US presidential elections: The American process (4)

KWENU! Our culture, our future

US presidential elections: The American process (Part 4)

Acho Orabuchi

Dallas, Texas

Friday, May 21, 2004

Campaigning for an elective office, especially the presidential campaign in the United States of America, is an expensive and assiduous proposition in a true sense of it. No amount of money or resources is sufficient to run an effective presidential campaign. Spending only $100,000,000 may seem like dumping a bag of salt in ocean due to the fact that the presidential candidates would have vast amount of grounds to cover. As a result, the candidates would need as much money and resources they could get to run their respective campaigns. In light of this, one may ask how do the candidates fund their campaign? How the money is being spent to reach the electorate is equally important to know.

Meanwhile, the control of both the executive and legislative branches by one party, Republicans, and increased civil agitation of the Democrats to reclaim the White House have raised the stake higher thereby making the environment more fertile with a recipe for an unprecedented flow of money in the national politics to persuade the electorate. Consequently, the bulk of the money is spent on TV and Radio adverts. This is an indicative of democracy at best.

Well, as the campaign for the general elections is heating up, it is imperative to note that a candidate may win a popular vote and still lose the presidency. That was precisely what happened in 2000 general elections between Al Gore and George W. Bush. In the contentious election, which was finally decided in January 2001, Vice President Al Gore garnered 50,996,116 or 48% of the total votes and 266 Electoral Votes. On the other hand, George W. Bush corralled 50,456,169 or 48% of the total votes with 271 electoral votes for a magnanimous grin to the White House.

The Electoral College votes are allocated to each state based on the number of senators in each state, which is two, plus the number of House of Representatives each state has. The number of House of Representatives each state has is subject to change every 10 years due to population changes accounted by the census. The total Electoral College votes are 538 resulting from 100 Senators and 435 House of Representatives plus 3 electoral votes for Washington, D.C. It is “winner takes all” mechanism in Electoral College votes process. To win the electoral votes of a state, a candidate must win that state’s majority vote. Also, to win the presidency of the United States, a candidate needs a minimum of 270 electoral votes. This makes the electoral map an invaluable guide for presidential campaign strategists.

Below is the distribution of electoral votes by states for 2001-2010 per USA Federal Election Commission: Alabama 9, Alaska 3, Arizona 10, Arkansas 6, California 55, Colorado 9, Connecticut 7, Delaware 3, Washington, D.C. 3, Florida 27, Georgia 15, Hawaii 4, Idaho 4, Illinois 21, Indiana 11, Iowa 7, Kansas 6, Kentucky 8, Louisiana 9, Maine 4, Maryland 10, Massachusetts 12, Michigan 17, Minnesota 10, Mississippi 6, Missouri 11, Montana 3, Nebraska 5, Nevada 5, New Hampshire 4, New Jersey 15, New Mexico 5, New York 31, North Carolina 15, North Dakota 3, Ohio 20, Oklahoma 7, Oregon 7, Pennsylvania 21, Rhode Island 4, South Carolina 8, South Dakota 3, Tennessee 11, Texas 34, Utah 5, Vermont 3, Virginia 13, Washington 11, West Virginia 5, Wisconsin 10, and Wyoming 3.

Since it is crucial to have a campaign presence in all the states through TV and radio adverts, paid campaign workers, etc., the staggering cost of US presidential campaign could not be overemphasized. Not only that the cost is enormous, but also the limitations of the campaign finance law may restrict the flow of money to candidates’ campaign.

Interestingly, to follow the presidential campaign, understand it clearly, and appreciate the process, not only that one has to comprehend the electoral college process briefly discussed above, but also one has to grasp how presidential campaigns are funded.

The presidential campaigns could either be publicly funded or privately funded. In any case, individuals and corporations fund the electioneering in America. To be precise, the matching funds the government gives to publicly funded presidential candidates through the Federal Election Commission (FEC) come from individual tax-filers who elect to contribute $3.00 per individual toward presidential elections. Candidates may elect to receive the matching funds from the government or reject it and raise money to finance their campaign. Consistent with FEC, candidates receiving federal funds will limit their campaign spending for 2004 general elections to $74.62 million.

According to FEC, ”A major party nominee who has accepted public funding for the general election may not accept any contributions to further his election. You may, however, help a publicly funded nominee by contributing to the candidate's compliance fund. A compliance fund is a special account maintained by publicly funded nominees solely for paying legal and accounting expenses incurred in complying with the campaign finance law. You may contribute up to $1,000 to the compliance fund of a major party nominee. In the case of a major party nominee who is not publicly funded, you may contribute up to $1,000 to his/her general election campaign.”

Though the responsibility of conducting elections lies with the States, yet it is the responsibility of the FEC to ensure that the federal election and campaign finance laws are not broken. According to FEC source, “The Federal Election Commission ensures that candidates and convention committees requesting public funds have satisfied the eligibility requirements. The FEC then certifies payments of federal funds, which are actually made by the U.S. Treasury. Before certifying matching payments to primary candidates, the FEC first reviews submitted contributions to make sure they meet the requirements for matchability. Additionally, the FEC audits all public funding recipients to ensure that the funds were spent in compliance with the law. Under certain circumstances, the FEC may require the repayment of public funds.”

A candidate may elect to privately fund his campaign in order to be free from the spending limits. The two presidential candidates are privately funding their campaigns through money raised from individuals and corporations. However, they have to abide by the restrictions stipulated by the Campaign Finance Reform Act signed into law on March 27, 2002. The law allows an individual to contribute a total maximum of $2,000 toward any candidate committee per election and a limit of $25,000 to any national party per year. The money raised in this form is ordinarily called “hard money. The aggregate total “hard money” from an individual and or corporations in a two-year election cycle should be $95,000.00. Out of this amount, $37,500 and $57,500 respectively go to candidates and all national party committees, including the Political Action Committees (PACs). It is pertinent to note that hard money can be used for any legal purpose.

The Campaign Finance Reform Law is aimed at increasing individual and corporate contributions and also banning the “soft money”, the unlimited money spent by interest groups on “issue adverts” that mention a candidate’s name in time of an election. However, the campaign finance law also has a provision for what is called “independent expenditures”, which require, among other things, the independent groups, sometimes called 527 groups, to file a report with FEC when the independent expenditures exceed $250 in a year. This provision allows 527 groups, which is derived from a section of the federal tax law, to either support or oppose any presidential candidate, without the consent of a benefiting candidate, by spending money for communication calling for a defeat or an election of a defined candidate. The communication may include issue-related adverts on any media outlet as long as the expressed communication contains a notice that the benefiting candidate did not authorize it.

Also, considering that the stakes could not be any higher; each political party—Democrats and Republicans—wants to win the presidential election on Tuesday, November 2, 2004. They are not leaving any stone unturned. They are literally pulling all the stops to take advantage of the other.

Soft money and hard money are at play in this election. The Republicans, who have an edge over the Democrats in raising hard money, are accusing the Kerry campaign of using other groups to run political adverts attacking Bush in violation of 2002 Campaign Finance Reform Law. The Republican National Committee (RNC) has since filed a complaint to the FEC against these groups. RNC is alleging that these groups intend to influence the November election illegally. Kerry campaign has also denied any involvement with the groups that are running adverts that attack Bush. In defense, these groups that have been running the political adverts assert their rights to air their views about Bush and they maintain that they are operating within the 2002 Campaign Finance Reform Law.

In addition to other variables that would decide the 2004 presidential elections, whoever reaches a larger number of the electorates with effective message would have an edge over the other. While it takes money to reach a wider audience, it may require a good strategy to communicate effectively with the audience.

US presidential elections: The American process (Part I)

US presidential elections: The American Process (Part 2)

US presidential elections: The American process (Part 3)