Reform and Faction

In the past thirty years or so, our country’s political process has evolved considerably, producing a wide range of consequences. One of the most evident transformations is seen in the nomination process of potential candidates for various offices, particularly the Presidency. For much of our nation’s history, candidates were chosen by political elites through an institution known as caucuses. In this system, a small group of party officials and strategists nominated the candidate they viewed as the most viable to promote the party platform and ultimately get elected. This form of nomination, however, eventually came to be regarded as elitist and exclusionary by the voting populace. Because of this, our nation gradually shifted from the caucus model to that of primaries. Intended to transfer the power of choosing a party’s candidate into the hands of the people, the primary system has provided some unanticipated results.

By allowing the electorate to choose between potential candidates several months before the general election, the primary system places a great deal of emphasis on momentum. If a candidate can manage to campaign properly in early primary states and win that state’s election, much of the nation follows suit in their own voting tendencies. Thus, candidates use an inordinate amount of resources on these few early primaries as means of trying to influence voters throughout the nation. This is viewed by many as providing an undue amount of influence to states whose populations are small and non-representative of the nation as a whole.

This also leads us to address the issue of “front-loading.” Many of the most populous states (e.g. California, New York, Ohio) have bumped their primary elections to earlier dates so as to exert more influence on the Presidential nomination process. Thus, candidates are forced to campaign vigorously in these states, often neglecting issues and voters found elsewhere. This often results in rendering many later state primaries inconsequential and unimportant.

In further attempts to reform the electoral process, the federal government has instituted several regulations on campaign finance. Beginning in 1971 with the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), which was further amended in 1974, government attempted to restrict the amount of money that could be contributed to a candidate’s campaign. This law limited the amount that could be contributed by individuals, political action committees (PACs), and corporate entities. However, though the act attempted to restrict the amount of money that could be spent by individuals and groups independent of the campaign, the Supreme Court found this to be unconstitutional. As a result, though citizens were limited in their contributions to candidates directly, they were unfettered in the amount they could spend privately in favor or a specific candidate. Also, an amendment to the law allowed parties to spend an unlimited amount on party activities which translated to direct assistance to specific candidates. Thus, while citizens and PACs were somewhat limited in their freedom to contribute to candidate’s campaigns, they could donate huge amounts to the parties.

This system created a multitude of loopholes. As a result, candidates were still largely reliant on the “soft money” provided by their parties, and remained indebted to special interests. Though the McCain – Feingold legislation, passed in 2002, attempted to eliminate some of these loopholes by further restricting the maximum contributions of citizens and PACs, it opened the door to non-profit and tax-exempt groups to donate unlimited amounts to parties. These entities, known as “527 groups,” have essentially picked up the slack left by PACs and large corporations. As a result, special interests still dominate in the realm of fundraising, though candidates do depend on individual contributors more than they have in the past.

The very issue we have discussed here was addressed by the Founding Fathers during our nation’s first years: the influence of faction. While nomination process reform and campaign finance reform is intended to alleviate the influence of factious entities, it has, in some ways, strengthened them. By depending on special interest groups for a large chunk of their campaign finances, politicians are often inclined to treat these groups preferentially. In effect, special interests are able to purchase representation. This serves as the very basis for the idea of factions. While these groups represent a relatively small portion of the populace, legislation often tends to favor their causes. By relying on these sources for funding instead of a candidate’s party, as was the custom prior to 1971, the power of national parties has also decreased. An increase in private donations to particular candidates also serves to weaken party influence on candidates. In other words, campaign finance reform has dramatically changed our nation’s political structure. The legislation has increased the influence of special interest groups (factions) and decreased the influence of parties, resulting in a shift from citizen-oriented public policy to interest-oriented public policy. Needless to say, this development has rendered many citizens skeptical of the importance of their role in the political process, and surely has left the Founding Fathers kicking and screaming in their graves.