|
Showing 1 - 7 of
7 matches in All Departments
This report considers contemporary developments in presidential
elections. It emphasizes three topics chosen for their recurring
importance and notable recent developments: (1) nominating
procedures; (2) campaign finance; and (3) the electoral college.
The report highlights significant developments in these areas,
particularly for the 2008 and 2012 elections. It also provides
background information about the presidential election process in
general. Other CRS products cited throughout this report provide
additional information about the topics introduced here. As the
report notes, 2012 was expected to be a noteworthy election cycle
for several reasons. Some are extensions of developments that
started in 2008 or before, while others are more recent. Key themes
discussed in this report include the following: In recent years,
the two major political parties have made efforts to control the
"front-loading" phenomenon, the tendency for states to vie to be
first or among the first to hold caucuses or primary elections to
select presidential nominees. As the result of inter-party
cooperation following the 2008 election, front-loading was
significantly reduced for 2012; Among Republicans, the
winner-take-all method that had been widely used was replaced with
a proportional system for contests before April 1, although strict
proportional allocation was not mandated. With an open race for the
Republican nomination, the pace of primaries and caucuses and the
new allocation rule were expected to have an unpredictable effect.
In the end, the changes prolonged the contest in comparison to
recent previous contests; Significant changes in campaign finance
law shaped campaign finance in the 2012 election cycle, largely as
a result of the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v.
Federal Election Commission. In the aftermath of Citizens United,
presidential candidates may face additional pressure to raise funds
to be able to compete against their opponents and outside groups,
particularly new organizations called "super PACs;" One of the most
notable campaign finance developments in recent elections is the
decline of the public financing system for presidential candidates.
The 2012 cycle marked the first since the public financing
program's inception that no major candidate accepted public funds;
After decades of congressional inactivity, state-level initiatives
to reform the electoral college were actively considered in 2012.
Among these were proposals to establish the district system of
awarding electoral votes in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and further
discussion of the National Popular Vote initiative (NPV). NPV seeks
to implement direct popular election of the President and Vice
President through an interstate compact, rather than by
constitutional Amendment; Various states have considered or are
considering changes to their participation in the electoral
college. Moreover, a nongovernmental organization, the National
Popular Vote (NPV) campaign, has proposed an interstate compact
that would achieve direct election without a constitutional
amendment.
Super PACs emerged after the U.S. Supreme Court permitted unlimited
corporate and union spending on elections in January 2010 (Citizens
United v. Federal Election Commission). Although not directly
addressed in that case, related, subsequent litigation (SpeechNow
v. Federal Election Commission) and Federal Election Commission
(FEC) activity gave rise to a new form of political committee.
These entities, known as super PACs or independent-expenditure-only
committees (IEOCs) have been permitted to accept unlimited
contributions and make unlimited expenditures aimed at electing or
defeating federal candidates. Super PACs may not contribute funds
directly to federal candidates or parties.
During the 109th Congress, 51 bills were introduced to change the
nation's campaign finance laws (primarily under Titles 2 and 26 of
the U.S. Code). These bills - 43 in the House and 8 in the Senate -
sought to change the current system, including tightening perceived
loopholes. Two of those bills passed the House, but no bill passed
both chambers. Therefore, no statutory changes occurred in federal
campaign finance law during the 109th Congress. Although the 109th
Congress chose not to enact campaign finance legislation, Congress
nonetheless considered dozens of bills addressing a wide variety of
topics. In summarising that legislation, this book identifies 14
major topics (categories) addressed in the bills. These categories
are diverse, ranging from changing individual contribution limits
to regulating independent expenditures. Although some bills called
for increased regulation, others proposed less regulation. Hence,
legislative activity during the 109th Congress reflected a
long-standing debate in campaign finance policy over extending
regulation of campaign finance practices versus limiting the reach
of such regulation.
This book reviews past proposals for and debate over congressional
public financing. It also discusses experiences with the
presidential and state public financing systems. Finally, the book
offers potential considerations for Congress in devising a public
financing system for its elections if it chooses to do so.
|
You may like...
Paris Cat
Dianne Hofmeyr
Paperback
R260
R65
Discovery Miles 650
|