The General Election: Campaign Finance and Campaign Strategy

1
CHAPTER 8
2
The General Election Campaign Finance and
Campaign Strategy

• Once the field of candidates has been narrowed
  through the nomination process, the scene of the
  party battle shifts to the general election
• Nominations are intraparty struggles, whereas
  the general election is an interparty struggle
  that operates in a different type of political
  environment
• In the general election competition, there is
  normally a higher level of citizen interest, an
  expanded electorate, larger campaign
  expenditures, and greater media exposure

3
Financing Elections

• Although money is not the only critical campaign
  resource, without money the basics of a campaign
  are impossible to obtain, since it is needed to
  purchase a headquarters, consultants and staff,
  polls, media advertising, and travel
• As the technology of campaigning has become more
  advanced and the electronic media has become an
  indispensable part of campaigns, campaign costs
  have escalated dramatically
• The escalated cost of campaigns for House and
  Senate is shown in Table 8.1

4
Table 8.1. Average Expenditures of House and
Senate Candidates, 1986-2004
Election Cycle Average Expenditure Incumbent Average Challenger Average Open Seat Average
House of Representatives House of Representatives      
1986 259,544 334,386 124,815 431,213
1988 273,380 378,544 119,621 465,466
1990 325,145 422,124 134,465 543,129
1992 409,836 594,729 167,891 439,795
1994 420,132 590,746 225,503 543,464
1996 516,219 678,556 286,582 647,336
1998 547,635 606,915 238,739 748,790
2000 594,691 774,159 295,316 1,115,100
2002 624,110 828,946 255,831 1,044,111
2004 679,320 966,038 261,029 1,407,231
Senate        
1986 2,789,360 3,307,430 1,976,286 3,358,295
1988 2,802,690 3,748,126 1,820,058 2,886,383
1990 2,592,163 3,582,136 1,705,098 1,599,792
1992 2,891,488 3,850,323 1,826,251 3,004,464
1994 3,868,298 4,581,199 3,803,230 2,932,537
1996 3,550,866 4,236,694 3,139,479 3,310,759
1998 3,767,087 4,737,372 3,114,238 2,715,954
2000 5,344,611 4,346,427 2,481,378 16,542,755
2002 4,061,791 4,268,889 2,501,111 7,445,833
2004 5,209,710 6,454,615 2,352,692 7,675,294
Source Federal Election Commission data.
5
Financing Elections

• The level of campaign spending is related to the
  candidates chances of winning and the closeness
  of the contest
• Because of the escalating cost of campaigns, the
  inevitable differences among candidates in their
  financial resources, there have been periodic
  demands for regulation of campaign finance
• The resulting statutes have used the following
  methods to regulate campaign finance
• 1. Public disclosure of contributions and
  expenditures
• 2. Contribution and expenditure limits
• 3. Public funding of campaigns

6
Public Disclosure

• The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA)
  requires that all contributions of 200 or more
  must be identified and all expenditures of 200
  or more must be reported
• Candidate Committees must also file periodic
  preelection reports and a final postelection
  report with the Federal Election Commission
  (FEC)
• The FEC maintains an online searchable database
  of candidates, parties, PACs, and donors to
  increase the transparency of the sources of
  candidates financial support

7
Contribution and Expenditure Limits

• Candidates for federal office may raise money
  from individuals, political action committees
  (PACs), and party committees
• - Individual contribution limits to federal
  candidates were doubled after the Bipartisan
  Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) from 1,000 to
  2,000 per campaign
• - PACs can give no more than 5,000 to any one
  candidate per campaign
• - Parties can give no more than 5,000 per
  campaign to any one candidate in House
  elections, and no more than 37,000 per
  campaign and candidate in Senate elections
• In addition to direct contributions, party
  committees are also authorized to make
  coordinated expenditures on behalf of the party
  and its candidates (e.g. for polls, media
  production, and campaign consultants)

8
Figure 8.1. Political Party Contributions and
Coordinated Expenditures, 1976-2004
Source Federal Election Commission
9
Contribution and Expenditure Limits

• Although political parties are restricted in
  terms of how much they may spend to support
  congressional and senatorial candidates, there
  are no overall spending limits for the
  candidates organizations
• There are also no limits on how much of their
  own money candidates may spend
• Because of concern about the growing number of
  successful self-financed candidates, the BCRA
  includes a provision which increases the
  contribution limits if a candidates opponent
  spends a certain amounts of his or her own money
  on the campaign

10
Independent Expenditures, Issue Advocacy, and
Soft Money

• Independent expenditures are a campaign activity
  that is mainly the domain of large, well-funded
  groups such as the NRA, or the AFL-CIO
• Issue advocacy involves public advertising of a
  specific issue, but not directly promoting, or
  advocating the defeat of a specific candidate,
  and is not regulated by the FEC, and thus
  constitutes a loophole around spending limits
• The FECA contained major soft money loopholes
  that enabled individuals, unions, and
  corporations to evade contribution limits by
  giving large sums to so called party building
  activities

11
The BCRA Banning Soft Money and Regulating Issue
Advocacy

• In 2002, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign
  Reform Act (BCRA) the most significant
  campaign finance legislation since the FECA in
  1974
• By mandating that the national party committees
  could only raise and spend money subject to
  contribution limits, the BCRA effectively
  eliminated the use of soft money by the parties
• Under the BCRA, labor unions or corporations may
  not contribute to a committee that pays for
  issue- advocacy advertising identifying a
  candidate for federal office within 30 days of a
  primary or within 60 days of a general election
• The BCRA also requires all candidates, interest
  groups, and parties to include a statement of
  responsibility for their broadcast advertisements

12
Figure 8.2. Party Fund-Raising of Hard and Soft
Money, 1992-2004
Source Federal Election Commission
13
Political Parties after the BCRA

• Given the recent dependence on soft money
  contributions and issue-advocacy advertisements,
  changes made by the BCRA threatened to undermine
  the health of national party organizations
• Both parties responded to the BCRA by increasing
  their emphasis on soliciting contributions
  subject to limits, which led to significant
  increases in contributions (Figure 8.3)

14
Figure 8.3. Party Fund-Raising from Small and
Large Donors, 2000 and 2004
Source Federal Election Commission
15
Political Parties after the BCRA

• Given the recent dependence on soft money
  contributions and issue-advocacy advertisements,
  changes made by the BCRA threatened to undermine
  the health of national party organizations
• Both parties responded to the BCRA by increasing
  their emphasis on soliciting contributions
  subject to limits, which led to significant
  increases in contributions (Figure 8.3)
• The BCRA provided the parties with the ability
  to spend unlimitedly on behalf of their
  candidates
• The BCRA also eliminated the transfer of large
  amounts of soft money from national to state
  parties

16
PACs and 527s

• Political action committees (PACs) are a type of
  political committee with the right to solicit
  and accumulate funds for distribution to
  candidates
• Prior to the 1960s PACs were largely a labor
  union phenomenon, but statutory changes in the
  1970s spurred an explosion in the number of PACs
  

17
Figure 8.4. The Growth of Political Action
Committees
Source Federal Election Commission
18
PACs and 527s

• Political action committees (PACs) are a type of
  political committee with the right to solicit
  and accumulate funds for distribution to
  candidates
• Prior to the 1960s PACs were largely a labor
  union phenomenon, but statutory changes in the
  1970s spurred an explosion in the number of PACs
  
• Not only the number of PACs has increased, but
  also their share of the escalating cost of
  campaigns
• One of the most striking characteristics of PAC
  contribution patterns to House and Senate
  campaigns is their preference for incumbents

19
Figure 8.5. Amount of PAC Contributions to
Incumbents, Challengers, and Open Seat Candidates
in House and Senate Elections, 1990-2004
Source Federal Election Commission
20
Figure 8.6. PAC Contributions Going to Republican
and Democratic Candidates for the House and
Senate, 1990-2004
21
PACs and 527s

• 527 committees are groups existing under section
  527 of the tax code, which are tax-exempt and
  may engage in political activities, but cannot
  expressly advocate for or against candidates for
  federal office
• Before the 2004 campaign, most 527s were tied to
  interest groups that also maintained PACs, but
  in 2004, new 527s emerged that were not
  necessarily tied to existing interest groups
• The new 527 committees received significant
  funding in the form of large contributions from
  wealthy individuals, many of which had
  previously been contributors of soft money to
  the national parties

22
Public Financing of Elections

• The FECA authorizes public funding of general
  election campaigns for those presidential
  candidates who qualify and wish to accept the
  federal subsidy
• A candidate who accepts public funding must
  agree to restrict expenditures to the amount of
  the federal grant and forego all private
  fund-raising
• Since the public-funding features of the FECA
  took effect in 1976, every major-party candidate
  has chosen to accept public funding of his
  campaign
• Clearly, the use of public funding in
  presidential elections has tended to equalize
  the resources available to the Republican and
  Democratic parties

23
The Electoral College

• The election of an American president is not a
  direct popular vote, but rather an indirect
  election process in which the voters select
  electors who in turn make the actual choice of a
  president
• In designing this system, the Founders
  envisioned the presidential electors as a
  council of wise men who would render an
  independent judgment on the best person to hold
  the nations highest office
• The founders also envisioned a nonpartisan
  selection process, but the contests for
  president early became highly partisan, where
  competing parties run slates of candidates for
  the positions of presidential electors

24
Allocation of Electoral Votes among the States

• Each states allocation of electoral votes is
  determined by its total number of senators and
  representatives in Congress (DC is entitled 3
  votes)
• In every state, the candidate who receives a
  plurality of the state popular vote for
  president receives all of that states electoral
  votes (Maine and Nebraska use a different
  system)
• To be elected president, a candidate must
  receive an absolute majority of the votes in the
  Electoral College (i.e. 270 of the total 538
  electoral votes)
• If no candidate receives a majority, the winner
  is chosen among the three candidates who
  received the largest number of electoral votes
  by the newly elected House of Representatives

25
Electoral College Tendency to Exaggerate the
Popular-Vote Margin of the Winning Candidate

• In four instances, the presidential candidate
  who was the winner of the popular vote failed to
  gain a majority in the Electoral College
• Most public discussion of the Electoral College
  has focused upon this possibility, but because
  it has occurred so rarely, Electoral College
  reform has not been of great concern, but the
  issue was sparked after the most recent instance
  the 2000 election
• The most striking example of the extent to which
  the margin of victory may vary was in 1980, when
  Reagan won 50.7 of the popular vote and 90.0
  of the electoral vote (Figure 8.7)

26
Figure 8.7. Winning Candidates Percent of
Popular and Electoral Vote, 1976-2004
Source Office of the Federal Register.
27
Encouraging Two-Party Politics

• The Electoral College system works to the
  advantage of the two major parties and to the
  detriment of minor parties
• The combination of a winner-take-all system to
  determine the allocation of electoral votes and
  the requirement of a majority in the Electoral
  College makes it almost impossible for third
  parties to win a presidential election
• Although unable to win, third parties may garner
  votes that may otherwise have gone to one of the
  major-party candidates, and may thus have a
  significant influence on the outcomes of
  elections

28
Big State versus Small State Advantages

• Small states are mathematically overrepresented
  in the Electoral College because of their
  over- representation in the House and the Senate
• Because of the winner-take-all system, however,
  it is the large, populous states that mainly
  benefit from the Electoral College
• This means that narrow victories in large states
  yield a much higher return in terms of electoral
  votes than do large pluralities in small states
  (Table 8.3)
• Without carrying at least some of these states
  it is almost impossible for a candidate to be
  elected

29
Table 8.3. The Impact of State Size on the
Electoral College (based on 2000 census figures)
State Electoral Votes Electoral Votes Percent of Total Electoral College State Electoral Votes Percent of Total Electoral College
Smallest States (13) Smallest States (13) Smallest States (13)   Largest States (10) Largest States (10)  
Vermont Vermont 3 0.56 California 55 10.22
Delaware Delaware 3 0.56 Texas 34 6.32
Montana Montana 3 0.56 New York 31 5.76
South Dakota South Dakota 3 0.56 Florida 27 5.02
North Dakota North Dakota 3 0.56 Pennsylvania 21 3.9
Wyoming Wyoming 3 0.56 Illinois 21 3.9
Alaska Alaska 3 0.56 Ohio 20 3.72
Maine Maine 4 0.74 Michigan 17 3.16
New Hampshire New Hampshire 4 0.74 New Jersey 15 2.79
Rhode Island Rhode Island 4 0.74 North Carolina 14 2.6
Nevada Nevada 4 0.74 Total 255 47.4
Idaho Idaho 4 0.74
Hawaii Hawaii 4 0.74
Total Total 45 8.36      
30
Partisan Implications The GOP Lock on the
Electoral College Is Picked in 1992 and 1996

• In the presidential elections of 1968, 1972, and
  in the 1980s, Republican strength in the South
  and in the Mountain states led to a widespread
  belief that the GOP had a lock on the
  Electoral College, enabling them to focus their
  campaigns on competitive states
• In 1988 Bush carried fourteen states with only
  55 percent or less of the popular vote, and in
  1992, a sufficient swing of the national
  sentiment away from the GOP enabled the
  Democrats to pick the lock
• Although the 1992 and 1996 election shattered to
  notion of the GOPs domination of the Electoral
  College, the South and West continued to
  constitute the partys critical base of support
  (Figure 8.8)

31
Figure 8.8. Democratic Electoral Victories, 1992
and 1996
32
Tight Electoral College Competition in 2000 and
2004

• With the Republicans winning 271 electoral votes
  and the Democrats 266 in 2000, the nation
  witnessed the closest Electoral College contest
  in over a century, and the 2004 election was
  close as well
• This narrow division between the two major
  parties made clear that in the current era
  neither party has a lock on the Electoral
  College
• Recent elections demonstrate that the Republican
  Electoral College base is the Mountain, Plains,
  and southern states, while the Democratic base
  is in the Northeast, West Coast, and industrial
  states of the Midwest, providing the potential
  for highly competitive contests for Electoral
  College majorities (Figure 8.9)

33
Figure 8.9. Republican Electoral College
Victories, 2000 and 2004
34
Reform Direct Popular Vote versus the Electoral
College

• Most of the criticism of the Electoral College
  has been concentrated upon the possibility that
  the winner of the popular vote might not win the
  electoral vote and on the undemocratic
  character of the winner-take-all system of
  allocating electoral votes
• Therefore, the great appeal of proposals for
  direct popular vote is that such a system would
  assure victory to the winner of the poplar vote
• One effect of switching to a direct popular vote
  system of election would be to reduce the
  current special importance of the large states,
  making votes equally important across states

35
Reform Direct Popular Vote versus the Electoral
College (continued)

• One concern is that if a simple plurality of the
  popular vote is required for election,
  third-party candidates would still have little
  chance of winning
• Another concern is the possibility that in a
  plurality system, a candidate can be elected
  with less than 40 percent of the vote a
  solution would be to require a runoff election
  between the top two candidates
• Such a system would greatly increase the
  potential influence of third parties
• Another suggested reform would be a proportional
  allocation of a states electoral votes in
  accordance with each partys share of the
  popular vote

36
The General Election Campaign

• Every campaign is different, depending on
  several factors
• - who the contending candidates are (e.g.
  incumbents or not)
• - the nature of the office being sought
  (executive, legislative, or judicial)
• - the level of government (national, state, or
  local)
• - the applicable campaign finance and election
  statutes
• - the campaign resources of the candidates
• - the type of nominating campaigns that were
  conducted
• - the nature of the constituency
• - the tenor of times (e.g. which issues are
  salient to voters)

37
When the Voter Decides

• Most voters in presidential elections make up
  their minds about the candidate for whom they
  will vote before or during the nominating
  conventions
• A substantial portion of the electorate does not
  make its decision until after the conventions,
  and therefore the impact of the campaign can be
  significant (Figure 8.10)
• The one common condition that works against
  making campaigns decisive is the presence of a
  popular incumbent president

38
Figure 8.10. Percent of Voters Who Said They
Decided on the Presidential Candidate They Voted
for after the Conventions, 1976-2004
Source National Election Studies.
39
Incumbency

• The resources and privileges of public office
  tend to enable incumbents to publicize
  themselves
• The self-advertisement efforts of incumbent
  members of the House in their constituencies
  have made them well known, and they are normally
  thought of in positive terms
• Incumbent executives are also in a position to
  claim credit for all the positive things that
  have occurred, but may also be blamed for
  negative things
• A further advantage of incumbency is the easy
  incumbents have in raising money

40
Incumbency (continued)

• Normally, over 90 percent of the House
  incumbents gain reelection, while the reelection
  rate for senators is substantially lower (Figure
  8.11)
• House incumbents benefit from the relatively
  homogeneous nature of their districts when
  compared to the larger and more socially diverse
  statewide constituencies of Senators
• The relatively high level of Senator defeat
  reflects several factors
• - higher levels of interparty competition
• - higher levels of campaign resources put into
  these races
• - higher visibility of Senate contests

41
Figure 8.11. Percent of House and Senate
Incumbents Reelected, 1952-2004
42
Majority versus Minority Party Status

• Majority party candidates normally place more
  emphasis on partisan themes than minority party
  candidates
• As the dominant party in terms of the
  electorates party identification since the
  1930s, the Democratic Party nationally has more
  frequently emphasized partisan themes than the
  Republicans
• As partisan appeals have become less effective
  in presidential elections, the significance in
  majority/minority status in determining campaign
  strategy has been reduced

43
Debates

• Debates have now become a standard part of
  presidential campaigns
• Presidential debates have generally worked to
  the advantage of the challenger candidate
• Because the media tends to hype the presidential
  debates and give them prime time coverage, the
  candidates tend to see them as very important
• As a general rule, the candidate who is
  perceived to have won the debate tends to
  improve in the polls
• The history of televised debates shows that the
  image of the candidates is increasingly important

44
Issues

• From the1930s until the 1980 election,
  Democratic candidates generally had a clear
  advantage over the Republicans when dealing with
  domestic issues
• Following the bad economic conditions of the
  last years of the Carter administration, voters
  began to view the GOP candidate as the best for
  the economy
• The Republicans traditional disadvantage on
  domestic issues was partially offset by an
  advantage they carried regarding foreign policy
• This advantage was reversed in the 1976-1984
  elections, when voters perceived the Democratic
  party to be better for peace
• The publics trust in the parties on certain
  issues is displayed in Figure 8.12

45
Figure 8.12. Which Party the Public Trusts to
Handle Issues, May 2006
Source The Washington Post/ABC News Poll, May
16, 2006.
46
Figure 8.13. Differences between Liberal and
Conservative Democrats on Social Issues, 2005
Source The Pew Research Center, Beyond Red vs.
Blue Republicans Divided About Role of
Government - Democrats by Social and Personal
Values, May 10, 2005 .
47
Candidate Image

• Personal characteristics that voters believe are
  important tend to vary depending on the
  condition in which the country finds itself
• There is frequent commentary about how
  candidates manipulate their images through
  skillful use of the mass media, but candidate
  images are not easily created and altered
• During hard times, effective leadership is a
  valued characteristic, and other important
  characteristics include trustworthiness and
  intelligence (Figure 8.14)

48
Figure 8.14. Vote Choice of Exit Poll Respondents
Based on Most Important Personal Quality, 2004
Source National Election Poll exit survey.
49
The Role of Parties in Modern Campaigns

• In the modern campaign, the candidate tends to
  be the focus, not the party, and candidates
  build a personal campaign organization
• Parties do, however, matter, in that they can
  provide essential and timely financial support
  and in-kind contributions of services to
  candidates (Figure 8.15)

50
Figure 8.15. Candidate and National Committee
Spending on 2004 Presidential Campaign
Source Thomas B. Edsall and James V. Grimaldi
On Nov. 2, GOP Got More Bang For Its Billion,
Analysis Shows, The Washington Post, December
30, 2004 Page A01.
51
The Role of Parties in Modern Campaigns

• In the modern campaign, the candidate tends to
  be the focus, not the party, and candidates
  build a personal campaign organization
• Parties do, however, matter, in that they can
  provide essential and timely financial support
  and in-kind contributions of services to
  candidates (Figure 8.15)
• A large share of candidates and parties
  budgets in national and statewide races is
  devoted to TV ads, often featuring harsh
  criticism of the opponent, and it is usually
  parties and interest groups who run the most
  negative ads (Figure 8.16)

52
Figure 8.16. Percent of Advertising That Was
Positive in Tone by Sponsor, 2000 and 2004
Source Michael M. Franz, Joel Rivlin, and
Kenneth Goldstein, Much More of the Same
Television Advertising Pre- and Post-BCRA, in
The Election After Reform Money, Politics, and
the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, , edited by
Michael Malbin.
53
The Role of Parties in Modern Campaigns
(continued)

• Parties are often instrumental in funding
  targeted appeals, such as direct mail, during
  campaigns
• Direct mail can also be used as part of larger
  mobilization efforts (get-out-the-vote efforts),
  and parties tend to focus particular attention
  to these as they tend to aid all of the partys
  candidates
• In attempting to mobilize voters, the parties
  use a two-step process finding those who needed
  to be mobilized, and then contacting potential
  supporters to encourage them to vote
• These efforts have increased markedly (Figure
  8.17)

54
Figure 8.17. Percent of Citizens Reporting That
They Were Contacted by the Parties, 1972-2004
Source National Election Studies.
55
Election Outcomes

• Elections are a culmination of candidates
  campaigns and voters decisions, and they are
  played out as contests for specific offices, in
  different constituencies, at various times, and
  therefore combine to produce diverse election
  outcomes
• Despite the fact that Democrats have enjoyed a
  substantial advantage in party identification
  for most of the period from 1956 to 2004, the
  Republicans have been most successful in winning
  the presidency (Figure 8.18)

56
Figure 8.18. Republican and Democratic Percentage
of Popular Vote for President, 1956-2004
Source Statistical Abstract of the United
States, 2006.
57
Election Outcomes (continued)

• Whatever advantages the Republicans may have had
  in presidential contests had been substantially
  offset by Democratic domination of the Congress
• The most significant change in regional voting
  patterns during the second half of the 20th
  century was southern realignment (Figure 8.19)

58
Figure 8.19. Democratic and Republican Party
Share of Southern Congressional Delegation,
1966-2000
Source Results of House elections, by party,
19282000. (2001). In J. L. Moore, J. P.
Preimesberger, D. R. Tarr (Eds.), Guide to U.S.
elections (Vol. 2). Washington CQ Press.
59
Election Outcomes (continued)

• Whatever advantages the Republicans may have had
  in presidential contests had been substantially
  offset by Democratic domination of the Congress
• The most significant change in regional voting
  patterns during the second half of the 20th
  century was southern realignment (Figure 8.19)
• Another phenomenon that has had an impact on
  Congressional election outcomes is the process
  of redistricting, since redistricting plans in
  most cases address the goals of protecting
  incumbents and gaining a partisan advantage

60
Election Outcomes (continued)

• Despite setbacks in presidential politics, the
  Democratic Party dominated gubernatorial and
  state legislative elections during most of the
  Post-World War II era (Figure 8.20)

61
Figure 8.20. Percentage of State Legislatures
under Democratic, Republican, and Split Control,
1956-2004
Source National Conference of State Legislatures.
62
Election Outcomes (continued)

• Despite setbacks in presidential politics, the
  Democratic Party dominated gubernatorial and
  state legislative elections during most of the
  Post-World War II era (Figure 8.20)
• As part of the 1970s movement to reform state
  legislatures, salaries were increased, along
  with a greater professionalization of the
  legislatures
• The greater professionalization lead to both a
  greater competition for office, and to an
  increased incumbency advantage

63
The 2006 Midterm Elections

• While congressional elections typically revolve
  around local issues unique to each district and
  state, occasionally these elections take on a
  more nationalized character
• The 2006 midterm elections were, similar to the
  1994 midterm elections, a referendum on the
  party controlling the presidency and both
  chambers of Congress
• As a result of factors such as the popular
  disapproval of the Iraq War, Bushs low approval
  ratings, and a scandal involving Republican
  Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Democratic candidates
  fared particularly well among independents in
  2006