Active at Every Stage
Organized interests and well-organized individuals endeavor to shape
election-year debate at every stage of the nominating process, from the
pre-campaign period to the transition.
Organizations
advocating
on subjects from abortion and the environment to 2nd Amendment rights
and
taxes mount efforts big and small to see that their points of view
are
represented during the long presidential campaign. In addition there is
a whole spectrum of ideological groups, PACs, super PACs, Section 527
organizations, and "social welfare organizations" trying to influence
the campaign debate.
There are myriad
ways in
which an interest group can seek to influence the discussion. A
hands-on
approach
may entail developing a network of local
volunteers and supporters and encouraging them to show up for candidate
events or do some phone banking, producing
collateral
items such as brochures and signs, issuing a pledge, or developing a
questionnaire for the campaigns to respond to. A group can
send out a team to follow a candidate's bus tour and counter its
message or hire a plane to fly a banner over an event, or it may opt to
run a more traditional media campaign using some combination of direct
mail,
print, radio and/or television ads.
Different Groups Can Do Different Things
There are rules,
of course, as to what various groups can do. The foundation
starts with the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971. In 2002, Congress
passed the
Bipartisan Campaign
Reform Act (BCRA). In the decade since then, outside money has
found many new channels to flow into the system. Recent court
decisions and a deadlocked, toothless Federal Election Commission have
left matters so that election campaigns have become, in the words of
Paul Ryan of The
Campaign Legal Center, "a wild west of
undisclosed political spending."
Political action
committees pool contributions and then make contributions to
candidates and party committees. There are various kinds of PACs,
connected, non-connected and leadership PACs. Leadership PACs are
one vehicle favored by potential presidential candidates in the
pre-campaign period (+).
After the passage of BCRA, Section 527 organizations, named after a section of the tax code, emerged as a channel for soft money funds. 527's can engage in voter mobilization efforts, issue advocacy and other activity short of expressly advocating the election or defeat of a federal candidate. They are not subject to regulation by the FEC and there are no limits to how much they can raise. Perhaps the most famous of the 527s was Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, which attacked Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry in the 2004 campaign. The Swiftboat Veterans group was found to have violated the limitations on campaign activity, thereby falling within the jurisdiction of the Federal Election Campaign Act, and was forced to pay substantial penalties—albeit two years after the campaign was over.
Developments in 2010 opened the floodgates.
On
January
21, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission (>),
allowing
labor
unions,
corporations
and
incorporated
membership
organizations
to
engage
in
direct
electioneering
communications
with
general
treasury
funds.
[Before Citizens
United these
groups could engage in a broad array
of nonpartisan political
education
activities
such as distributing voter guides, holding forums, etc. They
could also establish separate segregated funds or
political
action committees which were allowed to make partisan communications to
their members].
Under Citizens United these organizations are still prohibited by federal election campaign laws from making direct contributions to federal elections campaigns. The FEC has issued some advisory opinions, but its rulemaking process bogged down (FEC, +).
Building on Citizens
United, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on March 26, 2010 in
SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election
Commission (>)
that
contribution
limits
on
SpeechNow,
a
Section
527
organization,
were
unconstitutional.
Thus
was
born
the
"super
PAC." Unlike an ordinary PAC which makes contributions to
candidates and party committees, super PACs are "independent
expenditure only committees." According to the Center for
Responsive Politics, these "can raise unlimited
sums from corporations, unions and other groups, as well as wealthy
individuals" which they then use to "advocate for the defeat or
election
of federal candidates." Again the FEC has issued some advisory
opinions, but been unable to come up with rules (FEC,
+)
In addition to the super PACs, another type of entity emerged as a
key player in the 2010 and 2012 campaigns. 501(c)(4)'s, tax-exempt,
not-for-profit social welfare
organizations (>),
are
allowed
to
engage
in
political
advocacy,
provided
that
such
advocacy
is
not
their
"primary
activity." These
include such groups as Americans for Prosperity, Crossroads
GPS and the American Action
Network (AAN). What constitutes "primary activity is open to
interpretation. These
groups do
not have to disclose their donors, and their activities are
viewed with great skepticism
and concern by
public advocacy
groups.
Finally, mention should be made of 501(c)(3)'s. These include
charities and foundations, and their tax-exempt
status is
predicated
on their not engaging in partisan activities. ["501(c)(3)
organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly
participating in, or
intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition
to) any candidate for elective public office."].
The
IRS seeks to
curtail
prohibited
political
activity
by
tax
exempt
groups.
However, after the 2012 campaign, in May 2013, it became
clear that there had been improper activity at the IRS itself since about 2010
in the form of targeting of tea party and other conservative groups
seeking tax exempt status (see IG audit
report, example
[PDFs]).
Single-Interest Groups
As noted in Political
Parties, there are many ideological groups and organizations which
taken together form a kind of ideological infrastructure around the
parties, but which are or can be thought of as interest groups.
In addition to these, there are myriad interest groups focused on
single issues (or sets of issues) such as oganized labor, environmental
and pro-choice groups on the left and
business, gun rights and
pro-life groups on the right. These groups employ a number of
approaches to inject
their issues into the campaign, and add spice to the discussion.
Grassroots Campaigns
Conducting a hands-on,
grassroots
campaign requires considerable effort to organize, but it can have
great
effect. Candidates and their campaigns take notice when activists
from a particular group keep showing up at their events. During
the primary campaign, there are alway a few grassroots campaigns
focused on the
early states of Iowa and New Hampshire. Early examples from the
2016 cycle are Freedom to Marry's effort to remove anti-gay language
from the Republican platorm (+),
and MoveOn.org Political Action's effort to encourage Sen. Elizabeth
Warren (D-MA) to run for president (+).
In
the
2012
Iowa
caucus
campaign,
the
group
Strong
America
Now did extensive organizing on the Republican side. During the
2008 primary
campaign, Ben Cohen's Business
Leaders for
Sensible Priorities, Divided We Fail, ONE Vote '08 and the SEIU's
health care effort were very visible in both Iowa and New
Hampshire.
Although union membership has declined steadily in
recent decades (>),
labor
support
can
be
crucial
in
a
competitive
Democratic
primary
and
critical
for
the
Democratic
nominee
the
fall
campaign. Union members
provide
the manpower for everything from turning out large crowds at rallies to
working phone banks. The
AFL-CIO's election programs place a
heavy emphasis on member to member contacts
such
as workplace flyers, home visits, and calls. Although organized
labor does not have the clout it once did, and although questions have
been raised about the AFL-CIO's focus and commitment to electoral
politics as opposed to organizing, there is no question that organized
labor as a whole will play a significant role in the 2016
campaign.
On the Republican side, business groups and
faith-based groups play an important role. For example, the Faith
& Freedom Coalition reported "making 102 million voter contacts in
2014 in key states," which it claims "was the largest voter education
and GOTV effort directed at faith-based voters in a midterm election in
modern political history."
Advertising Campaigns
Interest group ads comprise a fair share of the
political ads viewers are bombarded with in campaign season.
These may be direct electioneering efforts ("vote for..."), they may be
messages supportive of or opposing a particular candidate ("tell
President Obama that...") or more rarely they may seek to
inject
specific issues into the debate without even mentioning the
candidates.
In the 2012 campaign voters in battleground states saw a lot of
super PAC and
501(c)(4) ads. In many cases, other than the disclaimer, these
are difficult to distinguish from ads run by the
campaigns themselves.
It can be argued that during the 2012 Republican primary, super PAC ads
kept
the Santorum and Gingrich campaigns alive, prolonging the
process, but that ultimately a flood of ads run by pro-Romney
groups torpedoed those candidacies. Similarly in the 2012 general
election, various groups ran ads for and
against Obama and Romney. Among the more active groups aligned
with Romney were Restore Our Future, American Crossroads and Americans
for Prosperity, while Priorities USA Action was aligned with Obama.
Endorsements: Varying Impact
During the primaries
backing
of an influential group can provide a significant boost to a nascent
campaign.
An endorsement obviously carries more weight if it goes beyond the
press
release or announcement and involves resources. During the
general
election, an organization's endorsement
of a presidential candidate is probably not going to affect the voting
decisions of the group's individual members, but it does give the
campaign
something to talk about and is a factor for members of the broader
public
to consider.
Conventions: A Time to Focus
The national nominating conventions, with thousands of media representatives on hand, prompt many groups to mobilize and try to get out their messages. Before the conventions actually start, interest groups weigh in on the party platforms. At the conventions, a fair number of delegates are active members of one organization or another, and they take the opportunity to network in various caucuses and meetings. Groups also organize receptions or forums and they may set up hospitality suites.
In addition, there is the "outside" scene at the conventions, which has reached extraordinary levels in recent years. Typically there have been fenced off demonstration areas set aside at the edge of the convention sites where representatives from groups with opposing views can make their points. However, these are little more than side shows, and it is the street demonstrations that attract most of the attention.
Up to Election Day...And After
Interest group activity continues through the general
election campaign
and after. In the fall, various organizations' endorsements draw
a fair bit of attention. During the
transition period interest groups weigh in
with reports, papers, projects, programs and recommendations for the
incoming administration.
Useful
Links
2012
|
2008
|
2004
|
2000
- The Campaign Legal Center - "What You Need to Know About Everything that Matters This Cycle" (2014)
- Center for Public Integrity - "Consider the Source" (2014)
- FEC - "2012 Independent Expenditure" | "2014 Independent Expenditure"
- IRS - "Tax-Exempt Organizations and Political Campaign Intervention"
- SCOTUS Blog - Citizens United page