Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
29 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What are Interest Groups? |
People who want to influence the decisions of government understand the advantages of banding together and asking powerful friends to help them out -Help politicians gain support - Provide information — political and technical |
|
|
Origins of Interest Groups |
Insider lobbying — the colonial era • Coordinated efforts emerged during the early republic • Tocqueville — essential to an egalitarian social andpolitical system • Later observers viewed them negatively |
|
|
The Pluralist Defense of InterestGroups |
• David Truman’s The Governmental Process (1951) • Defense of the legitimate role of interest groups • Proliferation of political interest groups is natural • Consequence of economic development • The political process balances competing interests • In reality the system is biased — money, information,access to authority, skill, bargaining power are distributedunevenly |
|
|
The Problem of Collective Action |
Mancur Olson’s The Logic of Collective Action (1965)• Incentives for collective action and the barriers toorganization vary across different types of groups • Someone has to organize the group and find the resources— free riding must also be overcome • Small groups are easier to organize than large ones • Interests with much at stake are easier to organize • Large organizations (such as AARP) offer selectiveincentives — benefits for participation |
|
|
Tools Used by Interest Groups |
Trafficking in Information and Cultivating Access • Campaign Contributions • Advertising • Demonstrations • Litigation |
|
|
Information for interest groups |
• Mutually beneficial for groups and politicians • Information can persuade officials to act • Knowledge of possible voter reactions • Groups help draft bills and legislative strategies |
|
|
Campaign Financing |
Campaign finance spending grew each election cycle sincethe 1970s • Between 1976 and 1996 the amount for all federalelections tripled from $2 billion to $6 billion (2012 dollars) • Just the presidential election in 2012 cost $3 billion, was$1.8 in 2008 |
|
|
What Are They Buying? (Campaign Financing) |
Campaigns function at increased sophistication • Television time and postage are extremely expensive • Polling and targeted mail • Internet and social media |
|
|
Good or bad? (Campaign Financing) |
Communication is central to a democratic system • Disapproval of the content of political advertising –negative, misleading, superficial • Distribution of campaign resources and implications forcompetition – incumbent advantage |
|
|
PACs (political action committees) |
Political Action Committees • Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) 1971 and 1974 required groups to form PACs • Diverse set of organizations — labor, corporate,corporation without stock, cooperative,trade/membership/health • Bias of interest group system — dominated by wealthycorporations and affluent individuals • No more iron triangles — fragmentation growth of pacs is increasing |
|
|
Contribution Limits |
Opponents claim that the limits are against the FirstAmendment • Discriminates against candidates opposing incumbents andagainst minor-party candidates • Supporters claim that they are justified as they serve to prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption • Equalize the relative ability of all citizens to affect the outcome of elections • Open the political system to candidates without access to sources of large amounts of money |
|
|
(Campaign Financing spending Expenditures |
How do we get the numbers – Federal ElectionCommission (FEC)• http://fec.gov/ • http://www.opensecrets.org/ • http://followthemoney.org/ • Campaign finance spending grew each election cycle sincethe 1970s |
|
|
(Campaign Financing spending Why should we regulate it? |
Prevent corruption of elected officials • Promote political equality • Enhance the competitiveness of the elections • Improve public confidence in the democratic process • Free candidates from excessive fundraising |
|
|
How to regulate it? |
Disclosure of the source • Disclosure of the use of campaign funds • Limit the amount contributed • Limit the amount spent • Public financing |
|
|
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974 |
Watergate prompted Congress to act • FECA applies to congressional and presidential elections • FECA contains the basic elements of the debate • Disclosure • Limits on the size of campaign contributions • Limits on campaign expenditures • Public financing of campaigns • Ban on the contributions by corporations and labor unions |
|
|
Buckley v. Valeo |
• FECA went to the Supreme Court – Buckley v. Valeo • Longest opinion in the history of the Supreme Court – 138pages • Buckley is a crucially important case and still the mostbasic text in the area • Direct effect on federal campaign law • Defines in detail the constitutional limits on campaignfinance reform |
|
|
Major Rulings |
Campaign disclosure requirements – upheld' • Expenditure limits – struck down • Public financing in presidential elections – upheld • FEC upheld but reorganized |
|
|
*Corporate Spending Limits in Candidate Elections |
FECA banned corporate contributions • Corporations have the right to speak on issues of generalpublic interest • Hard to distinguish between issues of public interest andsupporting a specific candidate |
|
|
Corporate Spending Limits in Candidate Elections |
• “Express advocacy” – “vote for”, “elect”, “support” • Campaign fliers vs. regular publications • The special characteristics of the corporate structure require careful regulation • Important to protect the marketplace of political ideas |
|
|
Corporate Spending Limits inCandidate Elections |
The resources of a corporation are not an indication ofpopular support for the corporation’s political ideas • They are an indication of economically motivated decisions • The power of a corporation does not reflect the power of its ideas |
|
|
Citizens United v. Federal ElectionCommission |
• Citizens United is a nonprofit corporation • Accepts donations from individuals and other corporations • Released a movie called “Hillary: The Movie” just beforethe elections (less than 30 days) • Ran ads paid by general treasury funds, not a PAC • Citizens United claimed that its actions do not fall underBCRA – not “electioneering communication” |
|
|
Citizens United – Decision |
The Court declined to draw constitutional lines based onthe particular media used to disseminate political speechfrom a particular speaker • The statute is a ban on corporate speech despite the factthat a PAC created by a corporation can still speak • Could repress speech by silencing certain voices at variouspoints in the speech process • Prohibited are restrictions distinguishing among differentspeakers |
|
|
Citizens United – Decision |
First Amendment protection extends to corporations • Political speech does not lose First Amendment protection“simply because its source is a corporation” (see Bellotti) • The expenditure ban in Buckley also applies tocorporations • Government interests – anti-distortion, anti-corruption,and shareholder protection |
|
|
Anti-corruption Rationale |
“The governmental interest in preventing corruption andthe appearance of corruption [is] inadequate to justify [theban] on independent expenditures” Buckley • Definition of independent expenditure – “political speechpresented to the electorate that is not coordinated with acandidate” • No danger of quid pro quo – absence of prearrangementand coordination of expenditures with the candidates • “The fact that speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that these officials are corrupt” • The appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in democracy • No examples of votes being exchanged for expenditures |
|
|
Shareholder Protection Rationale |
Little evidence of abuse that cannot be corrected byshareholders through the procedures of corporatedemocracy • Covers all corporations – nonprofit corporations andcorporations with a single shareholder • Austin should be rejected |
|
|
Dissenting Opinion |
Not a First Amendment issue • Corporations are not banned from communicating – theycan use unlimited funds through the regulated PACstructure • Corporations are not natural persons and not members ofsociety – they cannot vote or run for office • Corporations do not engage in self-expression• May be managed by nonresidents – their interests mayconflict fundamentally from the interests of eligible voters • Financial resources and legal structure raise concerns inthe electoral process • Threatens to damage the democratic process bypreventing laws embodying the will of the people frombeing implemented • Evidence of corruption • Corporate spending can marginalize the opinions of real people • The difference between selling a vote and selling access is a matter of degree, not kind |
|
|
Super PACs |
Before Citizens United corporations could not spend theirgeneral treasury funds on election activities • PACs can spend unlimited sums supporting or opposingcandidates • Contributions to PACs used to be limited to $5,000 • Section 527 organizations not limited – not politicalcommittees, no contributions to candidates, no expressadvocacy |
|
|
527 and 501 |
527s spent $400million in 2004 • Soros was the biggest donor to 527s – $24million • No limit for contributions to 527s • FEC began regulating 527s • Shift to 501c – “social welfare organizations and othernonprofits” • 501c – donors’ identity is hidden • PACs, 527s, 501c spent $1.22billion in 2008 |
|
|
Fairness |
• Equality – both sides have an equal opportunity to presenttheir arguments to the voters • Intensity – the ability of either side to present itsarguments reflects the number of people who support thatside and the strength of their feelings • Equality is about receiving a balanced presentation of thearguments • Intensity is about minimizing the likelihood that anapathetic majority will impose harm on an intense minority ch |
