Political Parties, Interest Groups, and the Structure of Elections

Political Parties, Interest Groups, and the Structure of Elections

The Meaning of Party Political Party:
A “team of men [and women] seeking to control the governing apparatus by gaining office in a duly constituted election” Parties can be thought of in three parts: Party in the electorate Party as an organization Party in government

The Meaning of Party Tasks of the Parties
Linkage Institution: the channels through which people’s concerns become political issues on the government’s policy agenda Parties Pick Candidates Parties Run Campaigns Parties Give Cues to Voters Parties Articulate Policies Parties Coordinate Policymaking

The Meaning of Party Parties, Voters, and Policy: Rational Choice Theory and The Downs Model Rational-choice theory Assumes that individuals act in their own best interest, weighing the costs and benefits of possible alternatives, thus parties must give voters choices they can support. Downs Model Voters try and maximize chances that policies they favor are adopted by government, and since parties want to win elections, they pander to the voters in order to win their favor.

The Party in the Electorate
Party image A voter’s perception of what Republicans or Democrats stand for Party identification A citizen’s self-proclaimed preference for one party or the other Republican, Democrat, or Independent

Ticket-splitting Voting with one party for one office and with another party for other offices Independents are most likely to split tickets. No state or race is completely safe due to split tickets.

The Party Organization: From the Grass Roots to Washington
These are the people that work for the party. Local Parties Party Machines: a type of political party organization that relies heavily on material inducements to win votes and to govern Patronage: a job, promotion or contract given for political reasons rather than merit; used by party machines Due to progressive reforms, urban party organizations are generally weak. Revitalization of party organization at county level

The 50 State Party Systems Closed primaries: Only people who have registered with the party can vote for that party’s candidates. Open primaries: Voters decide on Election Day whether they want to vote in the Democrat or Republican primary. Blanket primaries: Voters are presented with a list of candidates from all parties. State parties are better organized in terms of headquarters and budgets than they used to be.

The National Party Organizations National Convention: the meeting of party delegates every four years to choose a presidential ticket and the party’s platform National Committee: one of the institutions that keeps the party operating between conventions National Chairperson: responsible for day- to-day activities of the party

The Party in Government: Promises and Policy
Party in government consists of those party members actually elected to governmental positions Which party controls government has policy consequences; they set the political agenda. Coalition: a group of individuals with a common interest upon which every political party depends Parties and politicians generally act on their campaign promises.

The Party in Government: Promises and Policy

Party Eras in American History
Historical periods in which a majority of votes cling to the party in power Critical Election An electoral “earthquake” where new issues and new coalitions emerge Party Realignment The displacement of the majority party by the minority party, usually during a critical election

: The First Party Systems Federalists/Anti-Federalists: first political parties; Anti-Federalists became known also as the Democratic-Republicans. After the election of 1800 and the court packing scandal, the Federalists slowly began to lose power. The Democratic-Republicans and later the Democrats dominated until the 1860’s. The “Era of Good Feelings” ended in 1824; the elitism of the Federalists crippled them, and their refusal to support the War of 1812 was a death blow to their political fortunes. The Federalist party evaporated, but then it reformed under a new name after the Democratic-Republican party fractured under Andrew Jackson in 1829. : Jackson renamed his supporters as the Democratic Party, and his opponents, disgruntled former Democratic-Republicans and ex Federalists, banded together and became the Whig party. The Whigs formed mainly to oppose Jacksonian Democrats, and didn’t really have any platform to begin with and soon died out. In the 1850s, however, a new 2nd party rose to dominance.

: After the passage of the Compromise of and really escalating after the passage of the Kansas- Nebraska Act, the newly formed Republican party rose as the antislavery party, replacing the Whigs as the 2nd major party. Once the Civil war was won, the Republicans dominated American politics until the Great Depression. Beginning with the 1892 election, populism and progressivism began to take over the Democratic platform, and the Republicans began to focus on policies that helped the wealthy industrialists. A shift was taking place, and soon the Republican party of Lincoln was no more. Blacks began to leave the party in the early 20th century when they realized that the party no longer supported their interests. With the stock market crash and the Great Depression blamed on the Republicans and their economic policies favoring the rich, the post Civil War dominance of the Republicans was over.

: New Deal Coalition: forged by the Democrats, this consisted of urban working poor, ethnic groups, Catholics, Jews, and Southerners. The Democrats were credited with saving the United States not only from the Great Depression, but also from the evils of Nazism and the fascist plague that had been growing in Europe. The economic growth and burgeoning middle class of the post war 1950s and 1960s cemented the Democrats as the dominant party, but the Republicans were holding their own. Dwight Eisenhower was elected President in the 1950s, and Lyndon Johnson’s marriage to the politically devastating Vietnam War crushed the Democrats in the mid 1960s. 1968-present: Beginning with Nixon’s election in ‘68, a steady shift away from the liberalism of the New Deal has taken hold in America, and we have all, Democrats included, moved farther to the right of where we once were as a political culture. Today’s liberals (Obama, Clinton) would have been conservatives in the 1960s, and yesterday’s conservatives (Nixon and Reagan) would feel more at home today in the Democratic party.

1968-Present: The past 50 years has also seen as an era of divided government. While we have shifted right politically, neither major party has truly dominated. Divided government: one party controls Congress and the other controls White House Divided government due in part to: Party de-alignment: disengagement of people from parties as evidenced by shrinking party identification Party neutrality: people are indifferent towards the two parties; many more people today identify as Independent, mainly out of mistrust (and disgust) with the major parties.

Third Parties: Their Impact on American Politics
Third parties: electoral contenders offered from parties other than the two primary parties; rarely win elections, especially unsuccessful in statewide and national campaigns. Third parties are important, however. They: Represent “safety valves” for popular discontent. Bring new groups and ideas into politics, many times forcing one or both of the major parties to adopt some of their ideas into their platforms. The two-party system is less democratic, it discourages non-centrist views, and it contributes to political ambiguity, although that has faded recently.

Third Parties: Their Impact on American Politics
Multiparty Systems in Other Countries In America, we have a winner-take-all system, meaning that legislative seats are awarded only to first place finishers, which favors a few strong parties. Proportional Representation: some countries award legislative seats based on the number of votes received by each party - more votes = more seats. Coalition Government: this occurs when two or more parties join together to form a super-party called a coalition, which usually gives them enough votes to form a majority in a national legislature.

Understanding Political Parties
Democracy and Responsible Party Government Responsible Party Model 1. Parties have separate and distinct comprehensive programs featuring candidates who are committed to their party’s program. 2. The majority party must carry out its program or face the next election at a huge disadvantage. 3. The majority party must accept responsibility for what happens while they are in power. American political parties mostly fall far short of these conditions, which isn’t a good sign for the future of American governance. No mechanism for party discipline

The McGovern–Fraser Commission was a commission created in response to the tumultuous 1968 Democratic National Convention. Soon after Richard Nixon's electoral victory, the 28-member commission was selected by Senator Fred R. Harris, who was then the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Senator George McGovern and later Representative Donald M. Fraser chaired the commission, which is how the commission received its name. The events at and around the Democratic national convention of 1968 left the party in disarray, unable to support its nominee and divided over matters of both substance and procedure. The demonstrations and violent police responses outside the convention hall as well as the convention itself took a toll on the party. Eugene McCarthy, who could claim to have demonstrated his appeal to voters by winning many of the primaries didn’t seem to matter, as the Democrats nominated Hubert Humphrey, who had not entered a single primary, meaning that all of the people voting in the primaries had done so for no apparent reason. The party leadership ignored the electorate and chose Humphrey.

This disgust led Democrats to improve the conditions of how nominees were selected, whereby the party leadership would not be able to ever do again what they did in The national convention approved the establishment of a party committee to examine current rules and make recommendations designed to broaden participation and enable better representation for minorities and others who were underrepresented. The Commission was mainly concerned with developing rules that would govern the 1972 Democratic convention and conventions after as well. The Commission’s report attempted to bring uniformity to the delegate selection process and to give greater influence to women, blacks and young people (defined as those under 30). It established open procedures and affirmative action guidelines for selecting delegates, and made it so that all delegate selection procedures were required to be open; party leaders could no longer handpick the convention delegates in secret.

Is the concept of political parties obsolete? Is the Party Over? Political parties are no longer the main source of information for voters; that would be the mass media these days. Parties still play an important if somewhat diminished role in American politics and will continue to do so at least in the near future. State and national party organizations have become more visible and active Nearly half of all citizens still identify with a party

QUICK Summary Parties are a pervasive linkage institution in American politics. Parties exists in three arenas, the electorate, the government, and as political organizations. America has a two-party system, but the possibility of this system dissolving is greater today than ever before. The decentralized nature of political parties makes major changes difficult and encourages individualism in politics, which represents a threat to the future of parties in America.

Nominations, Campaigns, and elections

The Nomination Game Nomination
The official endorsement of a candidate for office by a political party Generally, success requires momentum, and lots of money and media attention. Deciding to Run Campaigns, especially national ones, are more physically and emotionally taxing than ever, nowadays lasting as long as two years in some cases, and costing hundreds of millions of dollars. American campaigns are much longer than in other nations. Barack Obama announced his run for president in January 2007, while the election wasn’t until Nov. of 2008. Other nations have short campaigns, less than two months. Campaign Strategy The master game plan candidates lay out to guide their electoral campaign

The Nomination Game Competing for Delegates
Nomination game is an elimination contest; last person standing wins. The goal is to win a majority of delegates’ support at the national party convention, which is the supreme power within each of the parties. The convention meets every four years to nominate the party’s presidential and vice-presidential candidates, but are generally considered a formality today. The Caucus Road Caucus: meetings of state party leaders for selecting delegates to the national convention Organized like a pyramid from local precincts to the state’s convention A handful of states use a caucus—open to all voters who are registered with a party The Iowa caucus is first and most important.

The Nomination Game Competing for Delegates The Primary Road
Primary: elections in which voters in a state vote for a nominee (or for delegates pledged to the nominee) Began at turn of 20th century by progressive reformers The McGovern-Fraser Commission led to selection of delegates through primary elections; most delegates are chosen through primaries. Superdelegates: democratic leaders who automatically get a delegate slot Frontloading is the tendency of states to hold primaries early to capitalize on media attention. New Hampshire is first. Generally primaries serve as elimination contests.

The Nomination Game Competing for Delegates
Evaluating the Primary and Caucus System Too much attention to early ones, prominent politicians don’t usually run early, money plays too big a role, participation in primaries and caucuses is low and unrepresentative (20 percent vote in primaries is the norm), and the system gives too much power to the media. Does, however, place the choosing of the candidates in the hands of the people.

The Nomination Game The Convention Send-off
National conventions once provided great drama, but now are a formality, which means less TV time. They are a significant rallying point for parties, however. Keynote speaker on first day of Convention starts momentum. Party platform, or statement of a party’s goals and policies for next four years, is debated on the second day of the Convention. Formal nomination of president and vice-president candidates happen on the third and fourth days.

The Nomination Game

The Campaign Game The High-Tech Media Campaign
Direct mail and are used to generate support and money for the candidate. Get media attention through an ad budget and “free” coverage; emphasis is on “marketing” a candidate. News stories focus more on the “horse race” than substantive policy issues. Organizing the Campaign Get a campaign manager, a fund-raiser, and campaign counsel. Hire media and campaign consultants, assemble a staff and plan logistics, get a research staff, policy advisors, and pollsters. Get a good press secretary. Establish a website.

The Campaign Game

Money and Campaigning The Maze of Campaign Finance Reforms
Federal Election Campaign Act (1974) Created the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to administer campaign finance laws for federal elections Created the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Provided partial public financing for presidential primaries. Matching funds: Contributions of up to $250 are matched for candidates who meet conditions, such as limiting spending. Provided full public financing for major party candidates in the general election Required full disclosure and limited contributions

Money and Campaigning Soft Money: political contributions with no contribution limits that are earmarked for party-building expenses or party advertising; cannot be given to candidates or be used directly for campaigning for party nominees. Hard money is directly contributed to a campaign or party. This is money earmarked by a party to promote party candidates, or by a candidate to promote themselves. The McCain-Feingold Act (2002) banned soft money, increased amount of individual contributions, and limited “issue advertisements.” The Citizen’s United Supreme Court ruling overruled the McCain-Feingold Act. 527s: independent groups that seek to influence political process but are not subject to contribution restrictions because they do not directly seek election of particular candidates; famous/infamous examples include Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a 527 that helped to defeat John Kerry’s presidential bid in 2004 by demeaning his Vietnam War service, and Citizens for a Stronger America, a group that helped bury John McCain in 2008 by casting him as an ignorant buffoon.

Money and Campaigning The Proliferation of PACs
Political Action Committees (PACs): created by law in 1974 to allow corporations, labor unions and other interest groups to donate money to campaigns; PACs are registered with and monitored by the FEC. Discussed in detail on slide 47. Today there are somewhere around 5000 PACs in America. PACs contributed over $400 million to congressional candidates in 2012. PACs donate to candidates who support their issue. PACs do not “buy” candidates, but give to candidates who support them in the first place.

Money and Campaigning

Money and Campaigning Are Campaigns Too Expensive?
Fundraising takes a lot of time, but most politicians are professionals and have a well oiled machine backing them to do the dirty work. The amount of money, influence, and networking necessary to make a national, or even a statewide run for office eliminates most people from even considering it.. Incumbents do worse when they spend more money because this means they have to spend a lot in order to defeat quality challengers. The doctrine of sufficiency suggests that candidates need just “enough” money to win. More doesn’t necessarily translate to better.

The Impact of Campaigns
Campaigns have three effects on voters: Reinforcement Activation Conversion Several factors weaken campaigns’ impact on voters: Selective perception/confirmation bias: people pay most attention to things they agree with and ignore ideas/issues that oppose their pre-existing belief system. Party identification still heavily influences voting behavior Incumbents begin with sizeable advantage, it’s up to them to maintain it (or the challenger to diminish it).

Understanding Nominations and Campaigns
Are Nominations and Campaigns Too Democratic? Campaigns are open to almost everyone; however, campaigns consume so much time and money that in reality it’s much more closed than it appears on paper. Campaigns promote individualism in American politics, yet by the time the general election comes around, most candidates “move to the middle” in order to attract as many moderates and independents as possible. Do Big Campaigns Lead to an Increased Breadth and Scope of Government? Candidates make numerous promises, especially to state and local interests. Most truly try to make good, but usually fall short. One major promise many make, especially Republicans, is to cut the size of the government. That’s really hard to do.

Interest Groups

The Role of Interest Groups
An organization of people with shared policy goals that will enter the policy making process at several levels to try to achieve those goals Interest groups pursue their goals in many arenas. Interest groups are distinct from parties Political parties fight election battles; interest groups do not field candidates for office but may choose sides. Interest groups tend to be policy specialists; political parties are policy generalists. Some interest groups are single issue groups whereas others may have interests that are more diverse.

Theories of Interest Group Politics
Pluralist Theory Sees politics as being mainly a competition among ideological groups, each one pressing for its own preferred policies. Since they all can’t always get their way, this leads to compromise amongst the competing groups. Seen as inherently democratic. Elite Theory Sees societies as being divided along class lines with the upper- class elites in positions of power, regardless of the formalities of governmental organization and alleged transparency. Hyperpluralist Theory Hyperpluralism asserts that when a populace becomes too diverse in its make up (i.e. race and ethnicity, beliefs and practices, etc.) this leads to many competing interests and groups, so much so that it's no longer governable as a collective. The fundamental argument of hyperpluralism is that when a government attempts to represent or meet the needs of too many different groups, they inevitably end up favoring certain groups over others, which disrupts democracy.

Theories of Interest Group Politics: pLURALISM
Pluralism and Group Theory Interest groups provide a key link between the people and the government. Interest groups compete and therefore it’s unlikely that any one group will become too dominant. Groups play by the “rules of the game.” Lobbying is open to all; it comes down to which groups have the most money to spend on the best lobbyists, campaign financing, and “toys” to spread around to various policy makers.

Theories of Interest Group Politics: ELITE THEORY
Elites and the Denial of Pluralism Real power is held by the few; the largest corporations (and the wealthiest shareholders in those corporations) hold the most power over public policy. Furthermore, they are protected by the government because of how much money they contribute to the parties and candidates. Other groups may win some minor policy battles, but elites prevail when it comes to big policy decisions. Lobbying is a problem because it benefits the few at the expense of the many, the few being the elites. Elites’ power is fortified by a system of interlocking directorates of these corporations and other institutions, including governmental institutions. For example, in 2000 Florida governor Jeb Bush’s brother George was President, and brother Neil was the Chairman of the Board of Directors for Pearson, Inc., a test making company. George created a national education plan heavy on high stakes testing called “No Child Left Behind” while Jeb made sweeping changes to education, incorporating the FCAT, the first high stakes test in America. Guess who was contracted to make those exams? Neil’s company obviously, and Jeb later joined Neil on the Board of Directors after his time as governor ended. Read the next slide and you will be shocked…

The architect of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was President Bush’s first senior education advisor, Sandy Kress. Kress turned the program, which has consistently proven disastrous in the realm of education, into a huge success in the realm of corporate profiteering. After ushering NCLB through the US House of Representatives in 2001 with no public hearings, Kress went from lawmaker to lobbyist, tapping into billions of dollars in federal funds for private investors well connected to the Bush administration. A law that once promised equal access to public education to millions of American children now instead promised billions of dollars in profits to corporate clients through dubious processes of testing and assessment and “supplemental educational services.” NCLB created a “high stakes testing” system through which the private sector could siphon state and federal education funds. The result has been windfall corporate profit. What was once a cottage industry has become a corporate giant. “Billions of dollars are being spent,” says Jack Jennings, director of the Center on Education Policy, “and nobody actually knows what’s happening.” The wedding of big business and education benefits not only the interests of the Business Roundtable, a consortium of over 300 CEOs, but countless Bush family loyalists. Kress, the chief architect of NCLB; Harold McGraw III, the McGraw-Hill textbook publisher; Bill Bennett, former Reagan education secretary; and Neil Bush, the president’s youngest brother, have all cashed in on the Roundtable’s successful national implementation of “outcome-based education.” NCLB’s mandated system of state standards, state tests, and school sanctions has together transformed our public school system into a for-profit feeding frenzy. Kress began working with then-Governor Bush in Texas in 1999, and was able to get bipartisan support behind a compassionate sounding marketing promise to “leave no child behind” through the adoption of high state standards measuring school performance. Signed into law in early 2002, NCLB dramatically extended the federal role in public education, mandating annual testing of children in Grades 3 to 8, providing tutoring for children in persistently failing schools, and setting a twelve-year timetable for closing chronic gaps in student achievement. Having then crafted the legislation, Kress transitioned from public servant to corporate lobbyist, guiding private sector clients, such as private school owners, private and charter school management companies, testing and textbook manufacturing companies, to the real money wealth of federal and state funding. By 2005 he had made upwards of $4 million from his lobbying contracts alone.

Theories of Interest Group Politics: Hyperpluralism
Subgovernments Networks of groups that exercise a great deal of control over specific policy areas. Consist of interest groups, government agencies, and congressional committees that handle particular policies Also known as iron triangles

In the United States political arena, the iron triangle comprises the policymaking relationship between and amongst the congressional members and committees, the federal bureaucracy, and interest groups. In the United States, power is exercised in the Congress, and particularly in congressional committees and subcommittees. By aligning itself with selected constituencies, an agency or interest group may be able to affect policy outcomes directly in these committees and subcommittees. This is where an iron triangle may manifest itself. The picture in the previous slide displays the concept. At one corner of the triangle are interest groups who influence Congressional votes in their favor and can sufficiently influence the reelection of a member of Congress in return for supporting their programs. At another corner sit members of Congress who also seek to align themselves with a constituency for political and electoral support. These congressional members support legislation that advances the interest group's agenda. Occupying the third corner of the triangle are bureaucrats, who are often pressured by the same powerful interest groups their agency is designated to regulate. The result is a three-way, stable alliance that is sometimes called a subgovernment because of its durability, impregnability, and power to determine policy.

An iron triangle can result in the passing of very narrow, pork- barrel policies that benefit a small segment of the population. The interests of the agency's constituency (the interest groups) are met, while the needs of consumers (in this case, the general public) are ignored. In this way public administration results in benefiting a small segment of the public which is problematic for the popular concept of democracy if the general welfare of all citizens is sacrificed for very specific interests. The hyperpluralist critique is that groups have become too powerful as the government tries to appease every interest. The sheer number of subgovernments AKA iron triangles aggravate the process, as government attempts to please every group which results in contradictory policies and an overall negative effect on the people.

Hyperpluralism in American Politics
American society might be explained by hyperpluralism theory. Voter turnout has declined since the 1960s, implying that the pluralist theory may not apply in the American case, at least not anymore or to the same extent it once did. The elite theory may also have no influence in American politics because there are no distinct elitist classes that can be seen wielding any unified political power. The rise of Barack Obama to the Presidency may be the best example to show that there are no united elitist groups that can on their own support anyone’s candidacy strongly, as Obama’s rise came from what can be deemed as “out of nowhere” in the hierarchy of society; he wasn’t rich, he wasn’t especially well connected, and he was a black man with a Muslim name. He had every obstacle in his way and yet he won two terms. Marxist elitist socioeconomic class theory is also not applicable to the American case because, there is no class that currently seems to wield any major power in the nation, at least not in terms of being united in any meaningful way.

Hyperpluralism in American Politics
The American hyperpluralist situation might also be shown by the vast rise in the number of interest groups over the past 50 years. Between these groups have increased from about 6,000 to over 30,000 today. This reflects the kind of influence that they have on politics and may also explain the gridlock that has affected our government for nearly 20 years. The current debates in Congress have a lot influence from these groups, many of whom oppose one another. This can be seen in examples such as debates on guns, privatization of education and healthcare policies. These groups pay loads of cash to parties and candidates and expect to see results from those investments. This puts great pressure on lawmakers to please all of the groups that funded their rise to power, and many times they find themselves either unable to do so or are forced to support legislation that conflicts with what’s best for the people or conflicts with other legislation that same lawmaker supported or other lawmakers support. It’s a fairly easy logical step to determine that governments such as this are not only ineffective, but dangerous to the people as it doesn’t serve them or their best interests, but instead serves the interest groups and the iron triangles.

What Makes an Interest Group Successful?

The Surprising Ineffectiveness of Large Groups The Free-Rider Problem Some people don’t join interest groups because they benefit from the group’s activities without officially joining (teacher unions, for example). Bigger the group, larger the problem re: being very difficult to organize/mobilize/manage. Olson’s law of large groups: “The larger the group, the further it will fall short of providing an optimal amount of collective good.” Olson’s law can be overcome by providing selective benefits; goods/services that a group can restrict to those who pay their annual dues. Alas, that doesn’t occur often.

Small groups are better organized and more focused on the group’s goals. Multinational corporations are successful because there are few of them and, therefore, have an easier time organizing for political action. Consumer groups have a difficult time getting significant policy gains because the benefits are spread over the entire population. Public interest lobbies seek “a collective good, the achievement of which will not selectively and materially benefit the membership activities of the organization but instead the good of all.”

Intensity and Durability Single-Issue groups: groups that focus on a narrow interest, dislike compromise, and often draw membership from people new to politics Groups may focus on an emotional issue, providing them with a psychological advantage. Intensity encourages non-conventional means of participation, i.e.—protests. It’s durability, or in other words, how long an interest group can manage to exert pressure and influence on government is a major factor as well. Some groups have their 15 minutes and than fade away, others show staying power.

Financial Resources Not all groups have equal amounts of money. Monetary donations usually translate into access to the politicians, such as a phone call, meeting, or support for policy. Wealthier groups have more resources—and presumably more access—but they do not always win on policy. Having said this, the general rule here is that the more money a group has at their disposal, the more effective it will be in shaping public policy to meet their agendas.

How Groups Try to Shape Policy
Lobbying Lobbying involves interest groups communicating with policy makers in an attempt to influence them to support their agendas. This is directed at governmental decision makers with the hope of influencing their decisions. Lobbyists are almost always working with/for an interest group. Two basic types of lobbyists: Regular, paid employees of a group Temporary hires, used for major jobs. Bringing in the big guns.

Lobbyists: are a source of information, ideas and innovations, though they’re usually slanted towards whatever perspective enhances the lobbyist’s goals. help politicians plan political strategies for legislation, but again, this is done as a tactic to shape the policy in the manner consistent with the lobbyist’s goals. help politicians plan political strategies for reelection campaigns.

Electioneering Direct group involvement in the election process Groups can help fund campaigns, provide testimony, and get members to work for candidates; some form PACs. Political Action Committee (PAC) : Political funding vehicles created by campaign finance reforms, PACs are used by interest groups to donate money to candidates. PACs help pay the bill for increasing campaign costs. Most PAC money goes to incumbents. Super PAC’s: May not make contributions to candidate campaigns or parties, but may engage in unlimited political spending independently of the campaigns. Unlike traditional PACs, they can raise funds from individuals, corporations, unions, and other groups without any legal limit on donation size. Super PACs were made possible by two judicial decisions: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and, two months later, Speechnow.org v. FEC. The Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that PACs that did not make contributions to candidates, parties, or other PACs could accept unlimited contributions from individuals, unions, and corporations (both for profit and not-for- profit) for the purpose of making independent expenditures. Super PACs are not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates or political parties. However, it is legal for candidates and Super PAC’s to discuss campaign issues and strategy through the media.

Litigation If an interest group fails in one arena, the courts may be able to provide a remedy. Interest groups can file amicus curiae briefs to influence a court’s decision. amicus curiae: briefs submitted by a “friend of the court” to raise additional points of view and present information not contained in the briefs of the formal parties Class Action lawsuits permit a small number of people to sue on behalf of all other people similar situated.

Going Public Because public opinion makes its way to policymakers, groups try to: cultivate a good public image to build a reservoir of goodwill with the public use marketing strategies to influence public opinion of the group and its issues advertise to motivate and inform the public about an issue Obviously, everything a group does publicly is designed to sway opinions. In other words, the information a group gives out is slanted. Think propaganda.

Types of Interest Groups
Economic Interests Labor Agriculture Business Environmental Interests Equality Interests Racial Ethnic Socioeconomic Consumer and Public Interest Lobbies

Understanding Interest Groups
Interest Groups and Democracy James Madison’s solution to the problems posed by interest groups was to create a wide-open system in which groups compete. Pluralists believe that the public interest would prevail from this competition. Elite theorists point to the proliferation of business PACs as evidence of interest group corruption. Hyperpluralists maintain that group influence has led to policy gridlock.

Understanding Interest Groups
Interest Groups and the Scope of Government Interest groups seek to maintain policies and programs that benefit them. Interest groups continue to pressure government to do more things that ultimately benefit the interest group. As the government does more and more for these groups, this causes the formation of more groups. Vicious circle.

The Mass Media and the Political Agenda

Introduction Mass Media
Television, radio, newspapers, magazines, the Internet and other means of popular communication High-Tech Politics A political environment in which the behavior of citizens and policymakers and the political agenda itself are increasingly shaped by technology.

The Mass Media Today Effective communication through media is key to political success. Media Events: events purposely staged for the media that are intended to look as if they are spontaneous. Acting, essentially. Photo Ops: Seemingly spontaneous yet planned out photographic moments intended to display a candidate in a particular way (sweet, tough, happy, confident, etc.) Media events and photo ops can be staged by almost anybody and for any purpose. Image making and news management is important, especially for presidents and Presidential candidates.

The Development of Media driven Politics
The news media wasn’t always so important. Press Conferences: meetings of public officials with reporters. This didn’t really begin in earnest until the era of FDR. Roosevelt held over 1,000 during his 12 years in office. Investigative Journalism: the use of in-depth reporting to unearth scandals, scams & schemes putting reporters & politicians opposite each other. Teddy Roosevelt referred to the early investigative reporters as muckrakers. Coverage of presidential candidates has become more critical and less favorable over time.

The Development of Media driven Politics
The Print Media in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were dominated by publications owned and operated by William Randolph Hearst and joseph Pulitzer. Primarily Newspapers and magazines. “Yellow journalism”: a sensational style of reporting characterized newspapers at the turn of the century designed to incite and inflame readers – and to sell. There is a Pecking order among newspapers, and the New York Times and wall street journal currently have largest impacts, especially the NYT. Newspaper and newsweekly circulation has declined precipitously with the advent of the internet and cable television.

The Development of Media Driven Politics
The Broadcast Media Radio and Television Brought government and politics into peoples’ homes. Began with FDR’s famous “Fireside Chats” during the Great depression and later on, ww II. During the Vietnam War, however, the media was able to sway public sentiment against the war by showing the horrific nature of war through videos and pictures of battles and their aftermaths taken by embedded reporters as well as showing planes returning home filled with caskets of our young men who died for nothing in that war. Politicians’ appearances, mannerisms, and personal characteristics have more important than their substance, unfortunately. Kennedy-Nixon presidential debate or, more recently, Obama and McCain.

Regulation of the Broadcast Media The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is supposed to regulate the use of airwaves in three ways: Prevent monopolistic or oligopolistic control of market Reviews performance of stations Issues fair treatment rules for politicians

From Broadcasting to Narrowcasting: The Rise of Cable News Channels Narrowcasting: media programming on cable TV or Internet that is focused on one topic and aimed at a particular audience, e.g., C-SPAN. Potential of cable to report on news as it happens (real time) and offer myriad choices to viewers. Yet resources are limited and stories are many times not substantive; leads to sensationalism and “story creation”.

The Impact of the Internet Potential to inform Americans about politics. Internet is purposive — people choose what to learn about. Since Americans are generally disinterested in politics, they will not necessarily use the Internet for political information. Blogs and online newsletters provide additional information about news stories.

Private Control of the Media Only a small number of TV stations are publicly owned in America. Independent in what they can report, with few rules and regulations since the elimination of the Fairness doctrine in 1987, media have become totally dependent on advertising revenues, and the advertisers can exert some control over content. Over the past 40 years, the USA has seen major media conglomerates account for over four-fifths of the nation’s mass media (the big six).

Reporting the News Finding the News
Beats (as in “beat reporters” and “Beat reporting”): specific locations from which news frequently emanates, such as Congress or the White House e.g. “And now let’s hear from Joe Jones, CNN’s white house beat reporter.” Trial Balloons: an intentional news leak for the purpose of assessing the political reaction to the news. Reporters and their sources depend on each other—one for stories, the other to get the stories out to the public.

As you can see, politics and politicians aren’t exactly what most people are interested in!

Reporting the News Presenting the News
Superficial describes most news coverage today. Sound Bites: short video clips of approximately 10 seconds. Major TV networks devote less time to covering political candidates and campaigns.

Reporting the News Bias in the News
Many people believe the news is biased in favor of one point of view. Generally is not very biased toward a particular ideology; however, there are notable exceptions (MSNBC = hard liberal and FOX News = Hard Conservative) News reporting is usually biased towards what will draw the largest audience which in turn brings in the most revenue — good pictures/videos and negative reporting seem to be most effective.

Reporting the News

The News and Public Opinion
Television news can affect what people think, which has changed over time. Until the last 20 years or so, the idea was that TV was reflective of what society felt and thought, i.e. society influenced the news and how it was reported. In today's information intensive world, this has changed to the polar opposite, i.e. the news and television shape public opinion. The media influences the criteria by which the public evaluates political leaders. Some stories or events can be made more important, others less important, depending on their coverage. What is and is not intensely covered is controlled by a very few huge media conglomerates (Oligopoly).

The Media’s Agenda-Setting Function
Policy Agenda The issues that attract the serious attention of public officials and other people actively involved in politics at a particular time. By reporting and hyping a story, the media can force politicians to set the agenda differently than they may have wanted to. Policy Entrepreneurs Those who invest their political capital to get an issue placed high on the government agenda. these people will often Use media to raise awareness of issues.

Understanding the Mass Media
The Media and the Scope of Government Media as watchdog, restricts politicians. New proposals are met with media skepticism, which restricts scope of government, i.e. what it can do. If media identifies a problem, it forces government to address it, which expands the scope of government

Understanding the Mass Media
Individualism and the Media Candidates run on their own by appealing to people on television. Easier to focus on one person like the president, than groups, e.g., Congress, parties, or the courts. Democracy and the Media “Information is the fuel of democracy.” But news provides more entertainment than information; it is superficial. News is a business, giving people what they want.

Summary Media shapes public opinion on political issues and influences the policy agenda. Broadcast media have mostly replaced the print media over the past two decades. Narrowcasting and the Internet are further shifting media away from the tradition of unbiased journalism. Seeking profits, media are biased in favor of stories with high drama.

Political Parties, Interest Groups, and the Structure of Elections

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Political Parties, Interest Groups, and the Structure of Elections"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Political Parties, Interest Groups, and the Structure of Elections

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Political Parties, Interest Groups, and the Structure of Elections"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback