220 American Government and Politics Spring, 2000 Kenneth Janda, Instructor

Week 6: Group-Government Linkage Lecture 1: Political Parties & Interest Groups May 2

Money, elections, and party politics Adam Klein's e-mail: disagrees with me that "soft money is not a problem in America" because it does not "go directly to the candidates" "there is no quid pro quo implied with soft money" as with standard, direct donation Klein says, several "classmates also found these claims quixotic as well" Klein contends "soft money is routed by political action committees and parties to candidates coffers" "Such bodies serve merely as loopholes to route unlimited amounts of money to candidates, thus circumventing donation limits." PACs and parties work hand in hand with the candidates whose interests (and financial well being) they advance. "Furthermore, soft money comes attached to a clear quid pro quo." Thus, we have "the Clinton administration's consistent support of the interests of trial lawyers," "or Republicans' impassioned defense of Big Tobacco." "Average citizens are not fooled:" "many politicians can be bought and sold." "leaders like Russ Feingold and John McCain are a bright spots in a dark sea of cronyism." Please "address this in class on Tuesday if possible" My response: Who is being quixotic? Cervantes' early 17th century novel, Don Quixote de la Mancha, told of the chivalrous adventures of a country gentleman caught up in old-fashioned romance. Thus, the term "quixotic," has come to mean idealistic without regard to practicality. Feingold and McCain are the quixotic ones. Facing reality in politics: Given a large number of eligible voters, campaigning to win an election can cost a lot of money. Factors in the cost of a campaign to individual candidates: The number of voters The geographical size of the electoral district The candidates' popularity prior to the campaign The opponents' popularity prior to the campaign Any free advertising that benefits candidates Financial support from a political party Reality produces these empirical propositions: The more money an incumbent spends in an election, the less likely is victory. Limits on campaign spending reduce the likelihood that challengers will defeat incumbents. Limits on PAC contributions to candidates for Congress are opposed more by women and minority candidates than by white male candidates. Understanding the financing of American elections: The subject is very complex To improve campaign finance, you must understand the problem. In general, reformers are apt to do more harm than good. Some differences between the American and European approaches to campaign financing Election campaigns in the US tend to cost more than campaigns in European nations. The US has a larger electorate. The US elects more public officials per capita Elections in the US are contested by individuals; elections in Europe are contested by parties. The US has long general election campaigns; Europe has short campaigns Candidates in the US often compete in costly primary campaigns; Candidates in the US usually must purchase TV time; candidates in Europe are often awarded TV time. In the US, money goes to individual candidates; in Europe, money goes to parties In the US, laws are stronger concerning the disclosure of campaign funds In the US, laws place more limits of the amount of funds a citizen can contribute. My basic argument is this: The campaign finance system that we have reflects the political system that we have. Our system is not only structurally decentralized, it is psychologically individualistic. Citizens think they should vote for the person, not the party. Candidates run to elect themselves, not their party. Members in Congress act to insure their own re-election, They rarely act to serve their party's interest They seldom act to serve the national interest. The campaign finance legislation in 1974 reflected this: The original bill provided for public funds to go to the parties of the presidential candidates It was amended to go instead to the candidates of the major parties. Little can be done to reform our campaign finance system without changing our political system. There is merit in permitting contributions to parties as opposed to individual candidates. Money given to parties breaks the direct link between contributors and candidates. First, candidates need not solicit funds themselves from contributors. Second, individual contributors' funds become mixed with funds from other contributors This dilutes their contributions and renders them less traceable It reduces the "quid pro quo" nature of the contribution. Parties become somewhat more important in our system, but by no means dominant in our system. Political parties vs. interest groups DEFINITION: "an organized body of individuals who share some political goals and who try to influence public policy decisions" Distinguished from a "political party": BREADTH OF POLICY FOCUS: Interest groups are narrower Interest groups have narrower goals, which are based on the special interests that are common to those in the group. Because they advocate policy positions that promote their special concerns, interest groups are said to engage in INTEREST ARTICULATION. to articulate an interest is to express it clearly Parties, on the other hand, have broader policy goals, based on the diverse interests of the coalition of people who support the party. Because parties must somehow balance diverse, and often conflicting, interests of people in their coalition, they are said to be INTEREST AGGREGATORS. to aggregate interests is to collect and balance them BREADTH OF POLITICAL FOCUS: Interest groups are broader Interest groups operate at all stages of the political process -- elections, policy-making, policy implementation. Parties concentrate on the electoral process and on the allocation of offices within government after elections. In fact, the most distinguishing characteristic of parties is that they nominate candidates to run as AVOWED representatives of the party. If an "interest group" were to do this, it would become a political party by definition. American parties are more aggregative of interests than political parties in other countries. In the U.S. multiple, often conflicting interests are collected and balanced off within the Democratic and Republican parties. In European governments with multiparty systems, voters have a choice of parties that articulate interests of specific groups of voters. Agrarian parties Religious parties Labour Free enterprise Ethnic parties The Anglo-American democracies, which all tend to have two-party systems: UK, Canada, New Zealand, Australia--are also aggregative. In these countries, voters tend to know in advance of elections which interests will be represented in government. In multiparty countries, it is uncommon for a single party to control the government after an election. Consequently, government must be formed from coalitions of parties. Voters don't know in advance which parties will join to form a government, so voters don't know what interests will be represented in government when they vote. American parties offer voters fewer choices, but the choices are linked more directly to what government does after election. American parties are also less powerful than political parties in other countries They don't control nominations of their own candidates They can't even collect money to support campaigns without cries to curtail "soft money" These two characteristics of American parties--broadly aggregative nature and lack of internal power--have consequences for American government. American parties fit the pluralist rather than the majoritarian model of democracy. Parties are only additional players on the interest group scene. They offer groups political access, but access does not guarantee political benefits. Even when in control of the legislative and executive branches, American parties do not fit the model of "responsible party government" and are able to carry through legislative programs. Parties are better positioned to block legislative programs than to carry them out. The pervasiveness of interest groups in American politics A classification of interest groups and examples: business (e.g., National Association of Manufacturers) labor (AFL-CIO) education (National Education Association) farm (Farm Bureau) environmental (Sierra Club) People: senior citizens, women, civil rights, (blacks, Jews, Italians) Public interest (Common Cause) Ideological (Moral Majority, People for the American Way) Single-issue groups (Pro- and Anti-Abortion groups) Where do interest groups operate in the American political process? Everywhere: Legislative branch--origin of term "lobby" executive branch--including the bureaucracy judicial branch--through arguments before the court in state politics in the military