GOVT 2301

Elections

We now turn to the subject of elections.

As you review this material, you may wish to focus on the following

goals:

Goals: After Reading through this material you should comfortable with the following questions:

- What is an election and what purposes do elections serve in democratic systems?- Why might an election not be legitimate?- What are the advantages and disadvantages of direct and indirect elections?- What are the advantages and disadvantages of initiative, referendum and recall elections?- What different types of elections are established in the United States Constitution? Why?- What are the arguments for and against term limits?- What is a precinct? What is apportionment? How are districts drawn? What is gerrymandering?- What is suffrage? What factors have driven its expansion over American history? - - - - What current controversies exist over who can and cannot vote?- Be able to answer question about the controversy concerning Voter ID legislation.- Understand the impact political parties have had on the electoral system. What special impact have primary elections had on the political process?- What issues are associated with voter turnout? Who votes? Who does not? Why?- What factors influence how people vote the way they do?- How does the state of Texas and the United States regulate elections?- What impact does money have on the electoral process?

And for an ongoing collection of stories related to this topic, click of

the following blog tags.

Blog Posts:

CampaignsCampaign Finance

Candidate CharacteristicsElections

Elections 2008Elections 2010Elections 2012

Initiatives

Blog Posts:

Primary ElectionsPrimaries 2008Primaries 2012

Recall Voting

Voting BehaviorVoter ID

Voting RightsVoter Turnout

What is an Election?

A formal decision-making process by which an electorate (the portion of the population eligible to vote) makes a collective choice about a public matter. The choice can be

about any number of things.

For example:

- Who holds an office- Who will vote for who will hold an office- Who will represent a party in an election

- a public policy proposal- a constitutional amendment

etc . . .

In several previous lectures we have discussed the concept of

elections.

We defined “democracy” in terms of elections.

Majority RulesUniversal Adult Suffrage

But pointed out that the concept of (minority) rights requires that

majority rules be limited.

Not all decisions are subject to majority rule – individual rights for

example.

Federalist #10 argued for the advantage of indirect democracy.

Direct democracies were unstable.

Federalist #51 alludes to different electoral systems for each

governing institution.

Votes by the PeopleVotes by the State LegislaturesVotes by the Electoral College

Appointments

The last point is important, not all offices are staffed with people who win elections. The Framers of the

Constitution did not trust the population to make selections for

judges for example.

Ex Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has been on a mission against

judicial elections since leaving the court.

It also reminds us the elections can be structured in many different

ways.

There are certain basic requirements we expect of

elections.

Elections are central to any democratic governing system, but

simply having elections is not enough. The manner in which elections are held is crucially

important.

Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes almost always holds

elections also, but the outcomes tend to be controlled in various

ways.

Often they not allow opposition candidates to run, and the votes

people cast are made public.

Examples of illegitimate elections:

Tunisian general election, 2009 Zimbabwean presidential election, 2008

Iraqi presidential referendum, 2002 Elections in Burma

Let’s begin by outlining the four factors that are considered

necessary in order for elections to in fact be legitimate.

Elections must be:

FreeFair

OpenFrequent

Free

Individuals are not charged to vote. Poll taxes at one point were used to limit access by the poor.

These were made unconstitutional in the 24th Amendment.

But there are many costs associated with getting on the ballot and running for office

successfully. Elections themselves are costly, if nothing else, in terms

of time.

Fair

Various sides should be able to compete equally in elections. Governing agencies generally oversee elections and provide neutral forums for redressing

disputes.

The Texas Secretary of State and the Federal Election Commission

are supposed to ensure that elections are fair on the state and

national levels.

Both sites are great sources of information about elections.

Questions: Are elections in the U.S. and Texas indeed fair? Can minor parties compete successfully? Are all ideas represented in elections?

Areas of Dispute:

Participation in debatesGerrymandering

Funding

Open

The electoral process should be as transparent as possible. We should know where candidates stand on

issues and who backs whose campaigns and why. Are there any backrooms deals that we should

know about?

The Media should be able to cover elections.

People and interest groups should be able to compete in them and support or oppose candidates.

The election process should be as transparent as possible.

Controversy: Should people know who is financing which candidates?

Is this a private matter or should people know who is bankrolling

whom?

Frequent

Elections should be scheduled on a regular basis so that the electorate has an ongoing ability to be able to

influence public policy.

Elections shouldn’t be occasional, with large periods of time between them. They shouldn’t be scheduled

strategically to enable those in power to influence outcomes.

But if they are too frequent government can’t accomplish it’s

objectives. For some this is a good thing, for others this isn’t.

Anti-Federalists wanted yearly elections at least.

American elections are held every two years.

Discussion question: Is this too frequent or not frequent enough? Do we allow policymakers enough

time to accomplish their objectives?

Since we are always within two years of an election, the election

season in a sense never ends.

All policy positions – every vote – is cast with at least some

consideration of how it will impact a candidate’s competitiveness.

Any vote for a bill that constituents oppose can lead to a primary

challenge within the party, or a general election challenger from

the other party.

Opposition can come from the left or right.

Question: Does this inhibit the ability of representatives to govern

effectively?

Campaigning is not governing.

The Winner Take All System

A basic, and consequential fact of American elections:

They tend to be “winner-take-all” and are held in

single member districts.

Each race is run independently. There is one position up for grabs.

The candidate with the most votes, whether that is a plurality or

majority, wins.

These are sometimes called First Past the Post elections

For example: The United States House of Representatives is

composed of 435 people who have each been elected in one of 435

separate elections in 435 separate districts around the nation.

Comparison:

Proportional representation: A system where the electorate votes

for parties, and the parties then are assigned seats in proportion to

their vote total.

A party with 25% of the vote would get 25% of the seats in the

legislature.

Click here for the list of parties presented to Israeli voters in 2006.

In a winner take all election, each election is separate and only the

majority (50% +1, at least) or plurality (the candidate with the

most votes) winner gets the contested seat.

A candidate with 25% of the vote loses the election.

Winner take all elections discourage support for minor party candidates.

A minor party candidate might be more appealing to many voters

than a major party candidate, but can’t win.

This creates a dilemma for supporters of those smaller

candidates. Do you vote for the person you really like, or for the

most preferred of the major candidates?

Consequence:

The growth of two major ”catch-all” political parties. Voters opt to support the more acceptable of

the major party candidates.

Recent example: the Tea Party is not really a party. It is a faction

within the Republican Party. If they ran as an independent party they

would peel votes from the Republicans and give Democrats

an electoral advantage.

As a result, our two major parties are composed of factions of people who can agree to compromise on a candidate that might not be ideal,

but is mutually acceptable.

This explains why elections in the United States are dominated by

two parties. It just so happens that they are the Democratic and

Republican Parties.

We cover this story next week.

What Purposes Do Elections Serve?

As suggested above, parties do a variety of things:

1 - select party nominees2 - select office holders

3 - influence course of public policy4 - legitimate the governmental

system

1 - Select party candidates

Primary Elections

Every two years the two major parties use – with some exceptions – primary elections in each state to

select the candidates they will present in the general election.

2 - Select office holders

General Elections

In the U.S. and Texas Constitutions, and in city charters and local

purpose governments, it is stated that at certain times elections will

be held for top positions.

3 - Influence Course of Public Policy

By voting for a sufficient number of candidates pledged to implement a

specific policy, the general electorate, acting in unison, can influence the gradual course of

public policy.

Examples

A liberal swing in policy was driven by election results from

1932 – 1968

A conservative swing in policy was driven by election results from

1968 - 2004

The electorate either votes for people whose policies they

support, or vote against people whose policies they oppose.

This has an impact on the course of public policy.

It is worth noting that this is a controversial point. Some studies question whether there is in fact a

change policy when the preferences of voters change, or

whether these changes only occur when the preferences of funders

change.

4 - Legitimize the Governmental System

Creating a connection between the electorate and government

legitimates the decisions of the government since the populace

has had an opportunity to participate.

Remember that this was the reason why members of the

constitutional convention decided that the House of Representatives

would be directly elected.

The lack of meaningful elections can lead to rebellion.

Eastern Europe – 1989Middle East – 2011

Victory in a meaningful election can calm agitated groups.

Tea Party animosity to government was reduced following the

elections of 2010.

Direct and Indirect Elections

Elections, as we already know, can take a variety of forms.

Direct Indirect

In a direct election, people vote directly for legislation and policy.

In an indirect election, people vote for representatives that then vote for legislation and policy and are

held accountable by the electorate.

Recall the Lesson of Federalist #10

Indirect elections are superior to direct elections. They allow for public input into the governing

process, but insulate government from the “instability, uncertainty, and confusion” common in mass

politics.

This argument was not accepted by the Anti-Federalists. The

Jacksonian movement was based on the idea that the electorate

should be expanded and the general population could make

informed decisions about government.

Texas’ electoral system follows the Jacksonian model.

Jacksonian Democracy holds that the citizenry must have broad

influence over government. This includes elections for multiple offices and short term lengths.

The American political system is dominated by indirect elections.

The U.S. Constitution outlines four separate ways that members can

be indirectly elected to office.

Federalist #51 justifies this system by stating that it helps separate

powers.

The separated powers are augmented by unique, distinct

elections

Popular elections - HouseState Legislative Elections - Senate

Electoral College - PresidentAppointments - Judiciary

This means that each of the elected institutions are

accountable to a separate constituency.

The 17th Amendment changed how Senators were elected. From state

selection process to a direct election.

This has changed the fundamental nature of the Senate.

Note that the Federal Courts are designed to be removed

completely from the electoral process.

Madison stated that this was to ensure that judges were qualified

to hold office.

Each elected official is elected from a given district that creates a

constituency that the official is then accountable to.

These constituencies are local, state and national.

Again, recall that the national judiciary has no electoral

constituency. They are accountable to the Constitution and the Law.

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives (click here for the current Congress) represent one of 435 separate districts around the country. They represent a local

constituency.

This is what they look like nationally:

Representation in the 112th House

Our District (ACC’s)

Our Representative: Ron Paul

Since the U.S. House is tied into local needs, plus that fact that

there are so many districts, it has always been assumed that the U.S. House would be prone to conflict.

United States Senators represents a state wide constituency.

The President represents a national constituency

All of these are indirect elections.

While there are no direct elections on the national level, some states

and most cities have direct elections.

There are three types of direct elections:

InitiativeReferendum

Recall

Initiative

Eligible voters can place an item on the ballot directly if they are able

to get a sufficient number of signatures on a petition.

Here’s a description of California’s initiative process.

California 2010 ballot propositions

Referendum

Certain types of laws do not take effect unless they are approved by

a public vote.

Recall Elections

The voters, by getting enough signatures on a petition, can

remove an incumbent from office.

Direct elections are products of the

Progressive Movement. Some states that were greatly influenced by the progressive movement have incorporated these elections into

their constitutional systems.

“the average citizen should have more control over his government”

Texas is not a referendum/initiative state. Here is an

interest group that would like to change that. Here’s some history on

past attempts.

The only vote Texas voters can cast is for or against the ratification of

amendments to the Texas Constitution.

Cities in Texas do allow for such elections however.

What are the pros and cons of direct democracy?

Pros

They make government more responsive to the immediate

preferences of the electorate.

Cons

They make government more responsive to the immediate

preferences of the electorate.

Can initiatives make a state ungovernable?

Case in point:

California

Initiatives in California have led to both tax cuts and increased

spending.

Which creates problems.

Controversy:

Are initiatives, referenda and recall elections truly democratic?

Sometimes a small group of well funded individuals can fund a

petition drive. It may seem more grassroots than it actually is.

The Reliability of Elections

Controversy:

Are elections reliable means of turning public opinion into policy?

Do elections provide clear-cut indications of what the electorate

wants?

Different electoral systems can provide different results.

Plurality winners are not always the same as majority winners, or

winners in races based on a hierarchy, such as a Borda count.

Read: Condorcet Critereon.

In a plurality election, the candidate with the most votes wins the race, but a majority

election requires at least 50% + 1 of the vote. Often run-off between

the top two candidates are required. But the run-off winner

isn’t always the candidate who had the most votes in the initial

election.

Manipulating Elections

Whoever designs elections can distort the outcome of that

election.

Lets focus on two ways that elections can be manipulated.

Limiting Access to the Polls Gerrymandering

Access to the polls can be limited by either not allowing certain

people to vote (denying suffrage), or by making it difficult for some people to vote more than others.

Suffrage

The Right to Vote

In the early days of the Republic, suffrage was severely limited and included property and religious

requirements in addition to race, gender and age.

The U.S. Constitution originally left the question of suffrage

completely up to the states.

Article One, Section Two, Clause One:

“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.”

First: Is Voting a Fundamental Right? The Supreme Court has

argued that it is not.

Voter ID Controversy

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board

Steps in the expansion of suffrage:

Property OwnershipRace

GenderPoverty

Age

Property rights were removed state by state as part of the

expansion of participation that occurred during the Jacksonian

Era.

This allowed for mass participation in politics and elections and led to the development of large political

parties.

A description of voting in colonial America.

A timeline of the expansion of voting rights in the U.S.

Race

1870 – 15th Amendment.

Gender

1920 – The 19th Amendment.

Poverty

1964 – 24th Amendment.

Age

1971 – 26th Amendment.

What allows for expansion?

Advocacy on the part of the disenfranchised.

Electoral Opportunity

Current Controversies regarding suffrage

Mental CompetenceFelony Conviction

An additional way to distort elections is by manipulating

electoral districts.

Gerrymandering refers to the political manipulation of the

districts that representatives are selected from. The opposition can be divided into separate districts

so that they are unable to win any races.

Here’s the classic gerrymandered district.

As opposed to Senators, House representatives represent districts that are subject to redesign every ten years. So do members of the

Texas House and Senate.

After every census a state can gain or lose representatives. This

creates a fight over where new districts will be created or which

districts will be removed.

The Supreme Court has also ruled that each district has to, when

designed, have the same number of people in them.

Baker v. CarrReynolds v. Sims

How Are Districts Drawn? What controversies exist regarding Texas’ current redistricting

proposal?

Texas Redistrictingtexasredistricting.org

The actual design is decided by the state legislature, meaning that the

majority party in the state legislature gets to draw the

districts in the state.

They tend to draw then in a manner that will benefit them.

They will attempt to minimize the number of seats the minority party

can receive.

Gerrymandering techniques:

Vote PackingVote Dilution

Vote packing squeezes as many minority votes in as few districts as possible, vote dilution (or cracking) distributes minority votes across as

many districts as possible.

Click here for descriptions of each.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 made these tactics illegal when

used to dilute the voting strength of racial minorities.

It also subjects states that had histories of racial gerrymandering to preclearance (Section 5 of the VRA), meaning that any redrawn districts must be approved by a

panel of federal judges.

The continued need for preclearance has been a subject of

recent debate.

The constitutionality of preclearance was debated recently

Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Mukasey

Problems:

1 - How can you prove racial discrimination has actually occurred?

2 – How can the problems of past acts of racial gerrymandering be addressed

without violating the law?

Some gerrymandering has resulted from the need to ensure minority

representation.

Racial Gerrymandering

Specific districts have been drawn with the idea that they were likely

to elect a member of a racial minority.

Question: How likely are Anglos to vote for a non-Latino?

But these have been found unconstitutional since they

explicitly take race into consideration when districts are

drawn.

Shaw v. RenoMiller v. Johnson

Regardless, most districts show evidence of gerrymandering.

Local example:

Are Texas’ proposed House districts gerrymandered?

Click here for the map.

Question:

What consequences has gerrymandering had

for democracy in America?

Increased polarization?Undermined representation?

The fact that parties draw districts often means that they will do so in

order to maximize their power.

Texans – both Republican and Democrat – are very good at doing

this.

In addition, gerrymandering may turn the electoral process on its head. Rather than constituents

selecting representatives, representatives select their

constituents.

Incumbents are generally in a position to ensure that when their

districts are redrawn, they are done in a way that will ensure their

reelection.

Solution?

Should a partisan institution like the state legislature, design

districts? Or should it be done by a more neutral process?

Iowa’s districts are drawn by retired judges. As a result their

districts make sense.

Some History of Elections

One way to understand the manner in which elections have

changed over U.S. history is to look at how presidential elections have

evolved.

Presidents, remember, are elected by an electoral college.

The electoral college was originally intended to be a competitive

institution. People would vote for electors, who would then cast two

votes for president.

NARA: Electoral College Home.

Q&A From the Texas Secretary of State.

The top vote getter, as long as he received a majority, would be

president. The person who came in second would be vice president.

The first two presidential elections (1789 and 1792)were dominated by

George Washington who was assumed would be the first occupant of the

office.

He is the only person to have been unanimously elected by the electoral college. John Adams came in second

both times.

The two were similar philosophically (both Federalists, though Washington never

called himself one).

In 1796, the two top vote getters represented different parties and in 1800

there was tie and no clear way to determine who was president and who

was vice-president.

The 12th Amendment was added to the Constitution to prevent either possibility from happening again.

After Washington there were three phases in the evolution of

Presidential elections

1 – King Caucus2 – Nominating Conventions

3 – Primary Elections

King Caucus

By the mid 1790s political parties had developed in Congress and would dominate the electoral process until the late 1820s.

Nominations for the presidency were controlled by parties in

Congress, especially the Democrat – Republicans. This gave the

legislature additional influence over the executive. It also kept

politics an elite enterprise.

Westward expansion and agitation by non property owners fueled

Andrew Jackson’s efforts to remove presidential politics from

the Congress to the states and cities.

Jackson had won a plurality of the popular and electoral college vote in 1824, but the alleged “corrupt bargain” between Henry Clay and

John Quincy Adams led to his defeat in the House. If there is no

majority winner, the House decides who is president.

Jackson began to campaign for the removal of property rights

restrictions on the vote in order to expand his base of support. He won in 1828, and nominating conventions first met in 1832.

Nominating Conventions

As political parties developed, they controlled the selection of

presidential candidates. Nominating conventions would

control the process.

The nominating convention provided an opportunity every four

years for party members across the country to meet. But the

meetings were dominated by party bosses who developed enough

power to handpick certain candidates.

These bosses grew to dominate party machines across the country

and were generally viewed as being corrupt, though political parties were especially strong

during this period.

Two modifications were especially consequential for the executive.

Civil Service ReformThe Presidential Primary

Prior to civil service reform, presidents could hire and fire executive employees as they

choose, which allowed them to use these positions to rewards and

punish people accordingly.

The Spoils System.

This led to the development of a professional, autonomous,

bureaucracy that cannot be directly controlled by the executive.

But it can also compromise democracy since the bureaucracy can no longer

be controlled by the electorate.

Primary Elections

Primary elections were developed to allow the voters to select presidential nominees for

whichever political party they affiliate themselves with.

Currently almost every state’s Democratic and Republican Parties

has a primary election to determine its nominees to all elected offices not only the

presidency.

Delegates are apportioned to each candidate based on the percentage of the vote the candidate receives

in the election. These delegates will vote for that candidate at the

party’s state and national conventions.

The major parties still attempt to influence which candidate is most likely to win office by strategically

scheduling primaries.

Front Loading.

State parties are responsible for scheduling their own primaries,

the national parties may attempt to influence them, but they cannot

control them.

The Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary are

traditionally the opening events in the calendar. This generally means

candidates popular in these two states have a leg up on their

competition.

Primary Elections

There are two general types of primaries

Closed: Voters must register ahead of time as a member of a party in

order to vote in that party’s primary. This allows the party to control its selection process by

limiting participation to its members.

Open: Voters do not have to register as party members, and can go to either party’s primary. They

can only go to one however.

Texas has open primaries.

Texas 2010 Primary Election Calendar

Texas 2010 Primary Election Results

2012 Presidential Primaries,Caucuses, and Conventions

Chronologically

Current debate over Texas’ 2012 Primary.

Notice that there is no role for independent voters to play in the

selecting candidates for the general election. This matters, as

we will see below.

The increased use of primary elections has been argued to have

had an impact on the nature of U.S. Elections.

1 - The electoral process is now candidate centered.

Since candidates have to distinguish themselves from other

party members they forge their own unique identities with the

public apart from simply being a member of a party.

They also create their own campaign apparatus and

fundraising sources. This makes them less subject to their party.

When we discuss political parties further we will explore the idea

that this has led to a reduction in the power of parties as

organizations.

2 – Politics has become increasingly polarized ideologically.

Primary voters are different than voters in general elections.

By definition they are party identifiers and tend to be more

extreme in their ideological positions.

They tend to select candidates who reflect those extreme positions, though the more

extreme candidates sometimes are unable to win general elections where independent voters hold

more influence.

Voter Turnout

Not everyone who is eligible to vote actually votes. The turnout rate refers to the percentage of

eligible voters who actually vote.

Wikipedia: Voter TurnoutU.S. Elections Project: Voter Turnout

Voter turnout in Presidential Elections from 1824 - 2008

Voter turnout has declined over American history. From 80%

commonly, to as low as 49% in recent elections.

Why?

Potential causes:

Voter apathy / alienationVoter satisfactionLess voter fraud

Voter apathy / alienation

People have grown more detached from politics and feel less able to influence the governing process. Why bother voting if that’s the

case?

Voter satisfaction

The turnout rate tends to decrease when the economy is expanding,

and increases when it is in decline. If things are going well, why vote?

Less voter fraud

High voter turnout in the 19th Century occurred often because

people voted multiple times. Registration requirements –

another Progressive Era reform – reduced the chance that this can

happen.

But it also creates barriers to vote.

An alternative reason. Is Voting Irrational?

Perhaps people don’t vote because it seems irrational to vote

Voting is not a rational activity if one expects their single solitary vote to impact the result of an

election.

Few elections are settled by one vote

There is evidence that elections where one candidate is far ahead

of the competition have lower turnout than competitive

elections. This can impact down ballot races.

But voting may indeed be rational if one thinks about it on terms of

group strength.

Group Turnout

Who Votes?Who Does Not?

Not all groups in society vote at the same rates.

-The old vote at higher rates than the young.

- The educated vote more than the uneducated.

- The rich vote more than the poor.

- Whites and Blacks more than Hispanics and Asians.

Why does this matter?

Legislators are more likely to vote in favor of the interests of groups

that vote rather than those that do not.

Age and Turnout in the 2008 and 2010 Elections

Voter Behavior

Once the decision to vote has been made, what accounts for the decisions people make at the

polls?

The study of voter behavior attempts to unlock this.

Three items have been found to be determinants of vote choice

Party IdentificationCandidate Characteristics

Contemporary Issues

Party Identification

Historically, parties have mobilized people to the polls and have

forged relationships with certain electoral groups that identify

themselves with the party. We will review these groups in the next

lectures.

The stronger the identification, the more likely these groups will

consistently vote for the party’s candidates. Party ID is not static, it

fluctuates over time.

The Gallup Poll determines party identification by asking people if

they identify as Republican, Democrat or Independent.

If Rep or Dem, they ask of they are weak or strong identifiers. If independent they ask them

whether they lean to either party, or are truly independent.

Click here for an interactive Party Identification Chart from the Pew

Research Center.

Note that over the years the number of independents has increased dramatically. Fewer

people use party identification as a determinant of the vote. It is

argued that many have de-aligned from political parties.

(this is a controversial point)

Other factors influence the vote choice more.

Candidate Characteristics

Voters also take into consideration certain features of the candidates,

be they physical, moral or whatever. Often these perceptions can override partisan affiliations,

or lead to party realignments.

Contemporary Issues

Contemporary events can have an impact on which party’s candidate

gets wavering votes.

The public tends to think each party is better able to perform

certain functions than the other.

In times of economic hardship, Democrats tend to do better

In times of military threat, Republicans tend to do better.

Elections are sometimes decided by factors outside the control of

either party’s candidates.

Some argue that campaigns really are irrelevant.

Funding Elections

Elections cost money. This is true both for the campaigns run by

individual candidates and for the elections themselves. Campaign

finance and campaign finance reform continue to be controversial subjects.

The average U.S. House race costs more than $1 million

The average U.S. Senate race costs more than $10 million

Presidential Fundraising and Spending, 1976 – 2008

Total Contributions 1976: $171 millionTotal Contributions: 2008: $1,748 billion

Why so costly?

Areas of Increased costs:

Media PurchasesConsultants

PollsTravel

Members of Congress complain that much of their time is spent

fundraising for their next election.

This raises questions about what members are doing to earn those

funds.

Are contributors likely to have a greater opportunity to have their

needs addressed by legislators than will constituents?

Given the need for funding, whose interests are being represented in Congress and the White House?

Are we still a democracy, or perhaps a plutocracy?

Is a campaign contribution really a subtle form of bribery?

Attempts have been made over history to reduce the influence of money in campaigns. Again, the

Progressive movement drove many of these proposals.

Tillman Act of 1907

Federal Corrupt Practices Act (1910)

Hatch Act of 1939

Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971

National Voter Registration Act of 1993

Help America Vote Act of 2002

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002

But constitutional questions have developed since political

participation is constitutionally protected.

Buckley v. Valeo

A 1976 decision that determined that spending money to influence an

elections is a constitutionally protected form of free speech. Limits

on spending money is unconstitutional since it impedes the ability of

candidates to get messages out.

Citizens United v FEC

This is a recent decision that found the campaign spending restrictions placed on corporations and unions

violated the free speech clause. Free speech rights applied to

corporations.

Washington Post: Super Pacs

OpenSecrets: Super Pacs

Lingering Questions:

Will the result of Citizens United lead to additional spending?

Will this spending benefit corporations at the expense of flesh and blood citizens?

Will it undermine fair elections?