Modern Presidency Case Study
Midterm Study Questions
A complete answer will accomplish three objectives: 1) define the central concepts and elaborate their important constituent features, 2) illustrate general points with specific examples or other empirical information (where such information exists), and 3) situate your overall response within the important themes of the course (why should someone care about this question?).
1) Discuss executive prerogative and the salus populi as extra-constitutional inheritances justifying a wide berth for flexible presidential action. How have these Founding Era traditions contributed to the evolution of the modern presidency. (James article)
As the article suggest, one of the dilemmas of modern presidency is that the president …show more content…
has acquired so many governing responsibilities while have rather reserved constitutional power resources for their disposal. Together, through the notion of executive prerogative and the salus populi, it allow the modern presidents to overcome the constraints of executive power under the constitution and allow president to have more flexibility and independence in their presidential action.
According to the article, both the founding father and their well-respected British philosophers agree that president should be allow to enjoy certain degree of independent and discretionary power in particular situations. For example, both John Locke and William Blackstone agree that the presidents has the rights to exercise the executive prerogative for the public good under special circumstance. Thus, it provides power resources that the modern presidents can draw on in exercising their political autonomy. With this tradition of executive prerogative, it acknowledges that president could act outside the constitution and decide what should be done in the time of necessity. Presidents, therefore, immune from “mere” constitutional and legal restrictions on their presidential actions, when they judge it’s for the nation’s best interest to take those actions. As a result, when the future presidents exercise their executive prerogative, they have more freedom and independence in deciding what ought to be done for the nation’s best interest.
Then, the notion of salus populi (the welfare of the people is the highest law) answers the question of under what circumstance are president to be allowed to exercise this executive prerogatives. That is, this motto implies that no congressional law or constitution law should be put above the good of the community as a whole. Thus, the presidents should be allowed to exercise their executive prerogative when the goals of their actions are to preserve or to advance the welfare of the public. Specifically, the founding fathers, under the name of Publius, use the doctrine of salus populi to defend public-spirited lawlessness in their writing. In Publius’s argument, safety and happiness of the society are the objects at which all the political institutions aim at. As a result, where adherence to law clashes with the common good, the former must give away to the greater good. Hence, it implies that the president’s unlawful action can still be legitimated, if the end goals of those actions are to promote or protect the common good. As a result, they should also be immune for prosecution. Hence, the doctrine of the salus populi gives the modern president more confidence to assume risk, to trust in their own judgment and encourage them to exercise executive prerogative even when necessary.
In conclusion, one of the reasons that these traditions are important in shaping the course of the modern presidency is that it allows the modern president to overcome the inborn institutional weakness of executive power, and to have the capacity to confront with the ever-wide ranging responsibilities. Although, the framer never specifically defines what the executive power is. Yet, many presidents are still able to utilize this extra-constitutional inheritance as power resources to draw on and to justify their unilateral and unauthorized actions. For example, Thomas Jefferson draws on those traditions in his defense for the Louisiana Purchase. In addition, Frost-Nixon also reveals the same belief in those extra constitutional traditions in his interview. Specifically, he argues, “When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.” With those extra-constitutional traditions, IT lay the foundation for modern presidents to able to have broader discretion in exercising their political leadership and to have more confidence to assume risk when times required.
2.What are the president's emergency powers and in what political context was the concept first authoritatively declared. How have subsequent presidents employed and expanded upon the concept? (James article) The president’s emergency power includes the power to order blockade on the states, the power to call up military, the power to expand the size of army and navy, the power to pay for the mobilized troops out of treasury without the approval of congress, the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, the power to assign military force to resolve commercial dispute, the power to size and control communication (postal service), the power to send out federal troops to suppress strike and restore commercial life for the nation, and so on during the great national crisis.
It was under Abraham Lincoln’s presidency, the concept of emerge power was first authoritatively declared. During the civil war crisis, Lincoln was confronted with those “extreme cases” where the law became inadequate even to their own preservation, and the unilateral actions outside the boundary of the law are required for the military necessity. Yet, Lincoln was able to utilize the implication of this notion presidential emergency power and use it to justify otherwise unconstitutional executive actions. Specifically, Attorney General Edward Bates, who writes on his behest, presented Lincoln’s central concept of the emergency power. As bates point out, even though it’s the plain duty of president to preserve constitution, and execute the laws. During the national crisis, it requires presidents to put down the rebellion and unlawful resistance before fulfilling his duty to preserve the law and the constitutions. As a result, President must be able to take what he or she believes is for the national interest. Hence, Lincoln's actions during the civil war crisis set the precedent for utilizing executive powers that goes beyond the boundary of law and constitution in respond to the national emergency.
Not only the subsequent presidents follow Lincoln’s precedent but also they continue to build on the concept of emergency power. As a matter of fact, the modern presidents are able to expand the field of using presidential emergency power beyond the context of war and domestic rebellion and also apply it into other area of the political social and economic life of the nation. For example, President Cleveland was able to use the concept of emergency power to justify the deployment of federal troops to suppress strike and to restore commerce life without any authorization statuary . With the precedent of executive power, President Thedore Roosevelt also consider about sending force to solve the dispute between the operator and coal-miner in Pennsylvania, if his other measures proves to be unsuccessful.
Clearly, the concept of executive power provides the modern president with more room and freedom for independent action and solves the fundamental dilemma of modern presidency: too much responsibilities chase too few presidential power resource. With the inheritance Lincoln’s model, the modern presidents are able to expand their power during the time of necessity and be able to exercise more effective presidential leadership.
3) Contrast the treatment of executive power in the eras of "radical" and "conservative" republicanism. To what extent do the characteristics of the new American presidency established in 1789 draw from each republican strain?
4) Clarify the distinction between "interpretation" and "demagoguery" in the political thought of Woodrow Wilson. In comparison to other public offices, why does the presidency seem so well suited to these forms of popular leadership? (Tulis)
According to Tulis, Woodrow Wilson mentions two criteria to distinguish between a true leader- interpreter and a demagogue.
First, Wilson uses the natural of the appeal to separate legitimate leadership from demagoguery.
In Wilson’s argument, the demagoguery, who motivates by the thirst of personal power, will appeal to the “inclination of the moment” so they will be able to gain dominance through manipulation of the public passion. Naturally, the demagoguery will appeal to the momentary, popular mood or transitory popular passion. On the contrary, the leader, who focuses on fostering the permanent interest of community, will appeal to the firm and durable consensus of the majority. Hence, one will be able to tell whether the leader is a true interpreter or a demagogue through judging the nature of their …show more content…
appeal.
Then, Wilson suggests to exam the character of the leader to differentiate demagogue from leader-interpreter. In particular, Wilson makes clear that the general public does not need to use complex theory to identify whether the leader is a demagogue. Instead, the general public can easily acknowledge the positive characters of a leader, such as “courage “and “ intelligence”.
- Men can scarcely be orators without the force of character.
As a result, the public will distinguish leadership from demagoguery though analyzing the characters of the leader. The reason why presidency seem to be well connected to popular leadership is because of the unique status of presidents in American politics. In the United States, presidents are the only political actors selected by “We the People” congregating as a single national community to deliberate on common national issues. In other words, president is the only political actors that literally represent the sovereign will. Meanwhile, all the other elected officials of the government can only claim to represent a fraction of “we the people. Especially in the modern presidency, president has the ability to actually by pass the congress, and direct address the public, and have people pressure their congressional representative. As a consequence, presidents are gradually viewed as the majority leader, the representative of the people, to express the popular will.
5) Jeffrey Tulis identifies two "constitutional presidencies"—an "old way" and "a new way" of exercising presidential leadership. What are the key differences that distinguish these modes of presidential leadership in Congress? In what way can Theodore Roosevelt's campaign for the Hepburn Act be said to suggest an effective "middle way" model of presidential leadership?
The key differences distinguish between the “old way” and the “new way” of presidential leadership are the changing presidential rhetorical strategies. the “old way “presidents in 19th century strictly follow these nineteen-century rhetorical practices as underlying doctrine of governance. For example, Abraham Lincoln repeatedly refused to address "policy" to assembled groups of citizens. As Tulis point out, the only exception to this “old way” rhetorical norm was Andrew Johnson, who directly appealed for public support. In contrast, the “New way” presidents engage in practices that were once were forbidden by the framers. That is, the new way presidents speak directly to the people instead of Congress relies more on public speech to persuade the genera republic, address public policy issues, and even routinely engage in partisan politics.
To illustrate, Tulis first point out that the “old way” of presidential rhetoric was in written form, rather than the spoken form. Then, the presidential rhetoric was more restrained in the nineteenth century. In particular, presidents rarely addressed policy matters to the general public. Instead, policy speeches were more intended to communicate with congress. Third, in their message, President supposed to persuade the congress through using argument and evidence.
On the contrary, Tulis the “ new way” of presidential rhetoric appear more often in oral forms.
Next, the presidents are expected to set out their own political agendas. Failure to do so would now be seen as a major deficiency and a weakness in political leadership. Then, the new presidential rhetorical strategy encourages the president to speak directly to the people instead of congress. Finally, the president rely less on reason, argument and evidence to support their persuasion. Instead, they tend to inspire and move the passion of the public to achieve their presidential agenda.
Next, Tulis portraits Theodore Roosevelt's campaign for the Hepburn Act as an effective "middle way" model of presidential leadership. In other words, Tulis is able to moderate the two conflicting norms, the 19th century reserved presidential rhetoric tradition, and the modern practice of popular rhetoric. In particular, Tulis highleights the major virtues of TR's “middle way in his campaign work for the Hepburn Act: moderate use of popular rhetoric, moderate appeals for moderate reform, and most importantly, an appeal to moderate
dispute.
6) What is the "winner-take-all" rule and what is its significance to Electoral College competition? Discuss its impact on both third-party presidential bids and the allocation of candidate effort between large states and small states.
“Winner-takes-all”
1. Definition: The candidate that wins the plurality of votes in a particular state takes all of the Electoral College votes from that state. Under the plurality rule, the candidate can win as little, as long as he or she is the person with most votes.
Today, 48/50 states allocate Election Votes by winner-take-all formula
The candidate could potentially not win a majority (say it is broken down 40-30-30, the 40 gets the votes) and still win all of the state’s votes
1
2. Significance to Electoral College competition
WTA distorts direct relationship b/w popular vote and EV
It’s not the number of popular votes you get that matters; it’s their distribution (across states). Because of W-T-A, American presidential elections reward the latter, not the former. A presidential candidate wins more popular votes than an opponent and still lose the electoral vote count
WTA and the Dead vote
Once you hit the plurality Threshold, the surplus of vote doesn’t do anything. Any vote above Plurality ratio tells you about candidate popularity, but doesn’t give you advantage in terms of electoral collage context.
3. Impacts on third parties and large states and small states.
Winner-take-all systems are bias against 3rd parties
Duverger’s Law It showed that Winner-take-all rules tend to lead to or reinforce a two-party system in electoral competition. This occurs because, voters who come from a smaller party, will soon realize that by voting for them, they are wasting their vote since a small party will not get a plurality. Voters will be unwilling to waste their vote on a third party that has no chance to win and will instead try to make their vote count by voting for Cast for major party candidate who are close to your preference, that has a better chance of winning. As a result, the Winner-take- all rules actually destroyed the third parties, since voting for third party is often seen as a “waste” of a vote.
1
Concentrated v. Dispersed Third Parties
Winner takes all rule also result in the only chance for third parties to get Electoral Votes is to concentrate in one region or state so as to win the plurality there.
Big States More Attractive
The winner- take- all rule encourage the presidential candidates to spend more time and resource in the large state then they would if the electoral vote simply distributed under the Proportional Representation. Since the big states offers more electoral votes, the Electorate candidates will find it more cost-efficient to devote their time and resource to campaign in big states. The candidates are more likely to shape the substance of their campaigns around the preferences of big states and their voters. Meanwhile, presidential candidate tends to pay less attention, and spend much less effort in small states.
7) In "The Faulty Premises of the Electoral College," George Edwards III critiques several popular justifications for the retention of the Electoral College (EC). Two of these are the claims that the EC is "attentive to and protective of states' interests," especially small state interests, and that it is "an essential bulwark of federalism." Summarize Edwards' response to these two pro-EC propositions?
8) As the election of George W. Bush in 2000 demonstrates, it is possible for the most popular presidential candidate nonetheless to lose the general election in the Electoral College. Explain why such outcomes are possible in the American system of presidential selection. Are such divergences between national vote totals and seat shares peculiar to Electoral College politics? Explain with reference to the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate.
Popular but not President
This is because the "winner take all" formula that most states on to allocate their presidential electors between presidential candidates and their state. However, the WTA method distorts the relationship b/w popular vote and electoral votes. In the United States, the Electoral College elects the next U.S president. To win the presidential election, it requires the candidates to receive a majority of Electoral votes. However, 48 out of 50 states allocate Election Votes by WTA (plurality method). Under the plurality rule, the candidate can win as little, as long as he or she is the person hits the Plurality Threshold. Then, the (plurality) winning candidate in each state can get the state’s entire electoral vote, and fills those seats with their party’s chosen elector. The other running candidates will not receive a percentage of a state EVs proportional to their popular vote percentage. However, this creates a problem that leads to the controversy outcome of 2000 presidential election. Once the candidate hit the plurality threshold, the surplus of vote becomes the “dead votes”. Any vote above Plurality ratio tells you about candidate popularity, but doesn’t give you advantage in terms of electoral collage context.
As a consequence, there are two scenarios can emerge under WTA method. To illustrate, let’s begin with the first scenario “Winning Tall”: while the presidential candidate A can get large margins of victory in some states, but in the other states by close votes and only get a few electoral votes overall. As a result, he receive overall majority of the popular vote, but still lose the election. On the contrary, there’s second scenario called Winning wide. In this second Scenario, the opponent candidate B only win the states electoral votes with the slimmest margins, but still able have wide distribution of votes across states allow him to capture the majority of the electoral votes. It’s not the Number of popular votes you get that matters; it’s their distribution (across states). Because of W-T-A, American presidential elections reward the latter, not the former, especially in a close election like the 2000 presidential election. In the case of 2000 presidential election, If Florida actually adopt the proportional vote sharing method, the 25 electoral votes had been split 13 for George Bush and 12 for Al Gore, then Al Gore will have enough electoral votes to become the president.
Today, the House of Representatives is similar to today’s electoral college in a lot of ways. First, both of the Electoral College and the House of Representatives are representative institution. Then, both of the party competes nationwide to fill a majority of seats in the House with its own representatives. Next, The party that fills a majority of seats in House controls its internal decision-making. Similar to the electoral collage, it’s still possible for one party to control the great seat share in the house without winning the popular vote for congress. For example, the GOP members may control more seats, but they did not win the popular vote in 2012.
Although the 2000 presidential elections is views as one of the strangest election in the electoral college history, where the popular vote candidate was denied the presidency, however one can certainly traces for presidents that resembled the 2000 election by look back to the elections of 1876 and 1888. Even the 2004 presidential election almost become a replay of 2000 election where a swing of 6000 votes from presidential candidate Bush to Kerry in Ohio can switch the outcome, and make Kerry the next president. (Kerry gets electoral vote from Ohio). It still would not really change popular vote outcome, but it changes the election outcome, Kerry would become the electoral vote winner.
9) Describe the impact of the McGovern-Fraser reforms on the presidential nomination system.
In the decades since the adoption of the McGovern-Fraser reforms, which transformed the presidential nomination process, – it reform the rules for selecting delegates to the Democratic National Convention. McGovern-Fraser commission reforms attempt to restore legitimacy to presidential nomination process
Before the McGovern-Fraser reform, the nomination is an insider’s game
It was those party’s leaders who select candidates, and its they who control the delegates decision at convention floor. Before the McGovern-Fraser reforms of the late 1960s, there was only one real road to a presidential nomination, and it was to gain the support of leaders of local party organizations. These leaders controlled the majority of delegates at the party nominating conventions and could often throw the support of their whole state delegations to a candidate by simply ordering it to be done.
As Lara Brown writes, throughout all previous history, party elites control the nomination process by
Source of influence:
- Control over delegate selection process
I.e., who got to be a convention delegate in the first place
- Control over how delegates voted on the convention floor
“The smoke-filled room”
Primaries: Fewer in number
13 in 1968 (versus 40 in 2012 Republican nomination race)
“Beauty Contests”
Often no delegates were selected
Non-binding presidential preference primaries
A primary gave party elites a “sense of the people” in that state
- No delegates officially selected in the primary, but give party elite an impression so see “ sense of the people” what people think about your stock of candidates.
- Not bound Where delegates were selected, often not pledged in support any particular candidate
Most strong candidates for party nomination preferred to avoid primaries!
Avoid entering into the primary process
If you think you have the support of a majority of party elites, why would you enter a state’s primary contest?
What if you win? - what do you gain? Already majority on your side
What if you lose? –
Invite pary elite to reconsider your candidacy
Primaries most useful to the “young and untested”
John Kennedy (WI, 1960) ->without much record
Or candidates with problems to overcome
John Kennedy (WV, 1960)
A Catholic – because democrat shy away from catholic candidates
Consequence: Take formal control over presidential nomination away from party elites meeting at national convention
Gives it to rank-and-file citizens voting in primary elections
Internal democratic party reform embraced by republicans as well
McGovern-Fraser Commission made the delegate selection process of the Democratic Party more democratic by 1. Increases the number of presidential primaries
2. Increases the percentage of delegates selected in primaries
3. Increase the number of delegates pledged to candidate at national convention (in first round only)
Democrats do have “superdelegates”
Elected officials and other party officials who act as unpledged/unbounded delegates to the convention
Roughly 800 (18% of all convention delegates in 2008) were those superdelegates
Nominees are no longer chosen at the party convention but Nominees are chosen during the primary campaign season.
As a result, party leaders were beginning to lose their grip in the 1950s and ‘60s: They were less able to control their delegations as a previous generation of bosses had and more constrained to pay attention to public opinion in choosing a nominee
Unintended result.
Perhaps most important consequence of McGovern-Fraser-
To compete effectively for party nomination in new environment candidates must only lodge the party elite but to start the invisible primary process early- nation wide competition
Serious contestant need to start early long before the formal primary season.
Although it move the decision for who the presidential nomination is move to the formal primary season, serious contest has to engage in a competition for resources, money, organization prior to the primary season.
Assemble own campaign organization
Raise own money to support national campaign organization, and it takes money to raise money - Prior to the reform, the most visible politicking occurred during the national conventions where afterwards it occurred during the invisible primary.
10) Describe the goals and the key elements of the campaign finance reforms of the early 1970s. Explain their impact on the dynamics of candidate campaigns for their party's presidential nomination. How have "bundling" and SuperPACs affected both the goals of reform and the dynamics of campaign finance by primary candidates?
Federal Election Campaign Act
- Federal Election Campaign Act provides structure of campaign finance.
Original limits: $1,000 individuals, $5,000 PACs
Inflation: By 2000, real value of maximum contributions $267 and $1,335 (in 1974 $)
FECA’s goal: Electoral legitimacy
- Money, undue influence, and candidate corruption
2 Federal Matching Funds
3
The federal government will match contributions dollar for dollar up to $250 per contribution
In return, candidates had to agree to campaign spending limits
Eligibility
Had to raise at least $5,000 in contributions of $250 or less in at least 20 states
Had to get at least 10% of the vote in two successive primaries, and if not, at least 20% in another primary to re-qualify
Quarterly Spending Reports to the FEC
Puts an additional pressure on candidates to raise a lot of money early on
Grants free media coverage and lends itself to the “horse race” aspect of the campaign since the one with the most money got more attention
Impact on Candidate Campaigns
1 Frontloading!
1 Pressure to raise money early on to get the most media attention increases the importance of the early primaries (since victories = money)
2 By winning early, you get free media coverage, momentum, and easy volunteer recruitment
3
2 Death of Federal Matching Funds
3
1 Candidates could also choose to forgo Federal Matching Funds so they could raise unlimited money and not be subject to spending limits
Bundling-
New sources of political influence for well-networked individuals or groups
Stitch together— “bundle”—individual campaign contributions from a large number of supporters.
Bundlers organize fundraising events
Cocktail parties, luncheons, dinners, large entertainment events Bring together large numbers of donors willing to contribute up to the individual maximum
Ex: President Barack Obama used a star-studded fundraising concert at the Nokia Theatre on October, 2012.
More than half of Obama’s 47 biggest fundraisers—those who collected at least $500,000 for his campaign—given administration jobs.
Nine appointed to presidential boards/committees.
At least 24 given posts as foreign ambassadors
Bundling opens up the reoccurring up problem, money, and access to presidential candidate. Link b/w being with a job in this administration.
- Limit to the problem where those initial law was was trying to achieve to protect elector legitimacy, undue candidate corruption, rich donor influence- While the initial goal of Original FECA laws also sets limits individual contribute to candidates in an election cycle, to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption and to limit influence the donor can have on presidential candidates once they get elected. Super PACs are independent expenditure-only organizations
They do NOT contribute directly to candidate
If they did, they subjected to the hard money rule of FECA
They communicate with the public (by endorsing or opposing candidates) what they communicate is content designed to sway your vote.
The Supreme Court has held that Super PACs:
1. Exercise constitutionally-protected, first amendment political speech rights
2. Do not pose same corruption/perception of corruption problems as direct contributions
They provide information to the public; they don’t give money to candidates
They are therefore NOT subject to FECA restrictions
“Soft money”=unregulated money .unregulated money, money that can be raised at any amount, and spend at any amount.
Citizens United vs FEC (expenditure side)
1. Struck down ban on independent expenditures for express advocacy by corporations and unions
. Free speech: Organizations can spend 1) as much as they want, 2) when they want, 3)w/o restrictions on content) on political communications with the public
Independent expenditure-only committees can raise (and spend) unrestricted amounts of money from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals for express advocacy without fear of running afoul of the law
Speech. Org vs FEC
Unlimited in size of contribution – can contribute as much as you want
Treasury funds of corporations and unions O.K.
No possibility of corruption (or perception of corruption) as with candidate contributions, because it’s a speech act.
Not surprisingly, Super PAC spending explodes in 2012
First, super PACs allow a relatively few super-rich individuals and other wealthy interests to have greatly magnified and undue influence over the results of our elections.
Second, super PACs allow the super rich and wealthy interests to buy influence over government decisions, in the event the candidate wins.
11) Explain the concept and significant features of "the invisible primary." What has its impact been on the selection of party nominees in presidential primaries. How is this process distinct from the "visible" or "formal" primary? In what way is the emergence of the invisible primary related both to the emergence of the contemporary presidential primary process and to its frontloaded nature?
1.The Invisible Primary
The invisible primary is the competition between candidates seeking the party nomination for front-runner status in the period before the actual primaries are held. During the invisible primary period, the potential candidates try to gain recognition and finance resources as much as possible an also try put together the necessary organization for campaign. It’s called “Invisible” b/c this process gets much less popular and media attention than the “visible” or formal primary season. Today, as the regular “formal primary” become increasingly frond-loaded and compressed, the invisible primary become a powerful force in the selection of party nominees for president.
Features:
To compete effectively for party nomination in new environment candidates must
Assemble own campaign organization
Raise own money to support national campaign organization, and it takes money to raise money
During the invisible primary, candidates will:
Court party leaders and activists.
Woo important interest groups in their party, e.g. Christian Right activists in the Republicans, organized labor in the Democrats.
Seek media exposure.
Travel frequently, especially to states with key early contests.
Build an organization, nationally and in the states.
Raise money.
Impacts:
1. Winner of the “invisible primary” is the frontrunner before the primaries the candidate that raises the most money and comes in first in the national polls
- As a result, Both expense and date compression (frontloading) of the presidential primary process put pressure on candidates to start raising money early
Can predict the winner of the overall nomination a lot of the times
Analysts say that most often, the winner of the invisible primary ends up with the nomination, by one of the first two scenarios:
First Scenario: quick and convincing knockout; everything works in the favor of the frontrunner and they come away with victories in the early primaries and never look back
Second Scenario: frontrunner suffers an early loss but with his superior resources, he is able to come back in later primaries when the insurgent candidate runs out of money.
Alternative/Third Scenario: invisible primary winner doesn’t win because an insurgent comes up and wins early in Iowa and New Hampshire and then uses the momentum of those wins to carry the rest of the primaries
4 Notes that the “drama” of the primaries is usually a fraud because the invisible primary winner usually gets the nomination
Visible Primary
5 Where candidates for delegates.
Invisible: compete for resources that mount the nomination
6
Difference Between the Two
7 Invisible primary is not a vote and has no significance within itself – it only influences the real primaries
8 A lot less media attention than the formal primary process
Compete for different stuff
9
10 While the invisible primary winner usually has an advantage in the real primaries, they do not win 100% of time – as can be seen in the third scenario that Ceaser and Busch describe
11
Relation to Frontloading
Front loading - The practice of scheduling state party caucuses and state primary elections earlier and earlier in advance of the general election.
In 1976, it was not until week 17 of the Primary process, 60% of delegates has been allocated b/w candidates for party nomination,
Compare 2008, the 60% threshold has been reached by week 5. (
Refers to the way in which individual states have moved up the date of their state presidential primary (or caucus) to be closer to the start of the nomination season.
You not gonna have a lot of time to replenish your resource as time moves forward so Candidate needs to have everything ready. Especially front-loading often increases the cost of elections, stretches the length of the campaign, compress the decisive time frame. ( Laya brown)
If they don’t “front-load,” they risk having their contests becoming irrelevant.
Front loading further helps those candidates who lead the public opinion pools, amass elite endorsement, receive plentiful media coverage because those front runners are able to win so many delegates so rapidly where an underdog will have no chance.
- If you have a lot primary candidates, they tend to have a fight b/w themselves even among themselves. You want to have fight internally not out in public, not given away to their general election components. If you can get the primaries over early and then heal the intra-party wounds before the general election.
Short- time frame leads Candidates want to be ready to compete, and push them to start the primary process early.
The general prediction that the invisible primary winner will win the nomination did not work out in 2004 where the invisible primary winner, Howard Dean, ended up losing to John Kerry. This was especially unique because Dean was seen as somewhat of an insurgent candidate whereas Kerry was the established one.
12) What is the "bandwagon effect" (or momentum) in the presidential primary process? What features of the primary system help account for this dynamic? How have candidates sought to minimize its impact? Your answer should include references to media coverage patterns, voter information processing, and "frontloading."
10:40-11:10
13) Compare and contrast the three systems of presidential nomination described by Richard Pious. What kinds of candidate qualities are likely to dominate in each system and with what impact on the governing process?
King’s Caucus
1800-1824
Nominations were done by members of Congress
A caucus of members of Congress essentially chose the political party nominees
A congressional caucus, will nominate the president for the U.S and
Washington insiders were given the advantage because they knew Congressional leaders best whereas governors and state officials were disadvantaged (none ever ran for President)
Created a presidency that was extremely weak and indecisive because it was dependent on Congress for survival.
In order to even gain the nomination, each candidate would promise positions to prominent congressional party leaders and friends – origin of the cabinet!
Nominating Convention
Began with Jackson in 1824
Nomination by state party organizations
Jackson: did not win the endorsement of Congress, but he won both the popular and electoral votes.
Thanks to advancements in rail and water transit, it made it easier to hold conventions and this was done regularly by 1936.
Conventions were run by party elites – therefore the person who was eventually nominated was loyal to the party and their best interests
Weakness: convention system offered an open invitation to bosses to engage in influence peddling and corruption – they essentially handpicked the President’s administration for them.
Primary System
1972-Present
Rank-and-file voters select delegates to send to national conventions in state preference votes
A politician can run for president without the backing of state party leaders by appealing directly to voters in the primaries and caucuses
This has also changed who runs for president – has to be a good campaigner and be able to raise large amounts of money necessary for primary and general elections
Also makes the candidates beholden to special interests and PACs that donate to their campaigns (as opposed to party bosses or Congress)
Media advisors prompt them to deal with issues tactically rather than substantively
Benefits career politicians with access to money – meaning the candidates usually do not have significant experience in national government
14) Using the video "True Believers" as your source, identify and briefly discuss two factors that help explain Howard Dean's rise to front-runner status in the period leading up to the start of 2004 presidential primary season.
15) What does Brendan Doherty mean by “the permanent campaign?” How does the practice of presidential fundraising illustrate this phenomenon and why has this practice increased over time? Who benefits from presidential fundraising and how does the allocation of benefits change over the course of a president’s time in office? What are the implications (pros and cons) for governance that results from the president’s reoccupation with fundraising?
16) Brendan Doherty writes that “[t]he geography of presidential fundraising does not follow the incentives of the “Electoral College.” Discuss. How do the characteristics of “strategic travel” differ when presidents are raising money and when they are pursuing votes? How do Republican and Democratic presidents differ in terms of states they neglect in the competition for votes? What do these differences reveal about the priorities of presidential travel?
17) In “The Presidency and the Nomination Process,” Lara M. Brown argues that crises of legitimacy and “candidate agency” are central variables propelling institutional change in the presidential nomination process. Explain with special attention to the congressional caucus system, the national party convention, and the modern presidential primary system. According to Brown, what are the some of the most salient candidate characteristics that mark the current system?
A complete answer will accomplish three objectives: 1) define the central concepts and elaborate their important constituent features, 2) illustrate general points with specific examples or other empirical information (where such information exists), and 3) situate your overall response within the important themes of the course (why should someone care about this question?).
1) Discuss executive prerogative and the salus populi as extra-constitutional inheritances justifying a wide berth for flexible presidential action. How have these Founding Era traditions contributed to the evolution of the modern presidency. (James article)
As the article suggest, one of the dilemmas of modern presidency is that the president …show more content…
has acquired so many governing responsibilities while have rather reserved constitutional power resources for their disposal. Together, through the notion of executive prerogative and the salus populi, it allow the modern presidents to overcome the constraints of executive power under the constitution and allow president to have more flexibility and independence in their presidential action.
According to the article, both the founding father and their well-respected British philosophers agree that president should be allow to enjoy certain degree of independent and discretionary power in particular situations. For example, both John Locke and William Blackstone agree that the presidents has the rights to exercise the executive prerogative for the public good under special circumstance. Thus, it provides power resources that the modern presidents can draw on in exercising their political autonomy. With this tradition of executive prerogative, it acknowledges that president could act outside the constitution and decide what should be done in the time of necessity. Presidents, therefore, immune from “mere” constitutional and legal restrictions on their presidential actions, when they judge it’s for the nation’s best interest to take those actions. As a result, when the future presidents exercise their executive prerogative, they have more freedom and independence in deciding what ought to be done for the nation’s best interest.
Then, the notion of salus populi (the welfare of the people is the highest law) answers the question of under what circumstance are president to be allowed to exercise this executive prerogatives. That is, this motto implies that no congressional law or constitution law should be put above the good of the community as a whole. Thus, the presidents should be allowed to exercise their executive prerogative when the goals of their actions are to preserve or to advance the welfare of the public. Specifically, the founding fathers, under the name of Publius, use the doctrine of salus populi to defend public-spirited lawlessness in their writing. In Publius’s argument, safety and happiness of the society are the objects at which all the political institutions aim at. As a result, where adherence to law clashes with the common good, the former must give away to the greater good. Hence, it implies that the president’s unlawful action can still be legitimated, if the end goals of those actions are to promote or protect the common good. As a result, they should also be immune for prosecution. Hence, the doctrine of the salus populi gives the modern president more confidence to assume risk, to trust in their own judgment and encourage them to exercise executive prerogative even when necessary.
In conclusion, one of the reasons that these traditions are important in shaping the course of the modern presidency is that it allows the modern president to overcome the inborn institutional weakness of executive power, and to have the capacity to confront with the ever-wide ranging responsibilities. Although, the framer never specifically defines what the executive power is. Yet, many presidents are still able to utilize this extra-constitutional inheritance as power resources to draw on and to justify their unilateral and unauthorized actions. For example, Thomas Jefferson draws on those traditions in his defense for the Louisiana Purchase. In addition, Frost-Nixon also reveals the same belief in those extra constitutional traditions in his interview. Specifically, he argues, “When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.” With those extra-constitutional traditions, IT lay the foundation for modern presidents to able to have broader discretion in exercising their political leadership and to have more confidence to assume risk when times required.
2.What are the president's emergency powers and in what political context was the concept first authoritatively declared. How have subsequent presidents employed and expanded upon the concept? (James article) The president’s emergency power includes the power to order blockade on the states, the power to call up military, the power to expand the size of army and navy, the power to pay for the mobilized troops out of treasury without the approval of congress, the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, the power to assign military force to resolve commercial dispute, the power to size and control communication (postal service), the power to send out federal troops to suppress strike and restore commercial life for the nation, and so on during the great national crisis.
It was under Abraham Lincoln’s presidency, the concept of emerge power was first authoritatively declared. During the civil war crisis, Lincoln was confronted with those “extreme cases” where the law became inadequate even to their own preservation, and the unilateral actions outside the boundary of the law are required for the military necessity. Yet, Lincoln was able to utilize the implication of this notion presidential emergency power and use it to justify otherwise unconstitutional executive actions. Specifically, Attorney General Edward Bates, who writes on his behest, presented Lincoln’s central concept of the emergency power. As bates point out, even though it’s the plain duty of president to preserve constitution, and execute the laws. During the national crisis, it requires presidents to put down the rebellion and unlawful resistance before fulfilling his duty to preserve the law and the constitutions. As a result, President must be able to take what he or she believes is for the national interest. Hence, Lincoln's actions during the civil war crisis set the precedent for utilizing executive powers that goes beyond the boundary of law and constitution in respond to the national emergency.
Not only the subsequent presidents follow Lincoln’s precedent but also they continue to build on the concept of emergency power. As a matter of fact, the modern presidents are able to expand the field of using presidential emergency power beyond the context of war and domestic rebellion and also apply it into other area of the political social and economic life of the nation. For example, President Cleveland was able to use the concept of emergency power to justify the deployment of federal troops to suppress strike and to restore commerce life without any authorization statuary . With the precedent of executive power, President Thedore Roosevelt also consider about sending force to solve the dispute between the operator and coal-miner in Pennsylvania, if his other measures proves to be unsuccessful.
Clearly, the concept of executive power provides the modern president with more room and freedom for independent action and solves the fundamental dilemma of modern presidency: too much responsibilities chase too few presidential power resource. With the inheritance Lincoln’s model, the modern presidents are able to expand their power during the time of necessity and be able to exercise more effective presidential leadership.
3) Contrast the treatment of executive power in the eras of "radical" and "conservative" republicanism. To what extent do the characteristics of the new American presidency established in 1789 draw from each republican strain?
4) Clarify the distinction between "interpretation" and "demagoguery" in the political thought of Woodrow Wilson. In comparison to other public offices, why does the presidency seem so well suited to these forms of popular leadership? (Tulis)
According to Tulis, Woodrow Wilson mentions two criteria to distinguish between a true leader- interpreter and a demagogue.
First, Wilson uses the natural of the appeal to separate legitimate leadership from demagoguery.
In Wilson’s argument, the demagoguery, who motivates by the thirst of personal power, will appeal to the “inclination of the moment” so they will be able to gain dominance through manipulation of the public passion. Naturally, the demagoguery will appeal to the momentary, popular mood or transitory popular passion. On the contrary, the leader, who focuses on fostering the permanent interest of community, will appeal to the firm and durable consensus of the majority. Hence, one will be able to tell whether the leader is a true interpreter or a demagogue through judging the nature of their …show more content…
appeal.
Then, Wilson suggests to exam the character of the leader to differentiate demagogue from leader-interpreter. In particular, Wilson makes clear that the general public does not need to use complex theory to identify whether the leader is a demagogue. Instead, the general public can easily acknowledge the positive characters of a leader, such as “courage “and “ intelligence”.
- Men can scarcely be orators without the force of character.
As a result, the public will distinguish leadership from demagoguery though analyzing the characters of the leader. The reason why presidency seem to be well connected to popular leadership is because of the unique status of presidents in American politics. In the United States, presidents are the only political actors selected by “We the People” congregating as a single national community to deliberate on common national issues. In other words, president is the only political actors that literally represent the sovereign will. Meanwhile, all the other elected officials of the government can only claim to represent a fraction of “we the people. Especially in the modern presidency, president has the ability to actually by pass the congress, and direct address the public, and have people pressure their congressional representative. As a consequence, presidents are gradually viewed as the majority leader, the representative of the people, to express the popular will.
5) Jeffrey Tulis identifies two "constitutional presidencies"—an "old way" and "a new way" of exercising presidential leadership. What are the key differences that distinguish these modes of presidential leadership in Congress? In what way can Theodore Roosevelt's campaign for the Hepburn Act be said to suggest an effective "middle way" model of presidential leadership?
The key differences distinguish between the “old way” and the “new way” of presidential leadership are the changing presidential rhetorical strategies. the “old way “presidents in 19th century strictly follow these nineteen-century rhetorical practices as underlying doctrine of governance. For example, Abraham Lincoln repeatedly refused to address "policy" to assembled groups of citizens. As Tulis point out, the only exception to this “old way” rhetorical norm was Andrew Johnson, who directly appealed for public support. In contrast, the “New way” presidents engage in practices that were once were forbidden by the framers. That is, the new way presidents speak directly to the people instead of Congress relies more on public speech to persuade the genera republic, address public policy issues, and even routinely engage in partisan politics.
To illustrate, Tulis first point out that the “old way” of presidential rhetoric was in written form, rather than the spoken form. Then, the presidential rhetoric was more restrained in the nineteenth century. In particular, presidents rarely addressed policy matters to the general public. Instead, policy speeches were more intended to communicate with congress. Third, in their message, President supposed to persuade the congress through using argument and evidence.
On the contrary, Tulis the “ new way” of presidential rhetoric appear more often in oral forms.
Next, the presidents are expected to set out their own political agendas. Failure to do so would now be seen as a major deficiency and a weakness in political leadership. Then, the new presidential rhetorical strategy encourages the president to speak directly to the people instead of congress. Finally, the president rely less on reason, argument and evidence to support their persuasion. Instead, they tend to inspire and move the passion of the public to achieve their presidential agenda.
Next, Tulis portraits Theodore Roosevelt's campaign for the Hepburn Act as an effective "middle way" model of presidential leadership. In other words, Tulis is able to moderate the two conflicting norms, the 19th century reserved presidential rhetoric tradition, and the modern practice of popular rhetoric. In particular, Tulis highleights the major virtues of TR's “middle way in his campaign work for the Hepburn Act: moderate use of popular rhetoric, moderate appeals for moderate reform, and most importantly, an appeal to moderate
dispute.
6) What is the "winner-take-all" rule and what is its significance to Electoral College competition? Discuss its impact on both third-party presidential bids and the allocation of candidate effort between large states and small states.
“Winner-takes-all”
1. Definition: The candidate that wins the plurality of votes in a particular state takes all of the Electoral College votes from that state. Under the plurality rule, the candidate can win as little, as long as he or she is the person with most votes.
Today, 48/50 states allocate Election Votes by winner-take-all formula
The candidate could potentially not win a majority (say it is broken down 40-30-30, the 40 gets the votes) and still win all of the state’s votes
1
2. Significance to Electoral College competition
WTA distorts direct relationship b/w popular vote and EV
It’s not the number of popular votes you get that matters; it’s their distribution (across states). Because of W-T-A, American presidential elections reward the latter, not the former. A presidential candidate wins more popular votes than an opponent and still lose the electoral vote count
WTA and the Dead vote
Once you hit the plurality Threshold, the surplus of vote doesn’t do anything. Any vote above Plurality ratio tells you about candidate popularity, but doesn’t give you advantage in terms of electoral collage context.
3. Impacts on third parties and large states and small states.
Winner-take-all systems are bias against 3rd parties
Duverger’s Law It showed that Winner-take-all rules tend to lead to or reinforce a two-party system in electoral competition. This occurs because, voters who come from a smaller party, will soon realize that by voting for them, they are wasting their vote since a small party will not get a plurality. Voters will be unwilling to waste their vote on a third party that has no chance to win and will instead try to make their vote count by voting for Cast for major party candidate who are close to your preference, that has a better chance of winning. As a result, the Winner-take- all rules actually destroyed the third parties, since voting for third party is often seen as a “waste” of a vote.
1
Concentrated v. Dispersed Third Parties
Winner takes all rule also result in the only chance for third parties to get Electoral Votes is to concentrate in one region or state so as to win the plurality there.
Big States More Attractive
The winner- take- all rule encourage the presidential candidates to spend more time and resource in the large state then they would if the electoral vote simply distributed under the Proportional Representation. Since the big states offers more electoral votes, the Electorate candidates will find it more cost-efficient to devote their time and resource to campaign in big states. The candidates are more likely to shape the substance of their campaigns around the preferences of big states and their voters. Meanwhile, presidential candidate tends to pay less attention, and spend much less effort in small states.
7) In "The Faulty Premises of the Electoral College," George Edwards III critiques several popular justifications for the retention of the Electoral College (EC). Two of these are the claims that the EC is "attentive to and protective of states' interests," especially small state interests, and that it is "an essential bulwark of federalism." Summarize Edwards' response to these two pro-EC propositions?
8) As the election of George W. Bush in 2000 demonstrates, it is possible for the most popular presidential candidate nonetheless to lose the general election in the Electoral College. Explain why such outcomes are possible in the American system of presidential selection. Are such divergences between national vote totals and seat shares peculiar to Electoral College politics? Explain with reference to the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate.
Popular but not President
This is because the "winner take all" formula that most states on to allocate their presidential electors between presidential candidates and their state. However, the WTA method distorts the relationship b/w popular vote and electoral votes. In the United States, the Electoral College elects the next U.S president. To win the presidential election, it requires the candidates to receive a majority of Electoral votes. However, 48 out of 50 states allocate Election Votes by WTA (plurality method). Under the plurality rule, the candidate can win as little, as long as he or she is the person hits the Plurality Threshold. Then, the (plurality) winning candidate in each state can get the state’s entire electoral vote, and fills those seats with their party’s chosen elector. The other running candidates will not receive a percentage of a state EVs proportional to their popular vote percentage. However, this creates a problem that leads to the controversy outcome of 2000 presidential election. Once the candidate hit the plurality threshold, the surplus of vote becomes the “dead votes”. Any vote above Plurality ratio tells you about candidate popularity, but doesn’t give you advantage in terms of electoral collage context.
As a consequence, there are two scenarios can emerge under WTA method. To illustrate, let’s begin with the first scenario “Winning Tall”: while the presidential candidate A can get large margins of victory in some states, but in the other states by close votes and only get a few electoral votes overall. As a result, he receive overall majority of the popular vote, but still lose the election. On the contrary, there’s second scenario called Winning wide. In this second Scenario, the opponent candidate B only win the states electoral votes with the slimmest margins, but still able have wide distribution of votes across states allow him to capture the majority of the electoral votes. It’s not the Number of popular votes you get that matters; it’s their distribution (across states). Because of W-T-A, American presidential elections reward the latter, not the former, especially in a close election like the 2000 presidential election. In the case of 2000 presidential election, If Florida actually adopt the proportional vote sharing method, the 25 electoral votes had been split 13 for George Bush and 12 for Al Gore, then Al Gore will have enough electoral votes to become the president.
Today, the House of Representatives is similar to today’s electoral college in a lot of ways. First, both of the Electoral College and the House of Representatives are representative institution. Then, both of the party competes nationwide to fill a majority of seats in the House with its own representatives. Next, The party that fills a majority of seats in House controls its internal decision-making. Similar to the electoral collage, it’s still possible for one party to control the great seat share in the house without winning the popular vote for congress. For example, the GOP members may control more seats, but they did not win the popular vote in 2012.
Although the 2000 presidential elections is views as one of the strangest election in the electoral college history, where the popular vote candidate was denied the presidency, however one can certainly traces for presidents that resembled the 2000 election by look back to the elections of 1876 and 1888. Even the 2004 presidential election almost become a replay of 2000 election where a swing of 6000 votes from presidential candidate Bush to Kerry in Ohio can switch the outcome, and make Kerry the next president. (Kerry gets electoral vote from Ohio). It still would not really change popular vote outcome, but it changes the election outcome, Kerry would become the electoral vote winner.
9) Describe the impact of the McGovern-Fraser reforms on the presidential nomination system.
In the decades since the adoption of the McGovern-Fraser reforms, which transformed the presidential nomination process, – it reform the rules for selecting delegates to the Democratic National Convention. McGovern-Fraser commission reforms attempt to restore legitimacy to presidential nomination process
Before the McGovern-Fraser reform, the nomination is an insider’s game
It was those party’s leaders who select candidates, and its they who control the delegates decision at convention floor. Before the McGovern-Fraser reforms of the late 1960s, there was only one real road to a presidential nomination, and it was to gain the support of leaders of local party organizations. These leaders controlled the majority of delegates at the party nominating conventions and could often throw the support of their whole state delegations to a candidate by simply ordering it to be done.
As Lara Brown writes, throughout all previous history, party elites control the nomination process by
Source of influence:
- Control over delegate selection process
I.e., who got to be a convention delegate in the first place
- Control over how delegates voted on the convention floor
“The smoke-filled room”
Primaries: Fewer in number
13 in 1968 (versus 40 in 2012 Republican nomination race)
“Beauty Contests”
Often no delegates were selected
Non-binding presidential preference primaries
A primary gave party elites a “sense of the people” in that state
- No delegates officially selected in the primary, but give party elite an impression so see “ sense of the people” what people think about your stock of candidates.
- Not bound Where delegates were selected, often not pledged in support any particular candidate
Most strong candidates for party nomination preferred to avoid primaries!
Avoid entering into the primary process
If you think you have the support of a majority of party elites, why would you enter a state’s primary contest?
What if you win? - what do you gain? Already majority on your side
What if you lose? –
Invite pary elite to reconsider your candidacy
Primaries most useful to the “young and untested”
John Kennedy (WI, 1960) ->without much record
Or candidates with problems to overcome
John Kennedy (WV, 1960)
A Catholic – because democrat shy away from catholic candidates
Consequence: Take formal control over presidential nomination away from party elites meeting at national convention
Gives it to rank-and-file citizens voting in primary elections
Internal democratic party reform embraced by republicans as well
McGovern-Fraser Commission made the delegate selection process of the Democratic Party more democratic by 1. Increases the number of presidential primaries
2. Increases the percentage of delegates selected in primaries
3. Increase the number of delegates pledged to candidate at national convention (in first round only)
Democrats do have “superdelegates”
Elected officials and other party officials who act as unpledged/unbounded delegates to the convention
Roughly 800 (18% of all convention delegates in 2008) were those superdelegates
Nominees are no longer chosen at the party convention but Nominees are chosen during the primary campaign season.
As a result, party leaders were beginning to lose their grip in the 1950s and ‘60s: They were less able to control their delegations as a previous generation of bosses had and more constrained to pay attention to public opinion in choosing a nominee
Unintended result.
Perhaps most important consequence of McGovern-Fraser-
To compete effectively for party nomination in new environment candidates must only lodge the party elite but to start the invisible primary process early- nation wide competition
Serious contestant need to start early long before the formal primary season.
Although it move the decision for who the presidential nomination is move to the formal primary season, serious contest has to engage in a competition for resources, money, organization prior to the primary season.
Assemble own campaign organization
Raise own money to support national campaign organization, and it takes money to raise money - Prior to the reform, the most visible politicking occurred during the national conventions where afterwards it occurred during the invisible primary.
10) Describe the goals and the key elements of the campaign finance reforms of the early 1970s. Explain their impact on the dynamics of candidate campaigns for their party's presidential nomination. How have "bundling" and SuperPACs affected both the goals of reform and the dynamics of campaign finance by primary candidates?
Federal Election Campaign Act
- Federal Election Campaign Act provides structure of campaign finance.
Original limits: $1,000 individuals, $5,000 PACs
Inflation: By 2000, real value of maximum contributions $267 and $1,335 (in 1974 $)
FECA’s goal: Electoral legitimacy
- Money, undue influence, and candidate corruption
2 Federal Matching Funds
3
The federal government will match contributions dollar for dollar up to $250 per contribution
In return, candidates had to agree to campaign spending limits
Eligibility
Had to raise at least $5,000 in contributions of $250 or less in at least 20 states
Had to get at least 10% of the vote in two successive primaries, and if not, at least 20% in another primary to re-qualify
Quarterly Spending Reports to the FEC
Puts an additional pressure on candidates to raise a lot of money early on
Grants free media coverage and lends itself to the “horse race” aspect of the campaign since the one with the most money got more attention
Impact on Candidate Campaigns
1 Frontloading!
1 Pressure to raise money early on to get the most media attention increases the importance of the early primaries (since victories = money)
2 By winning early, you get free media coverage, momentum, and easy volunteer recruitment
3
2 Death of Federal Matching Funds
3
1 Candidates could also choose to forgo Federal Matching Funds so they could raise unlimited money and not be subject to spending limits
Bundling-
New sources of political influence for well-networked individuals or groups
Stitch together— “bundle”—individual campaign contributions from a large number of supporters.
Bundlers organize fundraising events
Cocktail parties, luncheons, dinners, large entertainment events Bring together large numbers of donors willing to contribute up to the individual maximum
Ex: President Barack Obama used a star-studded fundraising concert at the Nokia Theatre on October, 2012.
More than half of Obama’s 47 biggest fundraisers—those who collected at least $500,000 for his campaign—given administration jobs.
Nine appointed to presidential boards/committees.
At least 24 given posts as foreign ambassadors
Bundling opens up the reoccurring up problem, money, and access to presidential candidate. Link b/w being with a job in this administration.
- Limit to the problem where those initial law was was trying to achieve to protect elector legitimacy, undue candidate corruption, rich donor influence- While the initial goal of Original FECA laws also sets limits individual contribute to candidates in an election cycle, to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption and to limit influence the donor can have on presidential candidates once they get elected. Super PACs are independent expenditure-only organizations
They do NOT contribute directly to candidate
If they did, they subjected to the hard money rule of FECA
They communicate with the public (by endorsing or opposing candidates) what they communicate is content designed to sway your vote.
The Supreme Court has held that Super PACs:
1. Exercise constitutionally-protected, first amendment political speech rights
2. Do not pose same corruption/perception of corruption problems as direct contributions
They provide information to the public; they don’t give money to candidates
They are therefore NOT subject to FECA restrictions
“Soft money”=unregulated money .unregulated money, money that can be raised at any amount, and spend at any amount.
Citizens United vs FEC (expenditure side)
1. Struck down ban on independent expenditures for express advocacy by corporations and unions
. Free speech: Organizations can spend 1) as much as they want, 2) when they want, 3)w/o restrictions on content) on political communications with the public
Independent expenditure-only committees can raise (and spend) unrestricted amounts of money from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals for express advocacy without fear of running afoul of the law
Speech. Org vs FEC
Unlimited in size of contribution – can contribute as much as you want
Treasury funds of corporations and unions O.K.
No possibility of corruption (or perception of corruption) as with candidate contributions, because it’s a speech act.
Not surprisingly, Super PAC spending explodes in 2012
First, super PACs allow a relatively few super-rich individuals and other wealthy interests to have greatly magnified and undue influence over the results of our elections.
Second, super PACs allow the super rich and wealthy interests to buy influence over government decisions, in the event the candidate wins.
11) Explain the concept and significant features of "the invisible primary." What has its impact been on the selection of party nominees in presidential primaries. How is this process distinct from the "visible" or "formal" primary? In what way is the emergence of the invisible primary related both to the emergence of the contemporary presidential primary process and to its frontloaded nature?
1.The Invisible Primary
The invisible primary is the competition between candidates seeking the party nomination for front-runner status in the period before the actual primaries are held. During the invisible primary period, the potential candidates try to gain recognition and finance resources as much as possible an also try put together the necessary organization for campaign. It’s called “Invisible” b/c this process gets much less popular and media attention than the “visible” or formal primary season. Today, as the regular “formal primary” become increasingly frond-loaded and compressed, the invisible primary become a powerful force in the selection of party nominees for president.
Features:
To compete effectively for party nomination in new environment candidates must
Assemble own campaign organization
Raise own money to support national campaign organization, and it takes money to raise money
During the invisible primary, candidates will:
Court party leaders and activists.
Woo important interest groups in their party, e.g. Christian Right activists in the Republicans, organized labor in the Democrats.
Seek media exposure.
Travel frequently, especially to states with key early contests.
Build an organization, nationally and in the states.
Raise money.
Impacts:
1. Winner of the “invisible primary” is the frontrunner before the primaries the candidate that raises the most money and comes in first in the national polls
- As a result, Both expense and date compression (frontloading) of the presidential primary process put pressure on candidates to start raising money early
Can predict the winner of the overall nomination a lot of the times
Analysts say that most often, the winner of the invisible primary ends up with the nomination, by one of the first two scenarios:
First Scenario: quick and convincing knockout; everything works in the favor of the frontrunner and they come away with victories in the early primaries and never look back
Second Scenario: frontrunner suffers an early loss but with his superior resources, he is able to come back in later primaries when the insurgent candidate runs out of money.
Alternative/Third Scenario: invisible primary winner doesn’t win because an insurgent comes up and wins early in Iowa and New Hampshire and then uses the momentum of those wins to carry the rest of the primaries
4 Notes that the “drama” of the primaries is usually a fraud because the invisible primary winner usually gets the nomination
Visible Primary
5 Where candidates for delegates.
Invisible: compete for resources that mount the nomination
6
Difference Between the Two
7 Invisible primary is not a vote and has no significance within itself – it only influences the real primaries
8 A lot less media attention than the formal primary process
Compete for different stuff
9
10 While the invisible primary winner usually has an advantage in the real primaries, they do not win 100% of time – as can be seen in the third scenario that Ceaser and Busch describe
11
Relation to Frontloading
Front loading - The practice of scheduling state party caucuses and state primary elections earlier and earlier in advance of the general election.
In 1976, it was not until week 17 of the Primary process, 60% of delegates has been allocated b/w candidates for party nomination,
Compare 2008, the 60% threshold has been reached by week 5. (
Refers to the way in which individual states have moved up the date of their state presidential primary (or caucus) to be closer to the start of the nomination season.
You not gonna have a lot of time to replenish your resource as time moves forward so Candidate needs to have everything ready. Especially front-loading often increases the cost of elections, stretches the length of the campaign, compress the decisive time frame. ( Laya brown)
If they don’t “front-load,” they risk having their contests becoming irrelevant.
Front loading further helps those candidates who lead the public opinion pools, amass elite endorsement, receive plentiful media coverage because those front runners are able to win so many delegates so rapidly where an underdog will have no chance.
- If you have a lot primary candidates, they tend to have a fight b/w themselves even among themselves. You want to have fight internally not out in public, not given away to their general election components. If you can get the primaries over early and then heal the intra-party wounds before the general election.
Short- time frame leads Candidates want to be ready to compete, and push them to start the primary process early.
The general prediction that the invisible primary winner will win the nomination did not work out in 2004 where the invisible primary winner, Howard Dean, ended up losing to John Kerry. This was especially unique because Dean was seen as somewhat of an insurgent candidate whereas Kerry was the established one.
12) What is the "bandwagon effect" (or momentum) in the presidential primary process? What features of the primary system help account for this dynamic? How have candidates sought to minimize its impact? Your answer should include references to media coverage patterns, voter information processing, and "frontloading."
10:40-11:10
13) Compare and contrast the three systems of presidential nomination described by Richard Pious. What kinds of candidate qualities are likely to dominate in each system and with what impact on the governing process?
King’s Caucus
1800-1824
Nominations were done by members of Congress
A caucus of members of Congress essentially chose the political party nominees
A congressional caucus, will nominate the president for the U.S and
Washington insiders were given the advantage because they knew Congressional leaders best whereas governors and state officials were disadvantaged (none ever ran for President)
Created a presidency that was extremely weak and indecisive because it was dependent on Congress for survival.
In order to even gain the nomination, each candidate would promise positions to prominent congressional party leaders and friends – origin of the cabinet!
Nominating Convention
Began with Jackson in 1824
Nomination by state party organizations
Jackson: did not win the endorsement of Congress, but he won both the popular and electoral votes.
Thanks to advancements in rail and water transit, it made it easier to hold conventions and this was done regularly by 1936.
Conventions were run by party elites – therefore the person who was eventually nominated was loyal to the party and their best interests
Weakness: convention system offered an open invitation to bosses to engage in influence peddling and corruption – they essentially handpicked the President’s administration for them.
Primary System
1972-Present
Rank-and-file voters select delegates to send to national conventions in state preference votes
A politician can run for president without the backing of state party leaders by appealing directly to voters in the primaries and caucuses
This has also changed who runs for president – has to be a good campaigner and be able to raise large amounts of money necessary for primary and general elections
Also makes the candidates beholden to special interests and PACs that donate to their campaigns (as opposed to party bosses or Congress)
Media advisors prompt them to deal with issues tactically rather than substantively
Benefits career politicians with access to money – meaning the candidates usually do not have significant experience in national government
14) Using the video "True Believers" as your source, identify and briefly discuss two factors that help explain Howard Dean's rise to front-runner status in the period leading up to the start of 2004 presidential primary season.
15) What does Brendan Doherty mean by “the permanent campaign?” How does the practice of presidential fundraising illustrate this phenomenon and why has this practice increased over time? Who benefits from presidential fundraising and how does the allocation of benefits change over the course of a president’s time in office? What are the implications (pros and cons) for governance that results from the president’s reoccupation with fundraising?
16) Brendan Doherty writes that “[t]he geography of presidential fundraising does not follow the incentives of the “Electoral College.” Discuss. How do the characteristics of “strategic travel” differ when presidents are raising money and when they are pursuing votes? How do Republican and Democratic presidents differ in terms of states they neglect in the competition for votes? What do these differences reveal about the priorities of presidential travel?
17) In “The Presidency and the Nomination Process,” Lara M. Brown argues that crises of legitimacy and “candidate agency” are central variables propelling institutional change in the presidential nomination process. Explain with special attention to the congressional caucus system, the national party convention, and the modern presidential primary system. According to Brown, what are the some of the most salient candidate characteristics that mark the current system?