Political Parties
News & Commentary | Archive

BCRA imposes broad prohibitions on political party involvement with soft money. The prohibition is largely absolute for national party committees, and less for state and local parties. With the exception of a limited form of soft money known as "Levin funds," state and local parties may not use soft money to finance "Federal election activities," defined to include certain activities, conducted at certain times and in certain ways. Beyond these broad general themes lie a host of interpretations and complex applications.

At the Commission Today: A Question of What Can Be Said to the Voters

     The Federal Election Commission will today consider a question raised  by the Virginia Democratic Party about the proposed distribution of literature under a statutory exemption for “slate cards” and other “printed listings” of candidates.

     So what, you ask?

 

Parties and Their Complicated (Legal) Relationship To Their Candidates

   Do parties corrupt their own candidates? Sean Parnell of the Center for Competitive Politics asks, as have others before, and it thinks the answer is clear. And since he is sure of the answer, he questions why we bother with limits on coordinated spending by parties for the benefit of their own candidates.

Party Woes

     A Center for Competitive Politics posting by Michael Schrimpf returns to the familiar question of McCain-Feingold’s contribution to weaker political parties.  He totes up the spending numbers and decides that, without the soft money denied to them by statute, the parties’ have lost ground to outside groups.  CCP is only moderately alarmed:  it holds no brief for limits on outside groups but it also sees little point in a statutory blow to parties. 

 

Reform in Context (in Politics)

     Morton Keller, a distinguished political historian, has written a book entitled America’s Three Regimes:  A New Political History (2008).   By regimes, he means the set of institutions by which the country governs itself, and he divides American history into three such regimes, the last of which—the populist-bureaucratic regime—is ours.  He writes of the experience in this regime with campaign finance reform, and he is skeptical:  he argues that reform chased after ill-defined objectives and managed only to trample parties, enhance the power of interest groups and help accelerate the pace and demand of fundraising.

 

A Bleak Christmas for Parties?

    Brody Mullins of The Wall Street Journal  will not suffer for any lack of attention to his front page story today, and not only because of placement. “Interest Groups Gain in Election Cash Quest” at A1.  He declares that independent interest and ideological groups have feasted on McCain Feingold to fatten at the expense of political parties.  527s continue to form, joined by tax-exempt (c) organizations, and they are spending without limit on the air and in the mails, acting like parties but without their funding restrictions or disclosure requirements.  Mullins reads the data over  a number of cycles and finds the conclusion unmistakable: reform has elevated the role of outside groups at the expense of the parties.

 

Also...

In Defense of the Conventions as Advertising, and in Search of Resources  9/17/07

Hybrids before the Federal Election Commission  7/10/07

Worrying about the “Hybrids”: the FEC and the Parties  5/9/07

Perspectives on Reform, before the Senate Rules Committee  4/18/07

A Proposal for Parties: The Uses of Deregulation In a Regulated System  4/17/07

Drinking Because of McCain-Feingold  4/2/07

The FEC (In)Active on the HyBrids  3/23/07

Bananas  3/7/07

Parties and Their Detractors, Now Before the Supreme Court  2/28/07

Parties and “Competitive Elections”  11/17/06