Um, I already know how a bill becomes a law. Why am I taking this exam again?

Federal Regulation of Presidential Elections

National elections are regulated by federal law. The law sets the date for presidential and off-year elections as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. Federal law also requires secret ballots. Since 1907, the federal government has regulated campaign finance. Most notably, the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and its amendments of 1974 and 1976 have established disclosure requirements and limits on contributions and spending. For 2008, individuals were allowed to contribute $2,300 to candidates for federal office and $28,500 to national parties.

The law also established a source of public subsidies for presidential candidates demonstrating a broad base of public support. During the primaries, candidates that raise $5,000 in contributions of less than $250 in 20 states are eligible to receive matching funds. Once the party nominees are chosen, the candidates may receive grants to cover their campaign expenses. But if they do, they may not spend any additional money. In 2004, neither candidate accepted federal financing. In 2008, Republican candidate John McCain did, but Democratic candidate Barack Obama did not.

These provisions are administered by the Federal Election Commission. Rigid limits are also set on the "hard money" (money contributed directly to a political candidate) contributed by Political Action Committees or PACs. But there are no restrictions on "soft money" (money contributed to the party for general party activities or money spent promoting issues supported by a candidate or raising concerns about the candidate's opponent).

In addition, in 1976 the United States Supreme Court held in Buckley v. Valeo that many provisions of federal campaign finance law, especially those relating to spending, violated the First Amendment. As a result, its spending restrictions now only apply to presidential candidates (House and Senate candidates are no longer subject to its terms) and candidates opting not to receive federal funding are not subject to the same spending caps as well.

Study Break

Politicians love to complain about interest groups. Their opponents always "cater to special interests" or are in the "hip pocket of powerful interest groups." You would think that they were some sort of secret and malevolent alliance—conspirators against the wishes of the majority. (And some are, like the National Coalition to Enslave America to the Decepticons, or the Anti-Puppy League).

But not all interest groups are that evil, and most of us belong to one or another. If you pay membership dues to the National Rifle Association or the American Civil Liberties Union, you are a member of an interest group. If you contribute money to the Sierra Club or the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, you are funding an interest group and its lobbyists in Washington.

The founders, again, would not have been happy about that. They opposed all factions that focused on narrow or private interests rather than the interests of the community as a whole. They believed that an "interest group" was by definition, contrary to the interests of the nation.

On the other hand, interest groups and their defenders claim that they provide a vital service in informing and mobilizing voters—and that a healthy democracy is one in which interest groups are balanced, not one with no interest groups at all. Love them or hate them, interest groups are powerful participants in American politics, so you will need to know about them.

Defining Interest Groups

What's the difference between an interest group and a party? That's not merely a brain-teaser or an annoying specific AP question. It's a crucial issue that comes up every time a party pushes interest group members to get out and vote for its candidates ("Hey, gun owners, you should really vote for the guy who won't take away your guns"), and every time an interest group complains that a party isn't going far enough to support its agenda ("You said you wouldn't take away our guns, so why can't we own tanks? They're just cars with guns attached to them.")

Interest groups and political parties are very similar in some ways. The existence of both is contrary to the beliefs of the Constitution's framers: their word for parties—factions—could have been as easily applied to interest groups in that they promote a narrow interest serving only a portion of the community. But as a matter of practicality, interest groups, like parties, emerged as critical and, in ways, very similar participants in our political and policymaking processes. Like political parties, interest groups:

• 
  Unite individuals in the political process behind an agenda.
   
  
• 
  Mobilize voters. Interest groups stage rallies, conduct phone and email campaigns, mail literature, and buy ads.
   
  
• 
  Collect and disseminate information to voters and policymakers. Many interest groups maintain research divisions that focus on gathering the information needed by voters and policymakers to make informed decisions.
   
  
• 
  Evaluate and sort candidates. Interest groups rate candidates based on their support of the group's objectives. Many voters rely on these ratings in making their choices.
   
  
• 
  Serve as watchdogs over the politicians in power. They closely monitor and report the positions taken by legislators, governors, judges, and the president.
  

• 
  Do not nominate candidates.
   
  
• 
  Are less interested in electing individuals than advancing an issue. Success is achieved not by securing a party majority, but by an electoral or legislative victory for their issue.
   
  
• 
  Are more narrowly focused than parties. Parties must construct a comprehensive platform designed to appeal to a majority of the voters. Interest groups form around an issue (such as the National Rifle Association or People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) or a constellation of issues, beliefs, and values (such as the Sierra Club or National Association of Evangelicals). Other interest groups represent the interests of a constituency (such as the American Association for Retired Persons or the Public Employees' Union). A constituency interest group may be defined by age (Grey Panthers), gender (National Organization of Women), occupation (American Federation of Teachers, American Medical Association), industry (National Textile Association, American Farm Bureau, Information Technology Industry Council), or extraordinary unpopularity (NAMBLA).
  

Most Americans hate lobbyists, because they seem to accomplish everything on the basis of insider connections, glad-handing, and influence-peddling. Most politicians love lobbyists, because lobbyists pretend to be their friends and take them out for steak dinners.

Lobbyists are professional marketers representing the interests of interest groups. Large interest groups maintain their own fleet of lobbyists; small interest groups hire a professional lobbyist who maintains a stable of clients. An influential lobbyist has extensive political connections and understands the intricacies of the legislative process. For this reason, many lobbyists are former members of Congress, state legislators, and staffers.

One key to their influence, and perhaps their actual usefulness in the capital, is the information that they provide. But the most successful can couple this information with political pressure. By tapping into the rank and file of the interest group—organizing mail and email campaigns, encouraging members to call their representative, and holding rallies—lobbyists apply political pressure on government policymakers.

Almost everything you need to know about Political Action Committees, you can learn from a great American, Stephen Colbert. Stop what you're doing right now and contribute to Stephen Colbert's Super PAC—"making a better tomorrow, tomorrow!"

Almost every interest group, in addition to influential comedians, maintains a Political Action Committee to advance its interests. A PAC's primary purposes are to support the efforts of an interest group's lobbyists and to collect and distribute money for political campaigns. PACs are required to register with the government, but the restrictions on PAC spending are generally less confining than those placed on individuals.

For example, the Federal Election Commission sets limits on the amount an individual may contribute to a PAC (currently $5,000 annually), and the amount a PAC may contribute to a candidate (currently $5,000 annually) or a political party (currently $15,000 annually). But, the Supreme Court ruled in 1976 in Buckley v. Valeo that PACs may spend unlimited amounts indirectly on a campaign—that is, on promotional efforts that are not orchestrated by the candidate's campaign committee. (This lead to some fishy circumstances in which a clearly partisan PAC will launch attack ads against a candidates that just so happen to be "not orchestrated" by the candidate's opponent).

In addition, federal campaign laws generally do not restrict the amount that may be spent on ads for issues as opposed to candidates. In recent years, "527s" have emerged as a vehicle for spending unlimited amounts on specific issues and, indirectly, the candidates that support them. So long as an ad does not mention a candidate by name, a 527 may spend unlimited amounts of money promoting the issues of their favored candidates and criticizing the issues adopted by their opponents ("Tell a certain candidate, whose name we will not mention, that you're against his socialist takeover of the health care system. But don't tell him we told you to tell him.")

The most recent development in all this has been the rise of Super PACs. The Supreme Court's decision inCitizens United v. FEC made possible a new breed of PACs that could raise unlimited money from corporations, unions, or just really, really rich people, and spend unlimited amounts of that money on elections (as long as they are not coordinating with a particular candidate).

You know how everyone seems to hate "Washington" in general, but still votes to elect the local Congresscritter regularly? Interest groups are a lot like that—everyone may be a fan of their own particular interest group, while still being against "special interests" in general.

Some critics draw upon the republican (lowercase r!) ideology of the founders in criticizing interest groups. Rather than promote the general welfare, these critics argue, special interest groups promote narrow, private interests. Moreover, in promoting these narrow interests, they provide unbalanced information often bordering on propaganda. In doing so, they undermine the collective objectives of the public, and they obstruct the process of governing. For example, some analysts argue that interest groups have distorted the Senate's role in approving judicial nominees. They apply political pressure to Senators who should be evaluating judicial nominees on the basis of their qualifications rather than the positions they have taken on legal issues important to interest groups.

Other critics focus more on the loopholes within current campaign finance law that leave so much power to Political Action Committees. Under the Lobbying Act of 1946 and the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, lobbyists are forced to register with the government, notifying the public of their presence in the capital and their objectives. Other legislation has established "waiting periods" for former Congresspersons and executive officials before taking lobbying positions (leading some retiring politicians to complain, "Two years? But I'm greedy now"). Reformers argue that that these should be amended and attached to tougher spending restrictions.

The most expensive presidential election ever…was in 1896?

If George Washington, Abe Lincoln, and Richard Nixon ever got together, possibly the first thing they would discuss would be that meddling media. Politicians and political observers have been bewailing the media's effect on politics as long as we've been a country.

Do you know about the time a partisan newspaper called the president a "common pickpocket"? The president was George Washington.

What about the time the papers accused a candidate of having two wives? That was Andrew Jackson.

And the time papers ran cartoons depicting the president as a monkey? Abraham Lincoln, right after he issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

Media in Politics

As you might've guessed from those examples, the idea of objective, non-partisan media is a fairly new one in American history. The nation's first newspapers were typically party organs used to trumpet one set of candidates and smear their opponents (opposition newspapers, for instance, did a great deal to spread the rumor that Thomas Jefferson had an affair with his slave, Sally Hemmings—one rumor the press apparently got right).

The press as we have come to view it—balanced, non-partisan, and professional—did not emerge until the twentieth century. National newspapers owned by large syndicates and publishing the same articles coast to coast emerged in the twentieth century, as well.

Newspapers remained the primary source of political news for Americans until the 1960s, when they were replaced by television. Today, these traditional sources of information are being challenged by the Internet, especially among younger people. Forty-four percent of all persons 18-34 visit a web portal daily for their news, and only 19% read a newspaper. The media's role in politics has always drawn criticism. Even the "non-partisan, professional" press has been criticized for several reasons.

• 
  Bias. Conservatives often complain that the press carries a liberal bias. Studies have shown that reporters tend to be more liberal than conservative. But studies have also revealed that publishers and editors tend to be more conservative—leading some liberals to complain that the real source of bias is "the corporate media" backing the profit-making status quo.
   
  
• 
  Superficial coverage. Network news shows generally run only one-half hour. Most stories are examined for less than one minute. Did you know that important new federal legislation will radically affect your…ooops, this bullet point is out of time. Tune in tomorrow.
   
  
• 
  Short news cycle. The emergence of 24-hour cable news networks made news constantly available—and also meant that the media had to deliver "fresh" news stories throughout the day. Critics argue that news is not digested or adequately researched, and that insignificant stories are turned into significant stories in order to fill a broadcast. Look—a dog with a funny hat! Breaking news!
  

All forms of national mass media have permitted politicians to directly access the public. President Theodore Roosevelt was acknowledging the value of national newspapers when he called the presidency a bully pulpit. (Btw, he meant "bully" as in "good"—one of those weird 19th-century expressions that have sadly gone out of use. President Roosevelt reminds you that bullying is wrong, kids.)

Franklin Roosevelt used radio in much the same way during his "fireside chats." Contemporary politicians spend millions reaching out to the public through the television. And Barack Obama's campaign for the presidency revealed both the fund-raising and outreach potentials of the Internet. Candidates and policymakers like these (also John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan) who learn how to make use of the media are strengthened by it. Others who do not (Richard Nixon, Sarah Palin) are weakened by the mass media.

Most political scientists argue that the growth of the mass media has weakened the importance of political parties. Some argue that political parties are becoming all but unnecessary as the media can fill two of the four primary functions of political parties: it can be used to mobilize voters and monitor the opposing party when it's in power.

George Gallup, the legendary founder of Gallup Polls, burst onto the political scene by predicting that Franklin Roosevelt would defeat Alf Landon in 1936. In doing so, he challenged the highly respected Literary Digest, which on the basis of an opt-in poll, had predicted a Landon victory. Landon, by the way, remained America'smost famous Alf for 50 years.