Brookings: Experts - Anthony Corrado

@Brookings Podcast: The Influence of Super PACs on the 2012 Elections

Anthony Corrado — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 16:20:00 -0500

Super PACs have already spent tens of millions of dollars in the race for the GOP presidential nomination, with more to come. Expert Anthony Corrado says that the unlimited spending by the PACs, made possible by two Supreme Court decisions, is giving wealthy individuals unprecedented influence in the 2012 elections.

previous play pause next

mute unmute

@Brookings Podcast: The Influence of Super PACs on the 2012 Elections 07:10

Right-click (ctl+click for Mac) on 'Download' and select 'save link as..'

Get Code

Copy and paste the embed code above to your website or blog.

Video

The Influence of Super PACs on the 2012 Elections

Audio

@Brookings Podcast: The Influence of Super PACs on the 2012 Elections

Image Source: © Jessica Rinaldi / Reuters

Campaign Finance in the 2012 Elections: The Rise of Super PACs

Thu, 01 Mar 2012 09:30:00 -0500

Event Information

March 1, 2012
9:30 AM - 11:00 AM EST

Saul/Zilkha Rooms
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036

From “American Crossroads” to “Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow,” so-called "super PACs" have emerged as the dominant new force in campaign finance. Created in the aftermath of two landmark court decisions and regulatory action and inaction by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), these independent spending-only political action committees are collecting unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations and unions to advocate for or against political candidates. The legal requirements they face—disclosure of donors and non-coordination with the candidates and campaigns they are supporting—have proven embarrassingly porous. Increasingly, super PACs are being formed to boost a single candidate and are often organized and funded by that candidate’s close friends, relatives and former staff members. Their presence is most visible in presidential elections but they are quickly moving to Senate and House elections.

On March 1, on the heels of the FEC’s February filing deadline, the Governance Studies program at Brookings hosted a discussion exploring the role of super PACs in the broader campaign finance landscape this election season. Anthony Corrado, professor of government at Colby College and a leading authority on campaign finance, and Trevor Potter, nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a former chairman of the FEC and lawyer to Comedy Central’s Stephen Colbert, presented.

After the panel discussion, the speakers took audience questions. Participants joined the discussion on Twitter by using the hashtag #BISuperPAC.

Video

Participants

Panelists

Anthony Corrado

Nonresident Senior Fellow, Governance Studies
Professor of Government, Colby College

Financing the 2008 Election : Assessing Reform

Anthony Corrado and David B. Magleby, eds. — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0400

Brookings Institution Press 2011 341pp.

The 2008 elections were by any standard historic. The nation elected its first African American president, and the Republicans nominated their first female candidate for vice president. More money was raised and spent on federal contests than in any election in U.S. history. Barack Obama raised a record-setting $745 million for his campaign and federal candidates, party committees, and interest groups also raised and spent record-setting amounts. Moreover, the way money was raised by some candidates and party committees has the potential to transform American politics for years to come.

The latest installment in a series that dates back half a century, Financing the 2008 Election is the definitive analysis of how campaign finance and spending shaped the historic presidential and congressional races of 2008. It explains why these records were set and what it means for the future of U.S. politics. David Magleby and Anthony Corrado have assembled a team of experts who join them in exploring the financing of the 2008 presidential and congressional elections. They provide insights into the political parties and interest groups that made campaign finance history and summarize important legal and regulatory changes that affected these elections.

Contributors: Allan Cigler (University of Kansas), Stephanie Perry Curtis (Brigham Young University), John C. Green (Bliss Institute at the University of Akron), Paul S. Herrnson (University of Maryland), Diana Kingsbury (Bliss Institute at the University of Akron), Thomas E. Mann (Brookings Institution).

ABOUT THE EDITORS

Anthony Corrado

David B. Magleby

David B. Magleby is dean of the College of Family, Home, and Social Sciences and Distinguished Professor of Political Science at Brigham Young University. He is the author of Financing the 2000 Election, a coeditor with Corrado of Financing the 2004 Election, and coauthor of Government by the People (Pearson Prentice Hall), now in its 21st edition.

Downloads

Ordering Information:

{9ABF977A-E4A6-41C8-B030-0FD655E07DBF}, 978-0-8157-0332-7, $32.95 Order
{B98DCBB0-3580-4D55-ABD4-AB91E00585E6}, 978-0-8157-0462-1, $32.95 Order

Reform in an Age of Networked Campaigns

Anthony Corrado, Michael J. Malbin, Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 00:00:00 -0500

Executive Summary

The political world has been arguing about campaign finance policy for decades. A once rich conversation has become a stale two-sided battleground. One side sees contribution or spending limits as essential to restraining corruption, the appearance of corruption, or the “undue influence” of wealthy donors. The other resists any such limits in the name of free speech. The time has come to leap over this gulf and, as much as possible, move the disputes from the courts. Preventing corruption and protecting free speech should each be among the key goals of any policy regime, but they should not be the only objectives. This report seeks to change the ongoing conversation. Put simply, instead of focusing on attempts to further restrict the wealthy few, it seeks to focus on activating the many.

This is not a brief for deregulation. The members of this working group support limits on contributions to candidates and political parties. But we also recognize the limits of limits. More importantly, we believe that some of the key objectives can be pursued more effectively by expanding the playing field.

Interactive communications technology potentially can transform the political calculus. But technology alone cannot do the trick. Sound governmental policies will be essential: first, to protect the conditions under which a politically beneficial technology may flourish and, second, to encourage more candidates — particularly those below the top of the national ticket — to reach out to small donors and volunteers.

We focus on participation for two reasons. First, if enough people come into the system at the low end there may be less reason to worry about the top. Second, heightened participation would be healthy for its own sake. A more engaged citizenry would mean a greater share of the public following political events and participating in public life. And the evidence seems to suggest that giving and doing are reciprocal activities: volunteering stimulates giving, while giving small amounts seems to heighten non-financial forms of participation by people who feel more invested in the process.

For these reasons, we aim to promote equality and civic engagement by enlarging the participatory pie instead of shrinking it. The Supreme Court has ruled out pursuing equality or civic engagement by constraining speech. But the Court has never ruled out pursuing these goals through policies that do not constrain speech.

This report will show how to further these ends. The first half surveys current conditions; the second contains detailed recommendations for moving forward.

The report begins with new opportunities. The digital revolution is altering the calculus of participation by reducing the costs of both individual and collective action. Millions of American went online in 2008 to access campaign materials, comment on news reports, watch campaign videos and share information. The many can now communicate with the many without the intervention of elite or centralized organizations. This capacity has made new forms of political organizations easier to create, while permitting the traditional organizations — candidates and parties — to achieve unprecedented scales of citizen participation. No example better illustrates this potential than the Obama campaign of 2008, which is discussed at length in the full report.

Downloads

Download Full Report »

Video

Authors

Anthony Corrado
Michael J. Malbin
Thomas E. Mann
Norman J. Ornstein

Publication: The Brookings Institution, American Enterprise Institute, The Campaign Finance Institute

Campaign Reform in the Networked Age: Fostering Participation through Small Donors and Volunteers

Thu, 14 Jan 2010 10:30:00 -0500

Event Information

January 14, 2010
10:30 AM - 12:00 PM EST

Falk Auditorium
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC

The 2008 elections showcased the power of the Internet to generate voter enthusiasm, mobilize volunteers and increase small-donor contributions. After the political world has been arguing about campaign finance policy for decades, the digital revolution has altered the calculus of participation.

On January 14, a joint project of the Campaign Finance Institute, American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution unveiled a new report that seeks to change the ongoing national dialogue about money in politics. At this event, the four authors of the report will detail their findings and recommendations. Relying on lessons from the record-shattering 2008 elections and the rise of Internet campaigning, experts will present a new vision of how campaign finance and communications policy can help further democracy through broader participation.

Video

Audio

Campaign Reform in the Networked Age: Fostering Participation through Small Donors and Volunteers

Transcript

Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

20090114_campaign_finance

Participants

Moderator

Panelists

Anthony J. Corrado

Chair of the Board, Campaign Finance Institute
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Governance Studies

Michael J. Malbin

Co-Founder and Executive Director, Campaign Finance Institute
Professor of Political Science, University at Albany, SUNY

Norman J. Ornstein

Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute

Campaign 2008: The Final Weeks

Fri, 31 Oct 2008 10:00:00 -0400

Event Information

October 31, 2008
10:00 AM - 11:30 AM EDT

Falk Auditorium
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC

With the presidential debates completed, the campaigns of Senators John McCain and Barack Obama are focusing on persuading remaining undecided voters and mobilizing their supporters for Election Day. The Opportunity 08 project at Brookings and Princeton University examined key questions in the final stretch of the 2008 campaign, including money, ads and mobilization.

Have the candidates’ ads been effective at swaying voters thus far, and what form will they take in the campaign’s final week? With Obama taking the unprecedented step of opting out of public funding for the general election, has McCain been able to leverage party resources to keep pace? Will either candidate be able to match the Republican National Committee’s massive get-out-the-vote efforts of 2004? To examine these and related matters, the Brookings Institution’s Opportunity 08 project, in partnership with the Center for the Study of Democratic Politics at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, hosted the final roundtable discussion on key questions about American electoral politics in connection with the 2008 campaign.

Featuring panelists Anthony Corrado, a nonresident senior fellow at Brookings and professor at Colby College; Diana Mutz, a nonresident senior fellow at Brookings and professor at the University of Pennsylvania; Lynn Vavreck of UCLA; Mike Allen of Politico; and moderated by Larry Bartels of Princeton and Thomas Mann of Brookings, the session explored how money, ads and mobilization are likely to affect the outcome of the presidential election.

After initial presentations, panelists took audience questions.

Event Materials

View Anthony Corrado's handout »
View Diana Mutz's handout »

Transcript

Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

20081031_election

Participants

Moderator

Larry Bartels

Director, Center for the Study of Democratic Politics, Donald E. Stokes Professor of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University

Panelists

Mike Allen

Chief Political Correspondent, Politico

Lynn Vavreck

Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of California, Los Angeles

Financing the 2006 Midterm Elections

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:00:00 -0400

Event Information

September 12, 2006
10:00 AM - 12:00 PM EDT

Falk Auditorium
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC

Campaign finance remains one of the most important and controversial aspects of U.S. democracy, as shown by recent legislation, court challenges, and demands for reform. A new Brookings Institution Press book, Financing the 2004 Election, examines the implications that the costs and trends of 2004 have for the current elections.

On September 12, as the 2006 election cycle shifted into high gear, Brookings hosted a panel of experts on money and politics to examine how the year's campaign spending patterns compared to those in previous elections.

Brookings Senior Fellow Thomas Mann addressed these issues along with co-editors Anthony Corrado, Brookings nonresident senior fellow and professor of government at Colby College in Waterville, Maine; and David Magleby, Senior Research Fellow at the Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy and Dean of the School of Family, Home and Social Sciences at Brigham Young University in Utah.

The speakers compared candidate and party receipts of 2006 to date with those of 2002 and 2004, and examined the importance of the surge in individual donors and the role of 527 and 501(c) organizations. They also discussed how the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) performed in 2004 and how the 2006 elections further test federal elections legislation. The briefing was co-sponsored by the Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy.

Transcript

Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

20060912

Participants

Panelists

David Magleby

Dean, School of Family, Home and Social Sciences, Brigham Young University

Financing the 2004 Election

Anthony Corrado, David B. Magleby and Kelly D. Patterson, eds. — Mon, 01 May 2006 00:00:00 -0400

Brookings Institution Press 2006 281pp.

Since 1960, these Financing the Election volumes have presented authoritative information on the costs and trends of campaign finance in the United States. In establishing the parameters of electoral campaigns and political spending as well as interpreting the results, Financing the 2004 Election provides a unique resource for anyone concerned with the current state of money and politics. This important book, featuring recognized authorities on campaign finance, pays special attention to the effects of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, contrasting current campaign financing with pre-BCRA patterns. The authors also draw lessons from 2004 for future reform at the state and federal levels.

Event transcript: "Financing the 2006 Midterm Elections: Experts on Money and Politics Examine Lessons from the 2004 Cycle," September 12, 2006.

ABOUT THE EDITORS

Anthony Corrado

David B. Magleby

David B. Magleby is dean of the School of Family, Home, and Social Sciences at Brigham Young University, where he is also a professor of political science. He is the editor of Financing the 2000 Election (Brookings 2002), and coauthor of Government by the People, which is now in its twenty-first edition.

Kelly D. Patterson

Kelly D. Patterson directs the Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy at Brigham Young University. He is the author of Political Parties and the Maintenance of Liberal Democracy (Columbia University Press).

Downloads

Sample Chapter

Ordering Information:

{9ABF977A-E4A6-41C8-B030-0FD655E07DBF}, 978-0-8157-5439-8, $24.95 Order

The New Campaign Finance Sourcebook

Anthony Corrado, Daniel R. Ortiz, Thomas E. Mann and Trevor Potter — Sat, 01 Oct 2005 00:00:00 -0400

Brookings Institution Press 2005 292pp.

This completely revised and expanded update of Campaign Finance Reform: A Sourcebook provides the definitive exposition of federal campaign finance regulation. Written by four of the nation's most influential analysts on politics and money, The New Campaign Finance Sourcebook presents a thorough overview and analysis of campaign finance policy and practices, including the

history of campaign finance regulation state of campaign finance law and the implementation of BCRA
constitutional and regulatory issues in the campaign finance debate
current practices and trends in the financing of federal elections
public financing of presidential elections
rules for campaigning on the internet
alternative approaches to reform.

The New Campaign Finance Sourcebook has also been integrated with the popular and useful Brookings website on campaign finance to provide a timely, interactive tool for policymakers, journalists, campaign professionals, and scholars. The Brookings Institution has been a leader in analyzing campaign finance and this important new book is an essential addition to that proud tradition.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Anthony Corrado

Daniel R. Ortiz

Daniel R. Ortiz is the John Allan Love Professor of Law and Horace W. Goldsmith Research Professor at the University of Virginia School of Law.

Thomas E. Mann

Trevor Potter

Downloads

Sample Chapter

Ordering Information:

{9ABF977A-E4A6-41C8-B030-0FD655E07DBF}, 978-0-8157-0005-0, $26.95 Order

Party Fundraising Success Continues Through Mid-Year

Anthony Corrado — Mon, 02 Aug 2004 00:00:00 -0400

With only a few months remaining before the 2004 elections, national party committees continue to demonstrate financial strength and noteworthy success in adapting to the more stringent fundraising rules imposed by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). A number of factors, including the deep partisan divide in the electorate, the expectations of a close presidential race, and the growing competition in key Senate and House races, have combined with recent party investments in new technology and the emergence of the Internet as a major fundraising tool to produce what one party chairman has described as a "perfect storm" for party fundraising.¹ Consequently, both national parties have exceeded the mid-year fundraising totals achieved in 2000, and both approach the general election with substantial amounts of money in the bank.

After eighteen months of experience under the new rules, the national parties are still outpacing their fundraising efforts of four years ago. As of June 30, the national parties have raised $611.1 million in federally regulated hard money alone, as compared to $535.6 million in hard and soft money combined at a similar point in the 2000 election cycle. The Republicans lead the way, taking in more than $381 million as compared to about $309 million in hard and soft money by the end of June in 2000. The Democrats have also raised more, bringing in $230 million as compared to about $227 million in hard and soft money four years ago. Furthermore, with six months remaining in the election cycle, both national parties have already raised more hard money than they did in the 2000 election cycle.² In fact, by the end of June, every one of the Democratic and Republican national party committees had already exceeded its hard money total for the entire 2000 campaign.³

This surge in hard money fundraising has allowed the national party committees to replace a substantial portion of the revenues they previously received through unlimited soft money contributions. Through June, these committees have already taken in enough additional hard money to compensate for the $254 million of soft money that they had garnered by this point in 2000, which represented a little more than half of their $495 million in total soft money receipts in the 2000 election cycle.

View the accompanying data tables (PDF - 11.4 KB)

¹Terrence McAuliffe, Democratic National Committee Chairman, quoted in Paul Fahri, "Small Donors Grow Into Big Political Force," Washington Post, May 3, 2004, p. A11.
²In 2000, the Republican national party committees raised $361.6 million in hard money, while the Democratic national committees raised $212.9 million. These figures are based on unadjusted data and do not take into account any transfers of funds that may have taken place among the national party committees.
³The election cycle totals for 2000 can be found in Federal Election Commission, "FEC Reports Increase in Party Fundraising for 2000," press release, May 15, 2001. Available at http://www.fec.gov/press/press2001/051501partyfund/051501partyfund.html (viewed July 28, 2004).

Downloads

Authors

Anthony Corrado

Despite Predictions, BCRA Has Not Been a Democratic 'Suicide Bill'

Anthony Corrado and Thomas E. Mann — Mon, 26 Jul 2004 00:00:00 -0400

During debates in Congress and in the legal battles testing its constitutionality, critics of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 imagined a host of unanticipated and debilitating consequences. The law's ban on party soft money and the regulation of electioneering advertising would, they warned, produce a parade of horribles: A decline in political speech protected by the First Amendment, the demise of political parties, and the dominance of interest groups in federal election campaigns.

The forecast that attracted the most believers — among politicians, journalists, political consultants, election-law attorneys and scholars — was the claim that Democrats would be unable to compete against Republicans under the new rules, primarily because the Democrats' relative ability to raise funds would be severely crippled. One year ago, Seth Gitell in The Atlantic Monthly summarized this view and went so far as to call the new law "The Democratic Party Suicide Bill." Gitell quoted a leading Democratic Party attorney, who expressed his private view of the law as "a fascist monstrosity." He continued, "It is grossly offensive ... and on a fundamental level it's horrible public policy, because it emasculates the parties to the benefit of narrow-focus special-interest groups. And it's a disaster for the Democrats. Other than that, it's great."

The core argument was straightforward. Democratic Party committees were more dependent on soft money — unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and individuals — than were the Republicans. While they managed to match Republicans in soft-money contributions, they trailed badly in federally limited hard-money contributions. Hence, the abolition of soft money would put the Democrats at a severe disadvantage in presidential and Congressional elections.

In addition, the argument went, by increasing the amount an individual could give to a candidate from $1,000 to $2,000, the law would provide a big financial boost to President Bush, who would double the $100 million he raised in 2000 and vastly outspend his Democratic challenger. Finally, the ban on soft money would weaken the Democratic Party's get-out-the-vote efforts, particularly in minority communities, while the regulation of "issue ads" would remove a potent electoral weapon from the arsenal of labor unions, the party's most critical supporter.

After 18 months of experience under the law, the fundraising patterns in this year's election suggest that these concerns were greatly exaggerated. Money is flowing freely in the campaign, and many voices are being heard. The political parties have adapted well to an all-hard-money world and have suffered no decline in total revenues. And interest groups are playing a secondary role to that of the candidates and parties.

The financial position of the Democratic party is strikingly improved from what was imagined a year ago. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who opted out of public funding before the Iowa caucuses, will raise more than $200 million before he accepts his party's nomination in Boston. The unusual unity and energy in Democrats' ranks have fueled an extraordinary flood of small donations to the Kerry campaign, mainly over the Internet. These have been complemented by a series of successful events courting $1,000 and $2,000 donors.

Indeed, since Kerry emerged as the prospective nominee in March, he has raised more than twice as much as Bush and has matched the Bush campaign's unprecedented media buys in battleground states, while also profiting from tens of millions of dollars in broadcast ads run by independent groups that are operating largely outside the strictures of federal election law.

The Democratic national party committees have adjusted to the ban on soft money much more successfully than insiders had thought possible. Instead of relying on large soft-money gifts for half of their funding, Democrats have shown a renewed commitment to small donors and have relied on grassroots supporters to fill their campaign coffers. After the 2000 election, the Democratic National Committee had 400,000 direct-mail donors; today the committee has more than 1.5 million, and hundreds of thousands more who contribute over the Internet.

By the end of June, the three Democratic committees had already raised $230 million in hard money alone, compared to $227 million in hard and soft money combined at this point in the 2000 election cycle. They have demonstrated their ability to replace the soft money they received in previous elections with new contributions from individual donors.

Democrats are also showing financial momentum as the election nears, and thus have been gradually reducing the Republican financial advantage in both receipts and cash on hand. In 2003, Democrats trailed Republicans by a large margin, raising only $95 million, compared to $206 million for the GOP. But in the first quarter of this year, Democrats began to close the gap, raising $50 million, compared to $82 million for Republicans. In the most recent quarter, they narrowed the gap even further, raising $85 million, compared to the Republicans' $96 million.

Democrats are now certain to have ample funds for the fall campaigns. Although they had less than $20 million in the bank (minus debts) at the beginning of this year, they have now banked $92 million. In the past three months, Democrats actually beat Republicans in generating cash — $47 million, compared to $31 million for the GOP.

The party, therefore, has the means to finance a strong coordinated and/or independent-spending campaign on behalf of the presidential ticket, while Congressional committees have the resources they need to play in every competitive Senate and House race, thanks in part to the fundraising support they have received from Members of Congress.

Moreover, FEC reports through June confirm that Democratic candidates in those competitive Senate and House races are more than holding their own in fundraising. They will be aided by a number of Democratic-leaning groups that have committed substantial resources to identify and turn out Democratic voters on Election Day.

Democrats are highly motivated to defeat Bush and regain control of one or both houses of Congress. BCRA has not frustrated these efforts. Democrats are financially competitive with Republicans, which means the outcome will not be determined by a disparity of resources. Put simply, the doomsday scenario conjured up by critics of the new campaign finance law has not come to pass.

Authors

Publication: Roll Call

Candidates, Parties Fine-Tune Spending Strategies

Anthony Corrado — Sat, 17 Jul 2004 00:00:00 -0400

There's a little more than a week to go before the Democratic National Convention begins in Boston. Senator John Kerry is both raising and spending money at a furious pace. The Kerry campaign raised about $182 million from March through June. Senator Kerry also outspent President George Bush in advertising throughout most of the summer. But the president still has more cash on hand, reportedly $63 million at the end of May. That's the latest figure available. The president also has more time to spend that money before accepting his Republican nomination on September 2. Anthony Corrado is an expert on campaign finance.

Listen to the entire interview

Authors

Anthony Corrado

Publication: NPR's Weekend Edition

In the Wake of BCRA: An Early Report on Campaign Finance in the 2004 Elections

Anthony Corrado and Thomas E. Mann — Tue, 15 Jun 2004 00:00:00 -0400

ABSTRACT:

Early experience with federal campaign finance reform suggests that the new law is fulfilling its primary objective of severing links between policymakers and large donors, and thus reducing the potential for corruption in the political process. Instead of languishing or seeking to circumvent the law, the national political parties have responded to the ban on soft money by increasing their hard money resources. While outside groups appear active, particularly on the Democratic side, their soft money financing should remain a small fraction of what candidates and parties will raise and spend in the 2004 Elections.

To read the full article, please visit The Forum's website

Authors

Publication: The Forum

Flap Over 527s Aside, McCain-Feingold Is Working as Planned

Anthony Corrado and Thomas E. Mann — Thu, 20 May 2004 00:00:00 -0400

The decision by the Federal Election Commission to defer action on new rules to constrain the activities of so-called 527 political organizations is being portrayed as an utter collapse of the new McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. In fact, nothing could be further from reality.

The dispute over whether several new Democratic-leaning independent political groups should be required to register with the FEC and abide by contribution limits is a legitimate one, and there is merit in the regulatory proposal — rejected by the full commission — that was offered by Commissioners Scott Thomas and Michael Toner. But this argument largely concerns unresolved questions stemming from judicial and FEC interpretations of the 1974 law that governs federal election law — not McCain-Feingold.

Had the Thomas-Toner proposal been adopted, the Media Fund and America Coming Together would have faced tougher requirements on the sources and amounts of contributions they receive. But supporters of the Media Fund and ACT still would have had legal options to continue their campaign activities. ACT would have had to raise more hard money to match its soft-money contributions, but it had already been moving in that direction, as had Moveon.org, which is now focusing its campaign activities on hard-money fundraising and expenditures.

Millionaire contributors to the Media Fund could have separately made independent expenditures in the form of television ads that expressly advocated the defeat of President Bush. Unions could have financed their own "issue ads" supporting Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and attacking Bush until 30 days before the party convention or 60 days before the general election. Corporations would have retained the option to sponsor similar ads. Thereafter, even without FEC action, a key provision of McCain-Feingold kicks in. As the election nears, no 527 organization can use corporate or union money to finance broadcast ads that feature federal candidates.

McCain-Feingold was not written to bring every source of unregulated federal campaign funding within the scope of the law. Rather, it was designed to end the corrupting nexus of soft money that ties together officeholders, party officials and large donors. The law's principal goal was to prohibit elected officials and party leaders from extracting unregulated gifts from corporations, unions and individual donors in exchange for access to and influence with policymakers.

Indeed, the law has accomplished this objective. Members of Congress and national party officials are no longer soliciting unlimited contributions for the party committees, nor are they involved in the independent fundraising efforts of the leading 527 groups. The FEC's decision to defer action, therefore, does not pose the same risk of corruption as did the soft-money decisions of the past.

One of the fundamental concerns raised by the activities of 527s is that these groups, with their ability to receive unlimited contributions, would overshadow the candidates and weaken the role of parties in the electoral process. The new law, however, increased contribution limits to candidates and parties, to offset the effects of inflation and to ensure that parties remain major players in federal elections. Here, the evidence is overwhelming that the law's objective is being realized.

Bush and Kerry have both registered extraordinary fundraising success. Kerry has already raised more than $110 million, while the president has raised more than $200 million. In raising these sums, the presidential nominees have attracted the support of more than 500,000 donors who did not give money during the 2000 campaign. Congressional candidates, too, are also reaching out to new donors, with fundraising up 35 percent over the last cycle.

And in the first 15 months of this cycle, the national party committees have raised more than $430 million in hard money alone — $60 million more than they had raised in hard and soft money combined at the comparable point in the previous presidential cycle. This financial strength reflects the parties' success at adding more than 2 million new donors to their party rolls. For all the attention they are garnering, these 527 groups — both Democratic-leaning and Republican-leaning — pale when compared to the activities of the parties and candidates.

The 2004 elections have enormously high stakes. Supporters of Bush and Kerry are highly motivated to boost the election prospects of their favored candidate. All signs point to a vibrant get-out-the-vote effort by both parties and a rough equality in funding by and on behalf of the two major presidential campaigns. This reflects the 50/50 partisan division in the country and suggests that a disparity in resources is unlikely to determine the outcome of the presidential election.

The FEC has cheered some and disappointed others with its decision to defer new rulemaking on independent political organizations. While we empathize with the critics' concerns, we nonetheless take satisfaction that the major objectives of the new campaign-finance law are being realized.

Authors

Publication: Roll Call

National Party Fundraising Remains Strong, Despite Ban on Soft Money

Anthony Corrado — Wed, 19 May 2004 00:00:00 -0400

The national party committees continue to outpace the fundraising totals set in the 2000 election cycle, despite the ban on soft money. The latest totals suggest that the national committees are adapting successfully to the new fundraising restrictions imposed by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), more commonly known as McCain-Feingold, and that they will have the resources needed to mount meaningful campaigns on behalf of their candidates in the fall election. Moreover, the parties have demonstrated financial strength despite the unprecedented fundraising efforts of their presumptive presidential nominees and unrestricted fundraising by so-called 527 committees and other nonparty organizations in the quest for campaign dollars in the hotly contested race for the White House.

After 15 months in the 2004 election cycle, the national parties have raised a total of $433 million in hard money alone, compared to $373 million in hard and soft money combined at this point in the 2000 campaign. Every one of the six national committees has substantially increased its hard dollar fundraising in response to the ban on soft money. The Republican committees have replaced all of the $86 million in soft money they had solicited by March of 2000 with hard dollar contributions subject to federal limits. The Democratic committees, which were much more dependent on soft money than their Republican counterparts, raising more than half of their funds from soft contributions at this point in 2000, have already replaced most of their soft money receipts with new hard dollar contributions.

This surge in national party fundraising is the result of a substantial increase in the number of individual contributors that have been added to party rolls. While the higher contribution limits for national party committees adopted under BCRA (up to $57,500 per person every two years) have produced millions of additional dollars for these committees, the vast majority of the increase in party hard money receipts is a result of the extraordinary growth in the number of small donors on both sides of the aisle.¹ No longer able to solicit unlimited soft money donations, the parties are investing more resources in direct mail, telemarketing, and Internet fundraising, with notable success in soliciting small contributions of less than $200. The RNC, which for decades has had the largest donor base of any of the party committees, has added more than a million new donors to its rolls since 2001.² The NRCC, in 2003 alone, recruited more than 400,000 new contributors.³ The DNC has increased its number of direct mail donors from 400,000 in 2001 to more than 1.2 million so far in 2004, and increased its number of email addresses from 70,000 to more than 3 million. In the first four months of this year, the DNC posted 35 million pieces of fundraising mail, which, according to DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe, exceeded the amount of fundraising mail posted by the committee "in the entire decade of the 1990s."⁴

As anticipated by most observers, the Republicans have proved to be more successful in raising hard dollars than the Democrats, outraising the Democrats by a margin of two-to-one and increasing the fundraising gap between the parties. Overall, the Republican committees collected $288 million during the course of the first 15 months of this cycle, as compared to $216 million in hard and soft money combined four years ago. The Democratic committees took in $145 million, as compared to $157 million in hard and soft money combined four years ago. The Republicans have more than doubled last cycle's hard money total, while the Democrats have almost doubled their hard money receipts, increasing their take by 89 percent. The most recent quarter, however, suggests that the Democrats' investments in small donor fundraising are paying off and that the party may be beginning to narrow the gap. In the first quarter of this election year, the Democrats received $50 million as opposed to $82 million by the Republicans, and recent reports suggest that fundraising on the Democratic side continues to strengthen.⁵

Even so, the Republicans have increased their financial advantage as compared to four years ago, when the Democrats controlled the White House. The gap has grown from about $59 million to $143 million. The Republicans are therefore likely to have an even greater financial advantage over the Democrats than they did four years ago. In 2000, the Republican national party committees received approximately $346 million in hard money, as opposed to $204 million for their Democratic opponents.

The gap between Republicans and Democrats is much narrower in terms of cash available to spend in the months ahead. As of the end of March, the Republican committees had almost $86 million of net cash available to spend, led by the RNC, which has a cash balance of $54 million. The Democrats had $43 million available to spend, led by the DNC, which had $27 million in cash. The expenditure-to-cash ratios for each party are now roughly equivalent, with the Republicans raising twice as much as the Democrats and generating twice as much net cash.

When BCRA was adopted, many observers expressed concern that the law would weaken the parties by depriving them of the resources needed to mount viable campaigns on behalf of their candidates. Yet, to date, the parties have proven that they can effectively adjust to a hard money world. They have altered their strategies and ended their reliance on soft money, replacing large soft money donations with thousands of small individual gifts.

The rise of a number of federal-election-related 527 organizations, which are not wholly subject to federal contribution limits and may raise funds from unlimited sources in unlimited amounts, has not dimmed the resources available to the parties. So far, the monies raised and spent by these committees represents only a portion of the monies the party committees have received, and a relatively small share of the total resources spent so far in this year's federal elections. In the first 15 months of this cycle, the national parties raised $433 million. State and local party committees collected more than $94 million for federal election activity, including $59 million by Republican committees and $35 million by Democratic committees. The presidential contenders, George Bush and John Kerry, took in more than $270 million. Congressional candidates garnered $583 million, or 35 percent more than they raised at this point two years ago.⁶ The major new 527 organizations active in federal elections in the aftermath of BCRA (Joint Victory Committee 2004, Media Fund, Americans Coming Together, MoveOn.org, and America Votes) raised slightly more than $47 million, while Club for Growth, a conservative group, generated more than $5 million.⁷

To what extent this will change in the aftermath of the FEC's May 13 decision to defer immediate action on proposed regulations for 527 groups remains to be seen. But it now appears that the parties are benefiting from the deep partisan divide within the country and the high level of competition in the presidential race, which is spurring tens of thousands of individuals to contribute to their preferred party for the first time. This suggests that the funds spent by nonparty groups will supplement, rather than overshadow, the role of the parties in 2004.

View the accompanying data tables (PDF - 16K)

¹ An analysis of national party committee receipts by the Center for Responsive Politics found that 1,376 donors in 2003 had given the maximum contribution of $25,000 to a party committee. These maximum donors were responsible for an estimated $34.4 million of the $301.8 million raised by national committees in 2003. At a minimum, assuming that every one of these donors would have given the $20,000 maximum to a party committee permitted before BCRA, the additional $5,000 permitted under BCRA represents about $6.9 million in additional hard dollars last year alone. The Center's analysis is available at http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=122 (accessed May 17, 2004).
² Paul Fahri, "Small Donors Grow Into Big Political Force," Washington Post, May 3, 2004, p. A11.
³ Thomas B. Edsall, "McCain-Feingold Helps GOP," Washington Post, February 7, 2004, p. A8.
⁴ Democratic National Committee, "DNC Fundraising Continues to Break Records," press release, May 10, 2004.
⁵ Ibid., and Paul Farhi, "Politics: Senate Democrats See Silver Lining," Washington Post, April 3, 2004, p.A6.
⁶ Federal Election Commission, "Congressional Fundraising Continues to Grow," press release, May 11, 2004. Available at http://www.fec.gov/press/press2004/20040511canstat/20040511canstat.html (accessed May 17, 2004).
⁷ Based on information reported in IRS filings, with adjustments for transfers among committees, as compiled by PoliticalMoneyLine (www.politicalmoneyline.org).

Authors

Anthony Corrado

Permanent Campaign Brushes Aside Tradition

Anthony Corrado and Kathryn Dunn Tenpas — Tue, 30 Mar 2004 00:00:00 -0500

The presidential general election is already in full swing. Although President Bush initially sought the safe haven of the Rose Garden, he abandoned his claims that there would be "plenty of time for politics" on Feb. 23 when he kicked off his bid for re-election with a speech to the National Governors' Association.

But make no mistake about when this campaign began. The White House has kept its eye on the ball since Day One, conducting a "permanent campaign" even better than the one mounted by President Clinton and his staff during their first term in office.

What is unusual about the Bush team, despite their public disavowals of electoral motives, is that they have brought the permanent campaign to new heights.

A review of Bush's domestic travel over the first three years illustrates their keen attention to politics. For starters, he has traveled more extensively than any of his predecessors, taking 416 domestic trips during his first three years.

To place this in a more meaningful context, Bush out-traveled President Clinton (302 domestic trips) who, by many accounts, was thought to be the most political of presidents.

More interestingly, Bush has spent the bulk of his time in swing general election states — the 16 states that were each decided in 2000 by the narrowest of margins — 6 percent of the vote or less.

In his first year, 36 percent of Bush's domestic travel consisted of visits to swing states; in year two, 45 percent; in year three, 39 percent.

By comparison, Clinton focused his travel in swing states 28 percent of the time in year one, 33 percent in year two and 39 percent in the third year.

It's important to note, however, that one of Clinton's swing states was Virginia, a state presidents often visit frequently because of its proximity to Washington.

If you substituted the next most competitive state, Tennessee, for Virginia, Clinton's travel to swing states would drop to 22 percent in year one, 27 percent in year two, and 31 percent in year three.

In short, Bush has out-traveled and out-targeted Clinton.

Political travel as a measure of campaigning is but one means of looking at Bush's re-election-related activity. Another example can be found in fund-raising.

The Bush-Cheney '04 Committee began raising money in May 2003 and may rake in $200 million before the end of this summer.

This success partially reflects Bush's efforts to raise money for Republican candidates and party committees. For example, in his first two years in office, Bush shattered all records for money raised by a sitting president.

One post-midterm-election account reported that Bush brought in more than $144 million from 67 receptions in 34 states and the District of Columbia. This politicking helped his party and, at the same time, expanded his own base of financial support.

Bush is merely following the examples set by his Democratic and Republican predecessors.

Beginning with the Nixon administration, the White House initiated what has become an ongoing accumulation of outreach offices designed to enhance the president's electoral prospects (e.g., the Office of Communications, Political Affairs, Public Liaison, Intergovernmental Affairs, and most recently, the Office of Strategic Initiatives - a Bush invention).

Along with a host of unexpected duties that crop up on a daily basis in the West Wing, these entities keep their political antennae attuned to key constituencies and developments that may affect the president's electoral prospects.

In addition, the hiring of pollsters and political consultants to advise the president on an ongoing basis has only accentuated the White House focus on politics, resulting in the now familiar phrase, "the permanent campaign."

So while many observers lamented the start of a Democratic nomination process that began early in 2003, they would be wise to acknowledge that the president's campaign began even earlier, January 2001.

A lesson learned by Republicans and Democrats alike is the importance of the permanent campaign. It has all but displaced the old Rose Garden Strategy.

Authors

Publication: The Arizona Daily Star

Political Party Finance under BCRA: An Initial Assessment

Anthony Corrado — Thu, 11 Mar 2004 00:00:00 -0500

How will campaign finance reform affect the role of political parties in federal elections? Will parties be able to maintain their status as principal actors in the electoral process? Will they have the resources needed to provide meaningful assistance to candidates, as well as to turn out party supporters on Election Day? These are the questions at the heart of the debate over the merits of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), Congress's most recent attempt to control the influence of money in electoral politics. This paper offers an initial response to these questions by presenting an analysis of party finances after the first year under BCRA and offering an early assessment of the role of party money in the 2004 elections.

Downloads

Authors

Anthony Corrado