1. Unit #2 Political Behaviors & Beliefs
In Class Lecture & Activities

2. Political Culture: The widely shared beliefs, values and norms that citizens share about government.
Characteristics
Liberty (rights-cannot infringe on the rights of others)
Equality
Of opportunity more than equality of result
Political equality more than economic equality
“American Dream” – reverence for property/capitalism/acquisition of wealth
Conflict between liberty (associated with capitalism) and equality (associated with democracy) led to federal action:
In Progressive Era to bring corporations under control; In 1960s Great Society Programs
Democracy
Civic Duty
Individual Responsibility (as opposed to collectivism)
Ch. 4: pp

3. Sources of Political Culture
Constitution: developed in an “adversarial spirit”
Distrust of government
Religious beliefs
Negative view of human nature
Protestant work ethic
The family
Absence of class consciousness
Culture War: orthodox and progressive views of moral issues (abortion, prayer in schools, gay marriage, drugs, etc.)

4. Mistrust of government
Distrust of Government has grown, esp. since the 1960s (Vietnam, Watergate, inflation-70s, Clinton, Bush)
Political Efficacy: the sense that one can both understand & influence public policy (Internal) or that the government will respond to the citizenry (External)
Political tolerance-more in the abstract than in the concrete

5. http://www. theatlantic

6. Trust in Government

7. BOWLING ALONE
Robert Putnam- Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Putnam uses an observation about the decline in bowling leagues in the US as a metaphor to describe the increasing alienation of Americans from their families and communities, and the political process. One crucial factor leading to the social isolation is television. Says Putnam, "People watch Friends on TV -- they don't have them.” Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community is published by Simon & Schuster, 2000.
Read handout in your groups & be prepared to discuss the following questions:
What is Social Capital?
According to Putnam, there is a connection between the strength of social capital and political awareness & involvement. Describe this connection & explain if you believe social capital is important to democracy.
What activities do you and your family participate in that contribute to the social capital in your community /in our nation?
Do you believe that technology has created new & equally valuable avenues for creating a strong social fabric for our society? (Think instagram, facebook, tumblr, blogs, tweeting, cellphones, etc.)

8. Types Public Opinion: Ch. 7, 155-158
Types of Publics
Elites: Those with disproportionate amount of political resources
Raise issues and help set the national agenda
Influence the resolution of issues, setting the norm for policy options
Attentive: those with an active interest in gov and politics (activists)
Mass: those with little interest in gov and politics
Types of Opinions
Stable: change very little (e.g. death penalty)
Fluid: change frequently (e.g. presidential popularity)
Latent: dormant, but may be aroused (e.g. military draft)
Salient: have some personal importance to individuals (e.g. Brady and gun control)
Consensus: shared by 75% of the people or more (e.g. having a balanced budget)
Polarized: shared by less than 75% (e.g. gun control, ERA)
Elites p ; p 165
Website with news headlines.
Jim Brady: Press Sec.

9. measurements of Public Opinion
By elections (deceiving-don’t know WHY people voted as they did)
Straw (informal) polls-inaccuracies
Scientific polls – Validity of polls must consider:
Definition of universe: population to be measured (must be representative)
Selection of sampling
Random means-each person in universe has same chance of being selected
Representative sample - National polls typically require ~ respondents
Sampling error: +/- results (low margin of error)
writing the questions to avoid bias
Uses of polls: Informs public, candidates, office-holders, and provides projections on election night via exit polls
Can influence how politicians vote – due to duty to constituents and goal to get re-elected
However, politicians want to avoid “flip-flopping,” “pandering,” and must consider “party position” in voting as well

10. measurements of Public Opinion
Abuses of polls:
“Horse-race” mentality emphasized during campaigns at expense of issues
Pandering to whims of public by candidates and office-holders
Projections-may discourage voter turnout, especially in West
Election of 2000 as example
Public Awareness & Interest in politics:
Surveys show a substantial lack of political knowledge: public unable to identify political figures or key issues
Secondary in importance to mass public

11. Who are these people? Who cares?

12. Who are these people? Who cares?

13. Political Socialization: process by which people acquire their political beliefs.
Family: Strongest. Stronger correlation between parent’s party affiliation than specific policy issues
Schools: Impart basic values (civic duty, patriotism). HS Gov classes tend to not change political orientation, but attending college tends to liberalize
Religion
Protestant - more conservative, esp Evangelicals
Catholic - tend to be more liberal, more accepted into mainstream
Greater degree of conservativism on social issues (abortion, gay rights)
Jewish - Liberal influence, strong support of Democratic Party
Race/Ethnicity
Whites: more conservative, greater support for Republicans
Blacks: more liberal, strongest & most loyal supporters of Democratic Party
Hispanics
Mexican-Americans and Puerto Ricans more liberal and supportive of Democrats
Cubans more conservative and supportive of Republicans
Asians: won by Democrats in last 3 presidential elections
Income/Social Class:
higher income more conservative & supportive of Republicans
lower income more liberal & supportive of Democrats

14. Solid South: traditionally Democratic, but increasingly now Republican
Gender Gap
Women more likely than men to vote Democratic
“Year of the Woman” 1992: many more women elected to Congress
Emily’s List
“Soccer Moms” (1992 H. Clinton)
“NASCAR Dads” (blue collar conservatives)
Million Mom March 2000: stricter gun control laws
“security moms” (2004) concerns about terrorism and national security drawing women to the Republican Party
Palin’s “Hockey Moms” (2008), “Mama Grizzlies” (2010)
2012: Democrats charge the Republicans with a “War on Women” regarding reproductive rights/contraception
Sex-sensitive issues: abortion, pornography, gun control, health care, war provoke differences among the sexes
Geographic Region:
Solid South: traditionally Democratic, but increasingly now Republican
New England: traditionally Republican, but increasingly Democratic in recent years
Mass media: liberal elite
Level of political information is single best predictor of being liberal on civil rights/liberties issues
Elite opinion:
Shapes public policy and influences results, but does not define problems

15. 2012: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/11/06/4966431/2012-election-exit-poll-shows.html
(USE THIS ONE)

16. 2012 Election

17. Pew Research

18. Ideology: integrated set of beliefs & values that shape a person’s views.
Liberalism:
Smaller percentage of ideologues in our two-party system than in the multi- party systems used in Europe.
Most Americans tend to be non-ideological and more moderate in their beliefs
18th century classical liberalism:
Limited gov “That governments is best which governs least.”
Gov is chief threat to liberty
Role of government to protect property rights.
20th century Modern liberalism (New Deal Liberalism)
Expanded role of gov
Corporations seen as chief threat to liberty
Role of gov to protect people’s well- being.
Ch. 7: pp

19. Political ideology: a consistent set of beliefs about what policies government ought to pursue. Liberalism v. conservativism
Liberalism:
Strong influence of liberalism 1930s-1970s
Backlash 1980s & 1990s
Liberalism gone too far. Need to return to individualism and less reliance on big gov
Neoliberals
Less likely to rely upon gov as solution as New Deal liberals
Rise of Democratic Leadership Council with members Clintons, Harold Ford, Jr.
Obama & the return of New Deal Liberalism
Greater willingness to use the fed gov as tool to protect well- being of people

20. conservativism Essentially Classical Liberalism
Neoconservatives & the “New Right”
Some emphasize social issues (school prayer, anti-abortion, anti- homosexuality) Known as the “Religious Right.” Use of faith- based initiatives by Bush 43.
Some focus on foreign policy and national security-war on terrorism & pre-emptive strikes (Iraq)
“Compassionate Conservatism”: Bush 43
Essentially Classical Liberalism
Resurgence since late 70s:
Reagan/Bush 41/ Bush 43
104th-109th Congresses (Gingrich “Contract with America”)
Strength in formerly “solid south,” Rocky Mtn., Great Plains
evangelical Christians
Strong support for tax cuts (Clinton, Bush 43)
Emphasis on private sector to solve problems
Neo-Cons: Pat Buchanan, Jesse Helms, Pat Robertson
Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld

21. Socialism Libertarianism
means of production, distribution, and exchange controlled by gov.
Western Europe
Weak in U.S. (associated with radicalism, goes against belief in individualism, American Dream, and suspicion of big gov.)
Libertarianism
Extreme emphasis on individual liberty
Extreme cutback on role of gov.-gov should only defend the nation

22. Political Spectrum Quiz 1-Where are you. 2-What Do these Labels Mean
Political Spectrum Quiz 1-Where are you? 2-What Do these Labels Mean? 3-Were the Questions Relevant, why or why not?
AUTHORITARIAN
LEFT
RIGHT
Economic scale: left/right horizontal (communism/collectivism-neoliberalism/libertarianism)
Social scale: authoritarian/libertarian (conservative/liberal) vertical (fascism-anarchism)
LIBERTARIAN

23. Economic scale: government control-left; free market-right
Social scale: government control-authoritarian; individual freedom-libertarian

24. 2008 presidential candidates

25. 2012 Presidential candidates

26. VP Candidates Ideology Scores

27. Ch. 8: Voter TurnOUt Historical Qualifications for Suffrage
Religion (eliminated by state legislatures)
Property (eliminated by state legislatures)
Race (eliminated by 15th Amendment-1870)
Supreme Court’s interpretation: denial of right to vote could not be solely on basis of race
Methods used to disenfranchise:
Literacy test, poll tax, grandfather clause, white primary
Sex (eliminated by 19th Amendment-1920)
Income (eliminated by 24th Amendment banning the poll tax-1964)
Literacy (eliminated by Voting Rights Act of 1965)
Minimum age of 21 (eliminated by 26th Amendment-1971)
Current Qualifications (set by states):
Citizenship Felons
Residency Registration (except ND)
Mon. 9/27/10
Ch. 8: pp

28. B. Voter TurnOUt in u.s. compared to foreign nations
Voter turnout=number of those who voted/number of those age- eligible to vote.
V.A.P. derived from Census Bureau
Number of people 18+, but many of those are ineligible (felons, prisoners, aliens)
Indicates a sharp decline in voter turnout post 1960
V.E.P. – an alternate measure of those eligible to vote
Does not indicate a significant decline in voter turnout
Presidential Elections US ~50%, Midterm Congressional ~30- 40%, Lower state/local about 10% *Decline since 1960 but rose slightly in %; %
Comparable industrialized nations in West ~90% BUT
no compulsion penalties in U.S.
multi-party system, more choice
automatic/same day registration
VAP: Voting-Age Population
VEP: Voting Eligible Population

29. Vep: green vap: yellow
(INTERESTING DATA – SHOW CHARTS)

30. Voter turnout: federal elections 1964-2006

32. Reasons for low Voter TurnOUt
Institutional barriers
Registration: National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (Motor Voter Bill) Has not had major impact
“Ballot Fatigue”
Excessive number of elections.
General election > primary election
National election > state
Presidential elections have highest turnout compared to Congressional
Absentee Ballot difficulties
YOUNG have lowest turnout (since 26th Amendment voter turnout declined)
Political Reasons
Lack of political efficacy
Dissatisfaction with candidates, parties, politics
Lack of strong 2-party competition
Weakness of parties in mobilizing voters
19th century parties controlled elections: printed ballots (“vote early & vote often”)
1890: Australian ballot- government printed ballot, uniform in size and shape, cast in secret

33. In the last half of the 20th century, voter turnout in federal elections has declined. During the same period, voter turnout has been higher in presidential elections than in midterm elections.
Identify two factors that have contributed to the overall decline in turnout in federal elections and explain how each factor has contributed to the overall decline.
Identify and explain two reasons why voter turnout has been higher in presidential elections than in midterm elections.
2002 FRQ, Q 4
8 point Q; 4 + 4

34. Who participates in politics?
Six forms of participation
Inactive:(22%) don’t care, don’t vote
Tend to have little education, low incomes, are young, and many are African-American
Activists: (11%) participate in all forms of politics
highly educated, high incomes, middle-aged
Voting specialists: only vote; older, low levels of schooling and income
Campaigners: vote and are active in campaigns; higher levels of education, strong party identification
Communalists: engage in local political activity, non- partisan, higher education
Parochial participants: do not vote, but engage in local politics
Tues. 9/28/10
Show but don’t write

35. Who participates in politics?
Characteristics of those likely to vote:
Greatest predictor of voting EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT.
INCOME (higher)
AGE (older)
RACE/ETHNICITY (whites, then blacks, then Hispanics. BUT, blacks with same level of schooling and income tend to participate more than whites)
SEX (evening out, used to be men)
RELIGIOUS INVOLVEMENT social capital as a result of networking, increases participation
Does low voter turnout matter?
If cross section of U.S. represented then no but,
Class bias: older whites with higher incomes over-represented
Other forms of political participation:
Petitions local party meetings writing letters persuading others
Demonstrations/marches/rallies campaign contributions
Tuesday, 9/29/10

36. Political participation by family income

37. Factors affecting Voter Behavior:
Geography
Solid South: Once solidly democratic, now Republican, however Demographics changing again?
Great Plains: Republican Trend
Rocky Mountain Region: Republican Trend (the “L”)
New England: Traditionally Republican but increasingly Democratic
Far West: Democratic Trend
Rust belt states: Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana – swing states (55 combined electoral votes)
Sun belt states: from FL to CA; demographic changes as a result of Latino voters
Political Party ID: Strongest predictor of voting behavior (7-point scale)
Straight ticket voting; decline in recent years, facilitated by party-column ballot
Split ticket voting; increase in recent years. Facilitated by office-bloc ballot.
Independents: rising number, tend to be young, college educated, above-average incomes

38. Candidate Appeal: coattail effect of strong presidential candidate
Demographic Factors
Sex: Male v Female-
Race/Ethnicity: White v. Nonwhite
Social Class: Lower v. Upper
Religion: Protestant v. Catholic v. Jewish
Issues
Retrospective Voting-vote based on candidates past actions; have things gotten better or worse?
Prospective Voting: how you think the candidate will handle issues in office
Candidate Appeal: coattail effect of strong presidential candidate
Time
Maintaining elections:
Deviating elections:
Critical (“realigning” elections): long-term change in political alignment, e.g. 1860, 1896, 1932
Midterm elections:

39. Ch. 10: Elections and campaigns
I. Congressional Elections:
Campaigns:
Money, media, and polling have taken precedence over political parties as being more important in elections
Majority of campaign money spent on media buys
Two phases in elections:
Getting nominated- individual effort (compared with Europe-party nominates)
Getting elected
Elections are regularly scheduled
House: every two years
Senate: every two years 1/3 of seats are up (continuous body)
Fixed terms of office, no term limits
Winner-take-all/single- member district system (House) (most votes wins the seat)/”at-large” (Senate)
Ch. 10: Elections and Campaigns; Mon. 9/19/11

40. Congressional elections
Factors affecting outcomes:
2. Advantages of incumbents:
Incumbency: greatest influence
Scope of incumbency advantage:
~90% of congressmen who run are reelected; ~80% of senators
Lack of competitiveness: charges of “permanent Congress” and the call for term limits (overturned by SCOTUS)
Franking privilege
Campaign staff already in place
Gerrymandered districts (“safe seats”)
Committee service to district
Name recognition
Casework done for constituents
Pork barrel projects for district (“earmarks”)
Money (incumbents outspent challengers by 3:1 ratio)

41. http://www. opensecrets. org/bigpicture/reelect
(REELECTION RATES )
(Re-election rates )

42. Congressional elections
Type of election:
Other Factors
Incumbent campaigns less competitive (safe seats)
Weak challenger campaigns uncompetitive, but more so than incumbents
Strong challenger campaigns more competitive than both
Open seat campaigns: the most competitive
House or Senate:
Midterm elections: loss of congressional seats for party of president
In House every year , exceptions: 1998, 2002
2006: President’s party lost seats and control of both Houses; 2010 President’s party lost control of House
Coattail effect in decline; elections are largely independent and evidence of decline in party power
Party affiliation is still a strong predictor of voter behavior
Media, especially important in Senate elections
Issues, especially the economy
Campaign consultants: increasing importance of and decreasing importance of political parties
technology

46. II. Presidential elections: path to the presidency
Nomination Phase:
Prior to nomination phase, there is the “invisible primary” or “The Great Mentioner”
Time and money to build a campaign
Individual can give $2,500 (adjusted for inflation election cycle); PACs $5,000
Federal matching grants to pay for primary: must raise $5,000 in 20 states to qualify
Organization of large paid staff, volunteers, advisers on issues
Strategy and themes:
Incumbent vs. challenger
Tone
Theme
Timing
Target voter

47. Primary Elections
Part of the Progressive reform of the early 20th century designed to weaken parties
Types:
Closed
Used in most states
Only registered party members can vote for partisan offices, no crossing of party lines
Open:
Any voter may get ballot of any party they choose
Blanket:
Voters can “mix and match” their votes. Voters are not required to affiliate with a political party and may vote for any candidate on the ballot. The candidate from each political party who receives the most votes in the primary advances to the general election.
In CA: top two candidates proceed to the general election regardless of party affiliation (effective 2012 – Prop 14) Similar to a run-off election

48. III. Primary vs. general ELECTIONS
A. Caucuses:
B. Primaries:
Other states use presidential primaries as method of sending delegates to national convention. Use of primaries has increased in the last 30 years.
“Beauty contest primary:” states holding primaries or straw polls that have no bearing on the allocation of delegates to convention
Delegate selection primary: voters vote for delegates to attend convention – no candidate preference listed OR some indicate preferences (not binding) OR Binding pres preference (voters indicate candidate choice)
Importance of NEW HAMPSHIRE: the 1st state to hold primary each election year
Dems use “superdelegates” (party leaders/office holders) to restore prominence at convention
Some states use conventions method of sending delegates to the national convention
Local caucuses—district convention—state convention—national convention. Each level selects delegates to attend higher level.
Importance of IOWA: 1st state to hold caucuses each presidential election year; gives candidates chance to build momentum for succeeding caucuses and primaries (contributions, media coverage)
Thursday, 9/30/10
BEAUTY CONTESTS
States holding presidential primaries or straw polls that have no bearing on the allocation of delegates to the party's national convention

49. C. Nominating system National Convention:
Selection of presidential nominee: a mere formality since the winner is known well ahead of time; emphasis on image and “ratification” rather than nomination
Selection of VP nominee
Chosen by pres nominee and rubber stamped by convention
“balance the ticket”
Development of party platform
Reconciliation and unification of party by end of convention

50. D. Analysis of nominating system:
Con:
Low turnout rates
Too lengthy
Does not test candidates for qualities necessary as president; media game
Front-loading adversely affects states with later primaries
Voters in primaries tend to be better educated and more affluent than those in general elections
Delegates at caucuses and convention tend to be unrepresentative: more ideological, more activist, more education, less moderate, much more wealthy
Pro:
Highly participatory: caucuses, primaries, conventions
Testing ground-weeds out the weaker candidates

51. FRQ Practice
Nominees for the presidency of the two major parties are chosen by delegates at national conventions. How these delegates are chosen varies across states and between the political parties.
Define each of the following methods used by states to choose delegates to party conventions.
• Open primary
• Caucus
b. Republican Party rules permit winner-take-all primaries. Describe one consequence of this rule for the Republican nomination process.
c. The Democratic Party has used superdelegates in the presidential nominating process since Explain why the use of superdelegates increases the influence of party leaders in the Democratic nomination process.
d. Explain why a candidate’s strategy to win the nomination is often different from the strategy developed to win the general election.
2011 Q3
5 points

52. E. Path to the presidency
Fall campaign:
Campaign issues:
Position issues
Valence issues
Garnering support
TV: spots and visuals
Debates
Internet/direct mail
Election day
Tuesday after first Monday in November in every fourth year
Meeting of electors
First Monday after the second Wednesday in December
Formal election
January 6, joint session of Congress formally counts electoral votes and declares winner
Inauguration day: January 20

53. Allotment of electoral votes to states:
The electoral college
Rationale:
Allotment of electoral votes to states:
Poor communication: common people would lack essential information
Desire to have the “best” people select the president
Compromise between direct election and congressional election
Each state has as many electoral votes as it has members of Congress (minimum of 3)
D.C. has 3 votes (23rd Amendment)
538 electoral votes
CA-largest at 55
Each party develops a slate of electors prior to election (loyal party members)
10/1/10

54. Winning of electoral votes:
Winning the election:
Winner-take-all: Candidate with most popular votes (only a plurality is needed) wins all of that state’s electoral votes.
Concentration of campaigning in large, competitive states. Emphasis on “swing” states, e.g. FL, OH, PA, MI
Electors meet in respective state capitals in December to cast ballots
Majority of e.v. (270) to win
If no candidate has majority:
House selects President from among top 3 candidates
Each state has 1 vote
Senate selects VP from among top 2 candidates
Done in 1800 and 1824
Election of 1800: led to passage of 12th Amendment, which separated pres and VP ballots; 3 changes made

55. Criticisms: Alternatives: Direct election: each person’s vote counts
President can be elected with only a plurality, rather than a majority, of popular votes, esp with presence of strong 3rd party candidates
Possibility of a minority president (due to winner-take-all-distorts margins of victory) (1824, 1876, 1888, 2000)
“faithless electors”
Small states proportionally overrepresented, esp if election goes to House
Inhibits development of third parties
Direct election: each person’s vote counts
District system
Proportional system
Keep electoral votes but abolish the electors themselves

56. Why has the electoral college system not been abolished?
Tradition/reluctance to tamper with the Constitution
Amendment process
Opposition from small states
Opposition from urban racial minorities: concentration of racial minorities in swing states give them the clout to “tip the scales” towards their favored candidates under the present system

58. Frq practice
A significant feature of the electoral college is that most states have a winner-take-all system.
Describe the winner-take-all feature of the electoral college.
Explain one way in which the winner-take-all feature of the electoral college affects how presidential candidates from the two major political parties run their campaign.
Explain one way in which the winner-take-all feature of the electoral college hinders third-party candidates.
Explain two reasons why the electoral college has not been abolished.
How many points?
2007 FRQ, Q1
5 points 1, 1, 1, 2

59. Campaign finance: FECA
Federal Election Campaign Acts, : disclosure, subsidies, limitations
Established Federal Elections Commission to regulate federal elections
All candidates must disclose contributions and expenditures
Pres candidates can receive federal subsidies – matching funds
Contribution limitations:
Individuals: $1,000 per candidate, per election
PACs: $5,000 per candidate, per election, no overall cap; $15,000 to a national political party. (Political Action Committees were created as a result of FECA’s finance reforms; PACs are committees established by corporations, unions, and interest groups to raise money for campaigns through voluntary contributions)
CHALLENGED in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) – effect on FECA:
Court upheld limits on campaign contributions
Court struck down limits on congressional campaign spending. 1st Amendment protects spending as a form of expression. (limits on presidential races allowed because subsidized by fed gov)
(click on “tour the site”)
– FEC limits

60. Campaign finance: 2002 bcra/mccain-feingold
BANS SOFT MONEY donations to national political parties. Soft money: undisclosed, unlimited donations to parties for party building activities.
Limits soft money donations to state political parties to $10,000; restricts use of these donations to voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives.
Doubled individuals’ “hard money” donations to $2,000, and indexes future increases to inflation (now $2,600 for election cycle). Hard money: disclosed, limited donations to candidates.
No change on PAC limits.
Unions and corporations banned from giving soft money to parties.
Challenged by McConnell v. FEC, 2003: UPHELD BCRA
Challenged by Citizens United v FEC, 2010: STRUCK DOWN provisions restricting electioneering communications, independent expenditures

62. Analysis of reforms
No subsidies for congressional campaigns, further incumbency advantage
No limits on spending in congressional races
Massive spending, further incumbency advantage
Members of Congress spend great amounts of time fundraising
Late-starters discouraged
Citizens United overturned BCRA limits on corporate, union, and individual independent expenditures: (money not directly donated to party or candidate, but spent on behalf of a candidate). Creation of “Super PACs”
Growth of 527 organizations: tax exempt groups that engage in political activities can receive unlimited contributions and spend them on voter mobilization efforts and issue advocacy ads that praise or slam a candidate (cannot explicitly endorse)
Ex. MoveOn.org; “Swiftboat Veterans for Truth”
A response to BCRA ban on soft money donations to national parties

63. analysis
Minor party pres candidates cannot receive subsidies before the election unless their party earned at least 5% of the popular vote in the previous election
Parties are weakened since pres election fund goes to candidates themselves: rise of candidate-centered campaigns rather than party-centered campaigns
Growth of PACs and candidate dependence on PACs, and after Citizens United, Super PACs.
Cost of campaigns has risen: more time spend fundraising

67. FECA vs. BCRA: What did they do?
BCRA, 2002 (McCain-Feingold)
LIMITS on political contributions
Individuals: $1,000
PACs: $5,000
NO limits on spending own money
DISCLOSURE of contributions & expenditures above certain levels ($100)
SUBSIDIES of presidential elections in the form of public matching funds
FEC created
BANNED SOFT MONEY (unlimited, undisclosed contributions to national parties)
HARD MONEY increases and indexed to inflation
Individuals from $1,000 to $2,000
No changes for PACs
Increases for national, state, & local party committees
RESTRICTED “ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS”
Corporations & unions could not engage in these 30 days prior to a primary and 60 days before a general

68. FECA vs. BCRA: court challenges
MCCONNELL V FEC, 2003
UPHELD: soft money ban, increased limits on individuals
CITIZENS UNITED V FEC, 2010
REMOVED restrictions on corporations and unions spending on “electioneering communications” (image & name, not express advocacy)
BUCKLEY V VALEO, 1976
UPHELD: disclosure, limits
STRUCK DOWN: spending candidate’s own money, limits on independent expenditures, campaign spending

69. effects: FECA, 1974 BCRA, 2002 Increase in PACs
Increased the amount of money spent on elections
Increase in money spent on independent expenditures from corporations, unions
Increase in soft money spending
Incumbent advantage
Advantage for wealthy
Rise of 527s
Rise of SuperPACs (post Citizens United)
No limits on independent expenditures from individuals, PACs, 527s, SuperPACs, parties
Increase in cost of campaigns
Incumbent advantage

70. Citizens United v. FEC, 2010
FYI: A Supreme Court divided along ideological lines struck down several key provisions of landmark campaign finance legislation, which held that corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads.
SCOTUS removed limits on independent expenditures that are not coordinated with candidates' campaigns. The 5-4 majority also struck down part of the 2003 McCain-Feingold law that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns. The ruling leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.
Watch Video (15 min.) on ruling:

71. Effect of Citizens United v. FEC, 2010
Both corporations and labor unions may now use their general treasury funds to pay for unlimited independent expenditures, including advertisements, for or against candidates at any time. This can be done through what are known as “SuperPACs,” which are independent-expenditure ONLY committees. In addition to unlimited spending, they can also mount direct attacks on candidates.
FYI: based on political giving patterns, labor unions are essentially an arm of the Democratic Party.  But corporate America is more oriented toward supporting incumbents.  As a result, while most businesses spread their political giving around to both parties, the balance tends to go to the majority in Congress. When Republicans controlled the majority in Congress in 2004, corporate giving tilted roughly 60 percent to 40 percent in the GOP direction.  But for the last four years, with Republicans in the minority, many businesses reallocated their giving 60 percent to 40 percent in the Democrats’ direction. Other forms of corporate political investments –such as advertising – could also take a pro-incumbent slant.

72. Reaction:
"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. ... We are going to talk with bipartisan congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision." - President Barack Obama.
"The text and purpose of the First Amendment point in the same direction: Congress may not prohibit political speech, even if the speaker is a corporation or union." - Chief Justice John Roberts
"The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation." - Justice John Paul Stevens, in the dissent.
"Speech about our government and candidates for elective office lies at the heart of the First Amendment, and the court's decision vindicates the right of individuals to engage in core political speech by banding together to make their voices heard." - Theodore Olson, who argued the case for Citizens United.
"Presented with a relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme Court chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president. Ignoring important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent, the court has given corporate money a breathtaking new role in federal campaigns." - Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis.
"I am disappointed by the decision of the Supreme Court and the lifting of the limits on corporate and union contributions." Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.