore 131b–132b campaign finance reform 110c corporate contributions 109c and election of 1904 12 and public financing proposals 12 run-off 149g Rutledge, Wiley Blount 67

S “safe harbor” 98 sample ballot 149g San Francisco 123c Santa Clara County (California) 122c

Campaign and Election Reform Scalia, Antonin and California Democratic Party v. Jones 99 and Shaw v. Reno 87 and Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut 85 Schier, Steven 27–28 Seattle (Washington) 116c secret ballot 93, 149g Richard Henry Dana III 127 and House of Representatives 107c sectionalism 149g Seminole County (Florida) 33 Senate and campaign contribution disclosure 52 campaign spending limits for 52 candidate campaign contributions for 53 Constitutional election provisions for 46–47 contribution limits when opponent spends large amounts of personal funds 56 direct election of president proposal 115c limits on individual campaign contributions 56 John McCain 129 spending limits for campaigns 54 term limit for 91–92 Senators, direct election of 50 Seneca Falls Convention 16, 106c, 132 separation of powers 64 Seventeenth Amendment 12, 47, 50, 110c direct elections 12 ratification of 110c Shaw v. Hunt 87 Shaw v. Reno 19, 86–87, 119c Shays, Christopher and BCRA 31, 32 John McCain 129 Shays-Meehan bill 120c

Shrink Missouri Government PAC v. Maupin 90–91 single-member district 149g slate 149g slavery 9 Smith, Bradley A. 27 Smith-Connally Act of 1943 15, 52–53, 112c Smith v. Allwright 62, 112c smoke-filled room 149g Socialist Labor Party 74 soft money 22–24, 51, 149g BCRA 121c and BCRA 31, 32 BCRA legal challenges 123c BCRA provisions for 56, 57 election of 1992 119c election of 2000 3 and FECA amendments 55 Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1979 117c fundraising (1991–2001) 266 John McCain and 129 McConnell v. FEC 101–103 outside expenditure regulation 122c proportion of party funds raised from (1991-2001) 267 sound bite 149g–150g Souter, David and Bush v. Gore 98 and Shaw v. Reno 87 South Africa 129 South Carolina election of 1876 9 literacy tests 109c South Carolina v. Katzenback 60 South Dakota 109c special interest group 142g speech, freedom of 49. See also First Amendment Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes 94–96

312

Buckley v. Valeo 75–78 Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley 80–81 court cases 58 Day v. Holahan 87–89 First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti 78–80 and freedom of association 81 McConnell v. FEC 101–103 McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission 89–90 and media spending 76–78 Shrink Missouri Government PAC v. Maupin 90–91 and spend-down provision 90, 91 “spend down” provision 90, 91 spending limits Buckley v. Valeo 21–22, 55, 75–78 Day v. Holahan 87–89 debate over 26–28 FECA Amendments of 1974 and 21 Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925 13, 14 Hatch Act and 14–15 Landell v. Sorrell 100–101 loopholes in 55 for media 53–54 Newberry v. United States 60–62 and NPLA 12 overall 54 on political campaigns 52 Publicity Act amendments 13 Vote Choice, Inc. v. Di Stefano 89 spin doctor 150g spoiler 150g Sproule v. Fredericks African-American voting rights 17 black disenfranchisement 109c stand 150g

Index Stanton, Elizabeth Cady 132b–133b Susan B. Anthony 125 and NWSA 107c and women’s suffrage 16 State Apportionment Act of 1901 64 state campaign finance legislation 30 state campaign finance regulations 57 state elections and FECA Amendments of 1979 23 noncitizen voting rights in 106c poll taxes in 73 and women’s suffrage 16 state electoral systems federal approval of additions to 46 and House of Representatives elections 46 state legislation 49–50, 91 state legislatures and Electoral College 7 federal election regulation by 47 Senators originally chosen by 47 state residency requirement for Representatives 46 for Senate 47 states application of “one man, one vote” to 69 apportioning House seats among 46 disclosure requirements for minor parties 82–84 electors appointed by 48 legislative models of 69 power over voting qualifications by 73 racial gerrymandering by 86–87 regulation of electoral process by 82, 84–85, 92–93 reserved powers of 92 summary information on 57 voter registration assistance by 55

statistical dead heat 150g Stenholm, Charles W. 26 Stevens, John Paul and Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes 95 and Bush v. Gore 98 and McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission 90 and Shaw v. Reno 87 and U.S. Term Limits, Inc., v. Thornton 92 Stewart, Potter and Democratic Party of the United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette 82 and Lucas v. 44th General Assembly of Colorado 70 Stone, Lucy 107c straw poll 150g stuffing, ballot 150g suffrage 150g suffragists 150g Sunstein, Cass R. 26 Super Tuesday 118c, 150g Supreme Court and BCRA 32 Chandler Davidson 127 election of 2000 5, 34, 121c and the Electoral College 37 Laughlin McDonald 129 nonprofit advocacy group contribution regulations 123c Mark P. Petracca 131 and primary election reform 36 Supreme Court cases Allen v. State Board of Elections 115c Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes 94–96, 120c Baker v. Carr 64, 70, 114c Breedlove v. Suttles 72, 111c Buckley v. Valeo 21–22, 75–78, 117c, 268–285

313

Bush v. Gore 34, 96–99, 121c California Democratic Party v. Jones 36, 99–100, 120c–121c Colegrove v. Green 63–64, 70, 112c, 114c Common Cause v. Federal Election Commission 24 Giles v. Harris 109c Giles v. Teasley 109c Gomillion v. Lightfoot 18–19, 67–68, 72, 113c Grovey v. Townsend 111c Guinn v. United States 17, 59–60, 110c–111c Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections 72–73, 114c–115c Lassiter v. Northampton Election Board 73, 113c Newberry v. United States 13, 52, 60–62, 111c Oregon v. Mitchell 116c Reynolds v. Sims 19, 64, 68–70, 71, 114c Richardson v. Ramirez 117c Shaw v. Reno 19, 86–87, 119c Smith v. Allwright 62, 112c Sproule v. Fredericks 109c Thornburg v. Gingles 19, 118c, 119c, 127 United States v. Classic 61, 62–63, 112c U.S. Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers 116c U.S. Term Limits, Inc., v. Thornton 36, 91–92, 120c Wesbury v. Sanders 68, 70–71, 114c Supreme Court (Florida) 121c The Survival of the Democratic Principle (Perry Belmont) 125 swing vote 39, 150g SWP. See Ohio Socialist Workers Party

Campaign and Election Reform T Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 53, 112c passage of 15 United States v. Congress of Industrial Organizations 66–67 Talley v. California 90 Tammany Hall 150g James Coolidge Carter and 125 and electoral corruption 10 Theodore Roosevelt 132 Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut 84–85 taxes, as issue for corporate contributions 78 tax-exempt political groups 121c Teapot Dome scandal 13 technology and effects of woman suffrage 17 of voting machines 4, 34 television and election of 1960 20 Kennedy-Nixon debates 113c spending on 20, 54 Tenth Amendment and reserved powers of states 92 United Public Workers v. Mitchell 65–66 term limits 35–36, 150g–151g bibliography 223–226 court cases 58 first proposal for members of Congress 112c Mark P. Petracca 131 presidential 113c rejection of Congressional amendment 120c rejection of Congressional amendment proposal 120c Twenty-second Amendment 113c U.S. Term Limits, Inc., v. Thornton 91–92, 120c

term of office for President and Vice President 48 for Representatives 45 for Senators 47 Terry v. Adams 62 Texas 61–62 third parties. See minor parties Thirteenth Amendment 9 Thomas, Clarence 87 Thompson, Bennie 102 Thornburg v. Gingles 118c Chandler Davidson 127 redistricting 19 Shaw v. Reno and 119c ticket 151g Tilden, Samuel James Coolidge Carter and 126 and city government reform 11 election of 1876 9, 108c and the Electoral College 37 Tillman, Benjamin 12 Tillman Act of 1907 12, 51 campaign finance reform 110c Theodore Roosevelt 132 Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party 92–94 Tinsdale, Elkanah 105c Total Party Fundraising, 1991–2001 264 touch-screen voting machines 122c town meeting 151g tracking poll 151g traditional public forum 95 transparency 151g triangulation 151g Tribe, Laurence 34 truth squad 151g Tucson (Arizona) 118c turnout 151g Tuskeegee (Alabama) 18–19 Tweed, William Marcy 10, 125 Twelfth Amendment and electoral vote 48 ratification of 105c Twenty-fifth Amendment 51, 115c

314

Twenty-fourth Amendment 50, 114c poll taxes banned by 73 ratification of 114c Twenty-second Amendment 50, 113c Twenty-sixth Amendment 51, 116c, 151g Twenty-third Amendment 50, 113c two-party system 38, 151g tyranny of the majority 151g The Tyranny of the Majority (Lani Guinier) 128

U undervote 151g undiluted vote 69 Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act 118c unions. See labor unions United Jewish Organizations v. Carey 86 United Public Workers v. Mitchell 65–66 United States v. Auto Workers 67 United States v. Classic 61, 62–63, 112c United States v. Congress of Industrial Organizations 66–67 United States v. Cruikshank 108c United States v. O’Brien 77 United States v. Reese 108c United We Stand 130 Unsafe at Any Speed (Ralph Nader) 130 urban voters 39 U.S. Census Bureau 239 U.S. Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers 116c U.S. Department of Justice and BCRA 32 Chandler Davidson 127 Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1910 115c Lani Guinier 128 Voting Rights Act of 1965 18, 114c and Voting Rights Act of 1965 19

Index U.S. Term Limits 260 U.S. Term Limits, Inc., v. Thornton 36, 91–92, 120c “usability testing” 33 Utah 16

V Van Buren, Martin 8 Vermont easing of property requirements 8 Landell v. Sorrell 100–101 voting rights in 1790s 104c vice-president candidate campaign contributions for 53 Constitutional election provisions for 48–49 Twenty-fifth Amendment 115c Vietnam War John McCain 128 Ross Perot 130 Virginia 72–73 Vote Choice, Inc. v. Di Stefano 89 vote dilution Allen v. State Board of Elections 115c and the Electoral College 38 Thornburg v. Gingles 19 “vote early and often” 151g voter registration 148g. See also National Voter Registration Act of 1993 mail-in 55 National Voter Registration Act of 1993 119c soft money restrictions for 56 state agency assistance with 55 voter registration drives and African-American voting rights 18 and FECA Amendments of 1979 23 voter rights, term limits and 35

votes, counting of Bush v. Gore 96–99. See also election of 2000 court cases 58 vote-selling Adams County, Ohio 110c Indiana 11 Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act 118c voting age amendments for age 18 vote 116c minimum 51 Twenty-sixth Amendment 116c voting machines election of 2000 4 Santa Clara County (California) 122c Voting Modernization Act of 2002 34 voting process 33–35, 226–232 voting rights Bush v. Gore 96–99 Constitutional Amendment provisions for 49–51 easing of property requirements 8 expansion of 15–19 Fifteenth Amendment provisions for 50 First Amendment provisions for 459 Fourteenth Amendment provisions for 49–50 for noncitizens 106c in 1790s 104c web sites about 156 women’s suffrage 106c Voting Rights Act of 1965 53 and African-American voting rights 18 amendments for age 18 vote 116c effects of 115c Lani Guinier 128 literacy tests banned by 73 Laughlin McDonald 129 1975 amendments 117c

315

1982 amendments 118c passage of 114c and racial discrimination through literacy tests 60 and racial gerrymandering 86, 87 voting rights for minorities. See also Voting Rights Act of 1965 Allen v. State Board of Elections 115c Susan B. Anthony 125 and ban on discrimination 53 bibliography 214–223 Compromise of 1877 108c court cases 58 Chandler Davidson 127 election of 2000 33 Fifteenth Amendment 107c under Fifteenth Amendment 50 Fourteenth Amendment protection for 50, 107c Gomillion v. Lightfoot 67–68, 113c Lani Guinier 128 Guinn v. United States 59–60 Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections 72–73 Laughlin McDonald 129 Mississippi 109c Nixon v. Herndon 61–62 Shaw v. Reno 86–87 Thornburg v. Gingles 118c Voting Rights Act, 1982 amendments 118c Voting Rights Act of 1965 114c voting rights for women. See women’s suffrage voting rights reform 131 voting standards 97–98, 104c

W walking-around money 151g Wallace, George 74 Wanamaker, John 12 ward 152g

Campaign and Election Reform War Labor Disputes Act of 1943. See Smith-Connally Act of 1943 Warren, Earl 69 Washington, George 104c Washington state Munro v. Socialist Workers Party 75 public financing prohibition 119c women’s suffrage 109c Watergate 21, 116c web sites Campaign Finance Information Center 57 for campaign finance reform research 156–160 for elections/electoral system research 156–158 FEC 57 for finding organizations/ people 165–166 for government agencies 156 for media organizations 162 for research on campaign and electoral reform 156–166

Wesbury v. Sanders 68, 70–71 Colegrove v. Green 70 Westlaw 173 Westminster (Colorado) 120c Whig Party 106c, 152g White, Byron and First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti 79 and Shaw v. Reno 87 and United Jewish Organizations v. Carey 86 White, Edward Douglass 59 white males, voting rights of 7, 104c white primary 152g and Democratic Party 17 Grovey v. Townsend 111c Nixon v. Herndon 61–62 Smith v. Allwright 112c Why Americans Don’t Vote (Frances Piven and Richard Cloward) 131 Williams v. Rhodes 73–75 Wilson, Woodrow 126 winner-take-all primary 152g

316

winner-take-all system 152g election of 2000 4 and the Electoral College 38 Maine alternative 116c and proportional representation 41 and third parties 5 Wisconsin 81–82 women’s suffrage 15–17, 50, 152g Susan B. Anthony 124b–125b and AWSA/NWSA 107c Carrie Chapman Catt and 126 in late 1800s 108c–109c Nineteenth Amendment 111c Seneca Falls Convention 106c Elizabeth Cady Stanton 132–133 World War I 16 Wright v. Rockefeller 71–72 write-in candidate 152g Wyoming 16, 109c