Matching Items (4)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

135401-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Since the passage of the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974 (FECA) up until the most recent election in 2012, presidential campaign funds have risen over five hundred percent. While money has always been an essential and critical part of any political campaign, this rise has been drastic and

Since the passage of the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974 (FECA) up until the most recent election in 2012, presidential campaign funds have risen over five hundred percent. While money has always been an essential and critical part of any political campaign, this rise has been drastic and continues to increase at a higher rate with every election cycle, even when the numbers are adjusted for inflation. The purpose of this paper is to examine this continuous increase in cost of presidential campaigns and to analyze the different pieces that have contributed to this rise. The main pieces include two Supreme Court cases: Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, the rise and fall of federally regulated public funding and the various pieces of a presidential campaign that have considerably higher ticket prices with each election cycle. This paper first goes through both Buckley and Citizens, describing what each Supreme Court decision did and how they effected how much money can be spent in a presidential campaign and by whom. The paper then examines each presidential election since the passage of FECA in 1974 through the last election with President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in 2012. Each election cycle is broken down to show how much money was spent by each candidate and the Republican and Democratic National Committees, whether or not the money was received through public funds or raised privately, and subsequently the percentages of where the money was spent. While the examination of the Court cases helps to understand why so much money can be donated and contributed directly to campaigns or spent on behalf of a presidential candidate, the breakdown of where the money is spent including advertising, travel, staff salaries etc. helps to show why a presidential campaign costs over five hundred percent more today than it did forty years ago. By understanding this increase, how it was caused and where the money is going, it is more feasible to comprehend whether or not campaign finance reform should be proposed and if so, how it should be brought about.
ContributorsColby, Mikaela Nicole (Author) / Critchlow, Donald (Thesis director) / Shair-Rosenfield, Sarah (Committee member) / School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-05
134953-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Campaign finance regulation has drastically changed since the founding of the Republic. Originally, few laws regulated how much could be contributed to political campaigns and who could make contributions. One by one, Congress passed laws to limit the possibility of corruption, for example by banning the solicitation of federal workers

Campaign finance regulation has drastically changed since the founding of the Republic. Originally, few laws regulated how much could be contributed to political campaigns and who could make contributions. One by one, Congress passed laws to limit the possibility of corruption, for example by banning the solicitation of federal workers and banning contributions from corporations. As the United States moved into the 20th Century, regulations became more robust with more accountability. The modern structure of campaign finance regulation was established in the 1970's with legislation like the Federal Election Campaign Act and with Supreme Court rulings like in Buckley v. Valeo. Since then, the Court has moved increasingly to strike down campaign finance laws they see as limiting to First Amendment free speech. However, Arizona is one of a handful of states that established a system of publicly financed campaigns at the state-wide and legislative level. Passed in 1998, Proposition 200 attempted to limit the influence of money politics. For my research I hypothesized that a public financing system like the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission (CCEC) would lead to Democrats running with public funds more than Republicans, women running clean more than men, and rural candidates running clean more than urban ones, and that Democrats, women, and rural candidates would win in higher proportions than than if they ran a traditional campaign. After compiling data from the CCEC and the National Institute on Money in State Politics, I found that Democrats do run with public funds in statistically higher proportions than Republicans, but when they do they lose in higher proportions than Democrats who run traditionally. Female candidates only ran at a statistically higher proportion from 2002 to 2008, after which the difference was not statistically significant. For all year ranges women who ran with public money lost in higher proportions than women who ran traditionally. Similarly, rural candidates only ran at a statistically higher proportion from 2002 to 2008. However, they only lost at higher proportions from 2002 to 2008 instead of the whole range like with women and Democratic candidates.
ContributorsMarshall, Austin Tyler (Author) / Herrera, Richard (Thesis director) / Jones, Ruth (Committee member) / Economics Program in CLAS (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-12
Description
The Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission was put into effect in 2000 as a new method of campaign finance reform that sought to provide new voices with proper funds to compete with privately financed (traditional) candidates. In theory, the Clean Elections Commission could provide a more equal and more democratic

The Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission was put into effect in 2000 as a new method of campaign finance reform that sought to provide new voices with proper funds to compete with privately financed (traditional) candidates. In theory, the Clean Elections Commission could provide a more equal and more democratic method of handling elections in terms of campaign finance. Though much of its power was stripped away by the Supreme Court in the case, Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, the Commission still exists and provides qualifying candidates with a chance to run that they would not have otherwise and voters with more power to hold politicians accountable. Other work on the topic concerns its effectiveness as campaign finance reform and its ability to properly represent the constituents, though it lacks perspective from those in the political sphere who use or work on publicly funded campaigns. As such, along with my own background research, I interviewed three people who do have more direct experience with the Citizens Clean Elections Commission to determine their outlook on the system in its current and previous states. In doing so, I found that Arizona Clean Elections are not what they used to be and are likely not viable on a wider scale, though they still provide an accessible way to run for office and a method of voters holding their elected officials accountable.
ContributorsKnapp, William (Author) / Lennon, Tara (Thesis director) / Simhony, Avital (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor)
Created2023-05
160991-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

Over the past twenty years, the United States has experienced what Dr. Thomas Philippon calls "The Great Reversal," or a slow drift away from the free market competition which defined the American economy for the last century, towards an increasingly oligopolistic consolidation of market power. What does this mean? For

Over the past twenty years, the United States has experienced what Dr. Thomas Philippon calls "The Great Reversal," or a slow drift away from the free market competition which defined the American economy for the last century, towards an increasingly oligopolistic consolidation of market power. What does this mean? For the average American, prices have increased, wages remain stagnant, quality has declined, and the variety of goods has diminished. The reason? The growing political power of incumbent firms, who use their established economic power to influence the political process in their favor, towards high barriers to entry and decreased antitrust scrutiny, through lobbying and the financing of campaigns. Or have they? "The Great Reversal," and hypotheses like it, are far from a consensus... This Thesis is a meta study of the literature surrounding domestic competition in the United States and the impact that the lobbying activity of industry leaders has on said competition. Analyzing over 20 papers covering economics, political science, and political economy, this Thesis argues that domestic competition in the United States has indeed declined over the past two decades and that the growing political power of firms, rather than "unique" technological or structural changes in the economy, has caused this drift away from free markets. Using this analysis, this Thesis further suggests a few solutions to "The Great Reversal" and restoring competition in the American economy.

ContributorsJohnson, Logan (Author) / Hill, Alexander (Thesis director) / Schatzman, Christina (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor)
Created2021-12