The challenge of running a competitive campaign for the U.S. presidency is made easier by the existence of the political parties and other organizations—from the Sierra Club to the National Rifle Association—that support individual candidates and their agendas. The Democratic and Republican parties sponsor political advertising, organize volunteers, and help get out the vote on Election Day.
Before the 2004 election, some politicians and observers thought that the Democratic and Republican parties might be coming into a period of decline. That’s because a campaign finance law passed in 2002—the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA, pronounced BICK-ruh)—was expected to put a big dent in how much money the parties could raise. The new law prohibited the parties from accepting “soft” money—that’s the term for unregulated money with no limits on amounts. Instead, they’d have to raise all their funds in “hard” money, which is regulated by federal law. If they could no longer receive $100,000 checks from rich friends, would the parties survive?
As it turns out, they did just fine. In the years since BCRA passed, the parties mobilized and raised millions of dollars in hard money from small and medium donors and wound up with more money than ever before. Having weathered that storm, the two major parties are still enormously important players in presidential elections.
Early History: How the Political Parties Came to Be
The U.S. Constitution has nothing to say about political parties. In fact, the Constitution’s framers were resolutely opposed to the formation of political parties in this country. Based on their knowledge of the way things worked in Britain, the framers believed that parties created unnecessary and counterproductive divisions within a nation. They thought that candidates should be judged on their personal merits and their stands on the issues, not their party affiliations.
Before long, however, early opposition gave way to the political and practical convenience of a party system. Parties enhanced cooperation between the executive and legislative branches of government and made it easier to coordinate policy-making among the different levels of government—from the federal level down to the states, counties, and towns. More important, parties allowed diverse groups of like-minded Americans from throughout the country to come together and have an influence on national policy-making and the election of the president.
Every individual elected to the U.S. presidency since George Washington has run with the support of one of the two major political parties of the time.
The National Committees
Each of the major political parties is led by a national committee headquartered in Washington, D.C. While the national parties used to come to life only every four years in running the presidential nominating conventions, in the last three decades they have shifted dramatically to full-time professional organizations supporting state and local parties and recruiting and training candidates.
In addition to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Republican National Committee (RNC), the two major parties each have official campaign committees that raise money to elect the parties’ House and Senate candidates.
In recent election cycles, a key function of the Democratic and Republican National Committees has been to raise money to support its party and candidates. In 2004, the DNC took in $394 million and the RNC raised $392 million. (Interestingly, that was the first time since records have been kept that the DNC’s receipts exceeded the RNC’s, though overall the several Republican committees still beat the Democratic total.).
The amounts raised by the parties almost invariably increase from one election cycle to the next. (Campaign finance experts usually look at a two-year period, such as 2007–2008, as one “election cycle.”) As we’ve mentioned, some experts thought that the campaign finance reform law of 2002 might reduce the parties’ fund-raising, but the parties adjusted to the new rules and have, in fact, continued to bring in more contributions.
Much of the money raised by the national party organizations is passed along to state and local parties to run their campaigns. Funds are also used to pay for advertising, consultants, direct mail campaigns, get-out-the-vote efforts, and many other activities.
Other important national committee tasks include planning the party’s presidential nominating convention, promoting the election of party candidates at the national level, and trying to coordinate the work of the party at all levels—for example, by creating a unifying message for the party and its candidates.
The national committees are composed of two or more party representatives, including at least one man and one woman, from each state and U.S. territory; the Democrats also include representatives of other groups within the party, including members of Congress, Democratic governors, state and local officials, and party organizations for youth and women.
Enter the Special Interests: Independent Groups Step Up Their Campaign Activity
The political parties aren’t the only organizations working to influence the outcome of American elections. Recent presidential and congressional races have seen groups such as the Christian Coalition, the AFL-CIO, the American Medical Association, and many others playing an increasingly important—and increasingly aggressive—role in promoting candidates and their ideas and getting Americans to the polls.
In addition, in recent elections, individuals and organizations with millions of dollars to spend have formed special committees to influence the outcome of the presidential and congressional races. In some cases, these groups are established under the law so that they can accept unlimited funds and may not have to reveal who their donors are. Some of these committees are violating the spirit of campaign finance laws—though they may be doing it entirely within the letter of the law.
Some of the wealthiest organizations have such generic names, like the Joint Victory Committee (a Democratic 527 committee) and Progress for America (Republican), that it’s impossible to know what their goals are without doing some research.
Many advocates of campaign finance reform would like to see stricter rules governing these high-flying political committees, including making them subject to the same contribution limits as political action committees (or PACs), which are closely regulated by federal election law.
Groups that Influence Elections
Interest groups that seek to influence federal elections (that is, for president and Congress) have three main ways to organize themselves under U.S. election and tax law. Of the three, political action committees are the most heavily regulated, so individuals and interest groups that want to spend lots of cash on campaigns are increasingly making use of 527 and 501(c) groups.
Political Action Committees (PACs)—PACs are allowed to raise and spend only “hard” money that complies with strict federal regulations. PACs are limited in how much they can accept from donors and how much they can donate to any campaign, though they can spend unlimited amounts of their own money independently. PACs must report who their large donors are and how they’ve spent their money.
527 Committees—Organized under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, they must report major donors to the IRS, but rules are less strict than for PACs. The biggest difference: 527s can accept unlimited donations of “soft,” unregulated money. And in 2004, some 527s received millions from individual donors. During the 2004 campaign, one 527, Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, got lots of publicity when it aired questionable attacks on the war record of Democratic candidate John Kerry.
501(c) Groups—This section of the tax code used to cover mostly old-fashioned nonprofit groups like the American Red Cross, but in recent years, political players have discovered they can use this type of tax-exempt group to run political ads and engage in other similar activities. 501(c) groups do not have to reveal their donors or their expenditures. Such groups are not supposed to have political action as their primary purpose, but this rule is sometimes ignored.
posted by rena silverman
Pros |
Cons |
The Parties Help Voters DecideThey help clarify the issues and simplify the choices voters have to make in elections. Without the parties, voters would have to find their way through a confusing maze of issues and candidate positions with little help. With parties, government can be held accountable—if you don’t like how Party A is running your city, you have a definite alternative to vote for. The Parties Make Government More EffectiveParties are often the link among the different branches of the U.S. government and the three levels of government—federal, state, and local. They enable politicians to form coalitions and to get things done. The Parties Make It Easier to Run for OfficeJust as parties help the voters, they help candidates by providing an existing base of support and mobilizing voters and party supporters behind a candidacy. |
The Parties Limit the Choices for VotersBecause we have only two dominant parties, the parties generally select candidates with the broadest possible appeal. The system discourages campaigning by “fringe” or even remotely controversial candidates. The Parties Promote Division and DeadlockEach party is forever seeking political advantage over the other. As a result, candidates and sitting officeholders are under pressure to stick to the “party line” and not to compromise with the other party. This hyper-competitive attitude contributes to gridlock in Congress, preventing constructive solutions to complex and controversial issues. The Parties Promote CorruptionThroughout the nation’s history, the political parties have been associated with corrupt practices, such as patronage and the awarding of government contracts to party insiders—and those charges are still made today. In addition, the parties regularly face criticism for questionable fund-raising practices that effectively place politicians in debt to big contributors. |
The Oval...,by Rena Silverman 