 |
One Swift Kick: The Role and Impact of 527 Groups in the 2004 Presidential Election
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
17
4
As of December 31, 1995, before the first primaries and caucuses started, the
Clinton campaign had over $13 million on hand. By comparison, Robert Dole’s campaign had just under $4.5 million on-hand. Although Dole would go on to raise more money than Clinton overall ($44.6 million to $42.5), Clinton did not have to spend any of those funds to secure his party’s nomination. Data available at the FEC’s website (http://www.fec.gov).
5
As seen above, the Democrats more than tripled the amount of soft money it
raised in 1996 compared to the 1992 election.
6
Nine Republicans sought the Republican Party’s presidential nomination:
Alexander, Buchanan, Dole, Forbes, Gramm, Kayes, Lugar, Specter, and Wilson.
7
Steve Forbes tapped into his personal wealth to finance his run for the
presidency in 1996, spending nearly $37.5 million in personal funds for his campaign.
8
The Republican party raised $138 million to the Democrat $124 million for
1995-1996.
9
These are organizations that are “organized and operated exclusively for
religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes.” See Marie B. Morris, CRS Report – “Characteristics of and Reporting Requirements for Selected Tax-Exempt Organizations.” March 8, 2001.
10
Alexander, Bauer, Elizabeth Dole, Forbes, Hatch, Kasich, Keyes, McCain,
Quayle, and Smith all vied for (or at least contemplated vying for) the Republican nomination.
11
Despite the Democrats’ increase in unregulated soft money, they still trailed
the Republican Party in terms raising regulated “hard funds” during this election cycle: $466 million vs. $275 million.
12
For further elaboration of the contents of BCRA see, for example, Federal
Election Commission. “Record.” Vol. 29, January 2003.
13
See McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n, 540 U. S. 93 (2003)
and Anthony
Corrado, Anthony, Thomas E. Mann, and Trevor Potter, eds. 2003. Inside the Campaign Finance Battle: Court Testimony on the New Reforms. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
14
One should note, however, under the Levin amendment, a section of BCRA,
does permit state or local parties to spend soft money on voter registration and get out the vote activity that does not mention a federal candidate as long as no single soft money donor gives more than $10,000 per year to any state or local party organization for such purposes; the money is not spent on broadcast advertising other than ads that solely mention state or local candidates; and the money is not raised by federal candidates, national parties, or party committees acting jointly. The spending of this money will require an allocation of hard money to soft money. The state or local party organization must raise the hard and soft money for this allocation on its own, and money to be spent under this provision may not be transferred between party organizations.
15
For further elaboration see, Nelson W. Polsby “Interest Groups and the
Presidency: Trends in Political Intermediation in America.” In Burnham, Walter Dean and Martha Wagner Weinberg, Eds. 1978. American Politics and Public
|
| | Authors: Farrar-Myers, Victoria. |
|
| |
|
|
17
4
As of December 31, 1995, before the first primaries and caucuses started, the
Clinton campaign had over $13 million on hand. By comparison, Robert Dole’s
campaign had just under $4.5 million on-hand. Although Dole would go on to
raise more money than Clinton overall ($44.6 million to $42.5), Clinton did not
have to spend any of those funds to secure his party’s nomination. Data
available at the FEC’s website (http://www.fec.gov).
5
As seen above, the Democrats more than tripled the amount of soft money it
raised in 1996 compared to the 1992 election.
6
Nine Republicans sought the Republican Party’s presidential nomination:
Alexander, Buchanan, Dole, Forbes, Gramm, Kayes, Lugar, Specter, and Wilson.
7
Steve Forbes tapped into his personal wealth to finance his run for the
presidency in 1996, spending nearly $37.5 million in personal funds for his
campaign.
8
The Republican party raised $138 million to the Democrat $124 million for
1995-1996.
9
These are organizations that are “organized and operated exclusively for
religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational
purposes.” See Marie B. Morris, CRS Report – “Characteristics of and Reporting
Requirements for Selected Tax-Exempt Organizations.” March 8, 2001.
10
Alexander, Bauer, Elizabeth Dole, Forbes, Hatch, Kasich, Keyes, McCain,
Quayle, and Smith all vied for (or at least contemplated vying for) the Republican
nomination.
11
Despite the Democrats’ increase in unregulated soft money, they still trailed
the Republican Party in terms raising regulated “hard funds” during this election
cycle: $466 million vs. $275 million.
12
For further elaboration of the contents of BCRA see, for example, Federal
Election Commission. “Record.” Vol. 29, January 2003.
13
See McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n, 540 U. S. 93 (2003)
and Anthony
Corrado, Anthony, Thomas E. Mann, and Trevor Potter, eds. 2003. Inside the
Campaign Finance Battle: Court Testimony on the New Reforms. Washington,
D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
14
One should note, however, under the Levin amendment, a section of BCRA,
does permit state or local parties to spend soft money on voter registration and
get out the vote activity that does not mention a federal candidate as long as no
single soft money donor gives more than $10,000 per year to any state or local
party organization for such purposes; the money is not spent on broadcast
advertising other than ads that solely mention state or local candidates; and the
money is not raised by federal candidates, national parties, or party committees
acting jointly. The spending of this money will require an allocation of hard money
to soft money. The state or local party organization must raise the hard and soft
money for this allocation on its own, and money to be spent under this provision
may not be transferred between party organizations.
15
For further elaboration see, Nelson W. Polsby “Interest Groups and the
Presidency: Trends in Political Intermediation in America.” In Burnham, Walter
Dean and Martha Wagner Weinberg, Eds. 1978. American Politics and Public
|
|
 Convention | | Convention is an application service for managing large or small academic conferences, annual meetings, and other types of events! | | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. | | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! | | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! | | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. | | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! | | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
