The 2004 Presidential Election proves to be a campaign that fails to play by the rules as explained in “The Making of the Presidential Candidates 2004”. In Chapter 1, Bush and Mayer explain the consequences in front-loading in relation to the 2000 Presidential Election while in chapter 2, Corrado and Gouvea talk about how presidential campaigns are financed under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. They make predictions into what they expect the 2004 Presidential Election to look like since it is the first presidential election which must adhere to significant campaign finance reform signed into law four years ago. This paper will update their work and compare the 2000 and 2004 Presidential Election processes.
The presidential election process has changed dramatically because of front-loading. Front-loading is the trend in which more states schedule primaries and caucuses earlier in the presidential election calendar. These states receive more attention from the candidates and the media. They receive financial gain as media organizations and candidate staff members spend money for shopping, food, lodging, and gas. States that have moved up the date of their primary or caucus receive on average between $4,000 and $12,000 per day (Busch & Mayer, 2004).
In 1972, it took twelve weeks into the primary season for 65%, a clear majority, of the delegates to select which candidate they would support in the upcoming election. It took only five weeks in 1996 to get 65% of delegates while in 2000 it took seven weeks for 60% of the delegates to select a candidate (Busch & Mayer, 2004).
Many states have followed New Hampshire’s lead and moved their primary up.
In the 1996 Presidential Campaign, California moved its primary from early June to the last Tuesday in March. The Republican race was settled a few weeks before California’s primary so the state moved its primary even earlier for the 2000 Presidential Campaign (Busch & Mayer, 2004). California with its 315 delegates moved its primary up to ensure that the results from its primary would help influence other states.
The 2000 Presidential Election was less front-loaded than the previous several elections because New Hampshire decided to hold its primary on February 1 rather than hold it the final week in February. Many predicted that it would move its primary to the end of February so that its primary would be right before California and New York but in 2000, five weeks separated the primaries (Busch & Mayer, 2004).
For the 2004 Presidential Campaign, the primary was held the first Tuesday in March (Busch & Mayer, 2004). In doing this, it joined ten other states including Connecticut, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington into “Titanic Tuesday” (CNN, 2000 State Primaries, 2000).
New York and California still had their primaries about a month after New Hampshire in the 2004 Presidential Election. Ten other states have campaign events before California and New York shoring up about 27% of the delegates. Iowa’s caucus was two days after New Hampshire and on February 3, the first Super Tuesday event involved states such as Delaware, New Mexico, Arizona, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Carolina (CNN, Primary Results, 2004).
The 2004 Presidential Election took seven weeks for 72% of the delegates to select a candidate, 12% more delegates than the previous presidential election. Most of these delegates were states that had primaries or caucuses on the second Super Tuesday, which took place on March 2 (CNN, Primary Results, 2004).
Front-loading first emerged in the 1980’s because of changes in the presidential nomination process occurring in the mid to late 1970’s. One of the major changes was a commitment by delegates of each state to select a winner right after the caucus or primary rather than waiting until the weekend before Election Day. Another major change came about because of the campaign finance laws resulting in a campaign being even more expensive for potential candidates thus resulting in more candidates dropping out earlier in the campaign calendar (Bush & Mayer, 2004).
Under the old rules, the leading candidate at the end of the primaries had not yet received enough delegates to win the nomination at the eve of the convention. On average, they would receive only 40-70% of the delegates needed to win the nomination. The convention used to play a role in choosing the party candidate but today it no longer performs this role. In the last several election cycles, a candidate has enough delegates to win the nomination before the convention (Bush & Mayer, 2004).
According to CNN, John Kerry has 2,162 delegates resulting in him unofficially winning the Democratic nomination as of March 11, 2004 (CNN, Primary Results, 2004). Since this includes pledged and unpledged delegates, Kerry has not officially won the nomination but most are predicting he will. The Democratic National Convention on July 26-29 will allow each state’s Democratic Party to allocate delegates to a Democratic candidate. The first receiving a majority becomes the nominee. In the Republican system, all delegates from a state vote for the winning candidate. In the Democrat system, delegates are assigned based on the results of the primary or caucus on a Congressional district basis allowing some delegates from one state to vote for one candidate and other delegates from the same state to vote for the other candidate. Some states have unpledged delegates that are not obligated to support any candidate (CNN, The Delegate Selection Process, 2004).
Every serious presidential candidate must announce candidacy in the winter or spring of the year before the election at a time when most candidates are unknown to the public. The invisible primary starts when candidates first announce their candidacy and ends when the public gets information from the media about the candidate (Bush & Mayer, 2004).
The presidential nomination process requires candidates to run effective campaigns and to be well known and well financed before the party caucuses and primaries begin (Bush & Mayer, 2004). The 2004 presidential race featured John Edwards, a candidate that most people did not seem to know much about. Edwards showed clear potential but lost ground after early-state contests (Harris, 2004). Troubles started in December when he slipped in the polls as a result of the political and media focus with Howard Dean. Edwards’ speech about two Americas, one being for the rich and one for everybody else, helped him win second place in Iowa. However, his disappointing fourth place in New Hampshire slowed down the campaign. He won his home state of South Carolina but no other states (Archibold, 2004).
Voters are usually not given the time to be able to get to know a candidate well enough to make a decision. Most people follow the lead of New Hampshire and Iowa and vote for by the candidates who finished well in these states (Harris, 2004). After John Kerry’s strong win in Iowa and New Hampshire, Kerry was able to win caucuses and primaries in all but a handful of states (CNN, Primary Results, 2004).
The “divisive primary hypothesis” states that wrapping up the nomination early gives political parties time to heal wounds caused by a hard-fought nomination and to present a united front for the general election. The hypothesis believes that long nomination races that divide the party has more harm than good. Harris argues that there is little evidence that such harm exists (Bush & Mayer, 2004).
When John Edwards dropped out of the race, he immediately threw his support behind John Kerry, the leading Democrat who is expected to win the nomination (Archibold, 2004). If the hypothesis were true, Edwards would not immediately put his support behind another candidate after dropping out of the race.
In the 2000 presidential race and in presidential races since 1980, the candidate who raised the most amount of money prior to the election year was the eventual nominee (Bush & Mayer, 2004). At the end of 2003, Howard Dean was able to raise large sums of money through his website and large amounts of volunteers. Questions were raised about his lack of support from elected officials and party interest groups. He could have been a victim of being perceived as an outsider to the media. Media sources give positive coverage to outsiders and negative coverage after they gain strength causing mood swings (Brownstein, 2003).
The Republicans had an advantage in the 2000 election. This is because Democratic Party rules dictate that no state, except for Iowa and New Hampshire, can hold a caucus or primary before the first Tuesday in March. Between February 1 and March 7, there were six Republican primaries and two Republican caucuses but no Democratic events at all (Bush & Mayer, 2004). This resulted in the Republican candidates gaining exclusive media attention.
On February 7, 2000, Arizona Senator John McCain, the Republican candidate, was the most popular presidential candidate nationwide with a 58% CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll rating while Al Gore, the Democratic candidate, only received a 36% poll rating. The poll also showed that if the election were held that day, George W. Bush, the other Republican candidate would beat Al Gore, former Vice President and Democratic candidate, by a 53% to 44% margin. Of the two Democratic candidates, 31% of those polled said they had an unfavorable opinion of Bush and 37% said they had an unfavorable opinion of Gore. Of the two Republican candidates, 12% of those polled said they had an unfavorable opinion of McCain while 18% reported an unfavorable opinion of New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley, the other Republican candidate (Holland, 2000a).
It took a month after the first Democratic Presidential events for Gore to gain percentage points in the poll. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll reported on April 3 that 46% of voters would vote for Bush and 45% would choose Gore. That is compared to a poll done between March 10-12 which had 49% of voters choosing Bush and 43% choosing Gore. In this election, both Al Gore and George W. Bush were able to get their nominations by the end of March (Holland, 2000b). In the 2004 election, Democrats decided to start delegate selection at the same time as Republicans to get rid of this disadvantage (Busch & Mayer, 2004).
Bush & Mayer (2004) argue that the front-loading process fails to give voters the opportunity to figure out whether the candidate is the right person when looking at the circumstances that both the nation and the party are in. “Not all front-runners are the best possible nominees or would make the best possible presidents” (Bush & Mayer, 2004, 28).
Presidential elections have not only been impacted by front-loading but also by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002 that prohibits soft money at the national level explain Corrado and Gouvea (2004). This soft money used to be a source of money that political parties would raise for candidates from individuals, corporations, and labor unions. Soft money was not regulated so there was no limit to how much political parties could raise for candidates. Both parties used this money to fund television ads for candidates running in the 1996 Presidential Election and the 2000 Presidential Election before the national conventions. Money raised by political parties for candidates is now limited and must meet the new contribution limits (Corrado & Gouvea, 2004).
Corrado and Gouvea (2004) argue that because of the ban on soft money, Democratic committees will receive significantly less money since 47% of their funding in 2000 came from soft money. Democrats will have to find ways to raise more hard money and catch up to the level of hard money that is being raised by Republicans.
According to Mann and Ornstein (2004), Democrats have already been able to catch up with Republicans. They explain that both parties raised more money in 2003 with the new BCRA rules than they did the previous year when soft money was legal. Those supporting the these new rules explained they wanted to get money out of politics but these scholars explain that the backers of the new BCRA rules merely took away the appearance of corruption in politics.
The BCRA doubles the amount an individual can give to a candidate from $1,000 per election to $2,000. Incumbents and well-known candidates can raise more money if contributors donate the newly raised maximum. Lesser known candidates will be able to raise money more quickly but will not gain as much as well-known candidates because of BCRA (Corrado & Gouvea, 2004).
Howard Dean has proved that a candidate can reinvent the rules of fundraising even under BCRA. He also has proven that a candidate who is not well known can become well known while on the campaign trail. He brought in tens of thousands of new contributors and doubled Clinton’s fund-raising record in a pre-election year. The average donation of his contributors was $61 (Cooper, Tumulty, & Carney, 2004).
At the end of February, Dean had the highest amount, $50.4 million, of campaign contributions of any of the Democratic candidates while Kerry came in second with $40.5 million. Bush, on the other hand, managed to beat Dean with a whopping $158 million (FEC, 2004a). Currently, Kerry has earned $82 million (FEC, 2004b) and Bush has earned $187 million (FEC, 2004c). In the 2000 Presidential Election, Gore earned $133 million (FEC, 2000a) while Bush earned $193 million (FEC, 2000b). It is apparent that Kerry has a lot of catching up to do in the months ahead if he wants to match the amount of money Gore earned at the end of the 2000 election cycle.
The new BCRA rules place restrictions on issue ads. Political parties used to get around spending and contributing limits by creating ads that were candidate-specific. These ads were exempt from the rules because they did not have words such as “vote for”, “elect”, or “defeat”. In June 1996, the Democratic National Committee and Democratic state party committees spent more than $34 million on these ads with $22 million of it being soft money (Corrado & Gouvea, 2004).
To encourage candidates to solicit donations from smaller contributors, the law places a dollar-for-dollar matching fund for individual contributions up to $250. In order to get the matching funds, a candidate must raise at least $5,000 in $250 or less donations from donators in 20 states. The candidate must limit personal contributions to no more than $50,000 and meet the spending limits. After 2000, candidates who accept public funds can only spend 15% of the overall ceiling to cover the legal and accounting costs to adhere to the law (Corrado & Gouvea, 2004).
It is possible that candidates who accept public funds from BCRA run the risk of running out of money before their campaign is over. In the 2000 Presidential Election, Al Gore had only $11 million left at the end of March, which he used to maintain his campaign, and was unable to spend large amounts on active campaigning. George W. Bush had $20 million after gaining the nomination and used this amount to do more active campaigning (Corrado and Gouvea, 2004). If Gore was able to accept public funds like Bush did and had the ability to raise more than the amount of money he got through public funds, he might have been able to more heavily campaign to battleground states. This consequently may have enabled him to appeal to enough states to win the Electoral College.
Soft money contributions were a source of major revenue for Democratic candidates but because of BCRA, many more Democratic candidates may decide to reject public funds and use fundraising and personal income to fund their campaign. Both candidates for the 2004 Presidential Election, John Kerry and George W. Bush, will forgo public funds and use their personal income to fund their campaigns. (Corrado and Gouvea, 2004). Since Kerry forgoes public funds, he is one of the first Democratic nominees in recent history to be able to raise and spend money without restrictions before the convention (Cooper, Tumulty, & Carney, 2004).
Kerry used $6.4 million of his wife’s money to help start his campaign. Her money came from the fact that she is one of the inheritors to the Heniz fortune. In February 2004, since his first win in Iowa, the campaign earned $6.5 million. His Internet operation brings in about $200,000 a day and he has gotten the support of many donors (Cooper, Tumulty, & Carney, 2004). His ability to fundraise so effectively and quickly goes against the arguments of Corrado and Gouvea who predict that future Democratic presidential elections will be severely hurt by BRCA (Corrado and Gouvea, 2004).
Bush has already surpassed past records of fundraising with a new record of $132 million in 2003. His campaign depends on big donors who can now give $2,000 because of BRCA. Historically, Republicans have been known to have a broader base of donors than Democrats. (Cooper, Tumulty, & Carney, 2004).
Corrado and Gouvea argue that a candidate seeking to use personal income to finance their campaign would have to emerge before the Iowa caucus (Corrado and Gouvea, 2004). The authors are proven right in the emergence of John Kerry right after Howard Dean’s decline in popularity. One of the benefits that Kerry will have as a result of wrapping up the nomination early is being assisted by a united party (Harris, 2004).
Front-loading has created candidates who seem to be more ideologically extreme rather than take centrist positions on issues like most members of the public have. Those with the biggest influence on a presidential nomination are those strongly affiliated with a political party, the news media, and the influential elite who throw their money behind a candidate who will represent their interests. Voters experience more accelerated campaigns and are forced to make choices about candidates when they often times do not have enough information to make an intelligent decision (Busch & Mayer, 2004).
The changes that have come about because of the passage of campaign finance reform in 2002 tighten rules regarding political advertising. These changes will hurt candidates who accept public funding to finance their campaigns because the BCRA fails to increase the ceiling for matching contributions and fails to increase spending limits. Candidates who are able to raise large amounts of money from contributors contributing maximum contribution limits will receive less public money than candidates did in previous elections (Corrado & Gouvea, 2004).
Democracy has been greatly hurt by both front-loading and the ability for presidential candidates to opt out of public financing and instead cater to the interests of lobbyists and businesses to finance their presidential campaigns. Candidates should have their primaries and caucuses more spread out over the campaign calendar giving each state its own day to go to the polls to cast their vote. Banishing the Electoral College would force candidates to go out to the voters rather than just the states with the largest populations and thus the largest amount of delegates in the Electoral College. The media should concentrate more on focusing on the issues and encouraging voters to vote in caucuses and primaries. The BCRA should be reviewed and amended to make public financing a more attractive alternative for candidates. Candidates should be given the amount of money necessary to run a competitive campaign and in order to create a fair-playing field for all, all candidates should be required to have publicly funded campaigns, which hopefully will cast more focus on the issues and less focus on the money from big business.
Democracy will be threatened if people continue to lose faith in their government. Changes are necessary if our country wants to continue to be a land where the common person can win political office and truly represent the constituents he or she is elected to serve.
Archibold, Randal C. “As Edward’s Race Ends, Talk of No. 2 Spot on Ticket”. New York Times. 3/4/04. A.24. Brownstein, Ronald. “Dean Tries To Beat the Odds Against Outsiders; Latest insurgent bid fro the presidency shakes up Democrats. Rules favor insiders”. Los Angeles Times. 7/9/03. A.1. Busch, Andrew E. & Mayer, William G. The Front-Loading Problem. In Mayer, William G. (Ed.) The Making of The Presidential Candidates 2004. (2004). (Chapter 1). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Cooper, Matthew; Tumulty, Karen; & Carney, James. “Bring On The Cash!” Time, 168, 8. 18. Corrado, Anthony & Gouvea, Heitor. Financing Presidential Nominations under the BCRA. In Mayer, William G. (Ed.) The Making of The Presidential Candidates 2004. (2004). (Chapter 2). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. CNN: The Delegate Selection Process. America Votes 2004: The Primaries. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/misc/more.html. Accessed: 4/26/04. CNN: 2000 State Primaries. http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/02/09/forbes.field/index.html. Accessed: 4/26/04. CNN: Primary Results: Delegate Scorecard: America Votes 2004: The Primaries. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/scorecard/index.html. Accessed: 4/26/04. FEC (Federal Election Commission). 2004a. “Presidential Pre-Nomination Campaign Receipts Through February 29, 2004”. http://www.fec.gov/press/bknd/pres_cf/atm0229/presreceiptsm32004.pdf. Accessed: 4/20/04. FEC (Federal Election Commission). 2004b. “Presented by the Federal Election Commission – 2003-2004 Cycle: Kerry, John F”. http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/?_04+P80000235. Accessed: 4/27/04. FEC (Federal Election Commission). 2004c. “Presented by the Federal Election Commission – 2003-2004 Cycle: Bush, George W”. http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/?_04+P00003335. Accessed: 4/27/04. FEC (Federal Election Commission). 2000a. “Presented by the Federal Election Commission – 1999-2000 Cycle: Gore, Al”. http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/?_00+P80000912. Accessed: 4/27/04. FEC (Federal Election Commission). 2000b. “Presented by the Federal Election Commission – 1999-2000 Cycle: Bush, George W”. http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/?_00+P00003335. Accessed: 4/27/04. Harris, John F. “Edwards Vs. Kerry – And the Calendar; Primary System Hurts Slow Starters.” The Washington Post. 3/2/04. A.01. Holland, Keating. (2000a) “Poll: McCain the most popular presidential candidate nationwide: Arizona senator beats Gore in hypothetical match-up; First Lady has uphill climb in New York Senate race”. http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/02/07/cnn.poll/index.html. Accessed: 4/26/04. Holland, Keating. (2000b) “Poll: Gore gaining on Bush”. http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/04/03/poll.cnn/index.html. Accessed: 4/26/04. Mann, Thomas & Ornstein, Norman. (2004). “So Far, So Good on Campaign Finance Reform”. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.. http://0-gateway.proquest.com.csulib.ctstateu.edu:80/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&res;_dat=xri:pqd&rft;_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&genre;=article&rft;_dat=xri:pqd:did=000000564126791&svc;_dat=xri:pqil:fmt=text&req;_dat=xri:pqil:pq_clntid=18402. 3/1/04. A.19.
