Kellogg Community College logo


Lecture Notes Chapter 11:

Review of Chapter 10:

POLITICAL PARTIES - ARE, those groups of like minded individuals who's aim is to "win government" through election/appointment.

REPUBLICAN PARTY MEMBER TRAITS - ARE, Conservative (wealthy, white, old, male, very likely educated, and maybe a business owner or at least a white collar employee), on the 'center-right side of the Spectrum,' and, therefore, more focused on Personal Freedom than Societal Equality.

DEMOCRAT PARTY MEMBER TRAITS - ARE, Liberal (less affluent, less educated, less old, less male and less white -in other words "MINORITY"- probably blue collar or maybe unable to work), on the 'center-left side of the Spectrum,' and, therefore, more focused on Societal Equality than Personal Freedom.

MINORITY-  IS, a term used to denote a group or individuals general standing within the "power-structure" of their society.

POWER - IS, the ability to cause (or to resist) change.

CHAPTER 11-

Generally, I joke with my students that the only thing you have to know about Chapter 10 (Political Campaign and Candidates) is that campaigns are expensive - and the candidate who has the most money wins.  Well, it's not quite that simple, but still there is a lot of truth to this quick summary.  Though the notes on this chapter won't be long - there are some valuable lessons found within the words below:

Though it goes without saying, if there is one thing you should know about Campaigns is that they're expensive!  And, if there is one thing you should know about Candidates is that the ones who can afford to run for office usually win.  The questions then become, "Why are campaigns so expensive?" and "Why does a particular candidate win?"

Campaigns are expensive -more so today than at any other time in our American history. We're not just talking Presidential elections but all elections.  To answer the first question of "why" we need to look at the following three factors: [See Below]

Changes In Campaign Dynamics:

1. Campaigns Last Longer

2. Campaigns Have Become More Professional

3. Media Costs Have Increased (Especially Television

To say that "Campaigns Last Longer" is actually to say they start earlier! They still end the same time the "first Tuesday after the First Monday in November" for the most part -excluding local and some state elections, but they are beginning earlier and earlier.  For example,  there is already effort underfoot for the Presidential election of 2012 -as well as Michigan's Gubernatorial election of 2010.  These campaigns have started, and there costing time and money RIGHT NOW!  And the other Changes in the Dynamics of Campaigns are multipliers to the overall cost.  This can be seen when looking at the second factor, "Campaigns have become more professional.

When we say "more professional," we're not exactly saying that the politicians are acting "more professional." No, they still whine, and sling mud, and do dirty campaigning. When we say "more professional" we're talking about the individuals hired to run and work on campaigns.  It used to be that you could run a campaign out of you garage -throw up a handful of yard sighs, knock on a few doors, go to a couple of rubber-chicken banquettes, and WHAM-BAM you were in office.  But, now a days you HAVE TO get the best team together, because if you don't you know your opponent will.  It's almost like MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction), except we're talking "political Bombs" not nuclear ones.  If you don't, you can be assured of your own destruction!  Professionalism in the campaign has opened up a number of career opportunities in the field Political Science/Public Policy.  Today, there are professional schedulers, media specialists, travel specialists, speech writers, image specialists, and the list goes on and on - and each of these "professionals" commands top-dollar for their expertise (How? Because they can -MAD, remember?).  And, as I said above, each of the factors becomes a multiplier:  To have the best shot at winning you have to get a professional team - better get them earlier than your opponent - and the sooner the campaign starts the longer you have to keep paying your team members.  In short, CAMPAIGN COSTS GO UP!!!!!

Speaking of costs going up, has anyone noticed the number of political commercials these days?  Has anyone notices the cost of a primetime television spot? Talk about WHAM-BAM!  What was a thirty second add during the Super Bowl? 2 Million? 20 MILLION?  30 seconds and GONE!  Does anyone remember any of those commercials? MAYBE! Would anyone remember spending a million dollars? I SURE AS HELL WOULD!  And, here's the kicker: because of MAD and the fact that campaigns last longer, the number of commercials -or bill boards- or mailers- goes up, and so does, then, the cost of a campaign.  Because "media" is so expensive, professionals are needed.  It all folds in upon itself.

Though these numbers are a bit dated, trust me that the figures haven't somehow been lessened.  Rather than talk "Presidency,"  which everyone knows has gotten ridiculous, let's just examine your average, run of the mill, congressional campaign:  in 1976 the average amount spent by a candidate was $76,000 (which isn't chump-change), by 1996, however, that figure has risen to $631,000 -AN INCREASE OF 9 FOLD in two decades?  I know inflation is a factor - BUT 9 TIMES?  And, that's the average.  The average today is quickly approaching 1 million dollars. Many candidates spent well over a million dollars to win a job that only pays a salary of some $150,000 a year.  Don't feel bad for the politician, however, as most of that money spent isn't theirs, it generally comes in the form of contributions from PACs (POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES - the business', union's, trade organization's [et cetera] arm that is involved with shaping government to benefit their organization/member's interests.), parties, or family and friends. 

The above fact easily leads us into "Why a particular candidate wins."  One word: CASHOLAIf it isn't personal wealth than it's access to wealth.  Why? Well, campaigns are won on one factor above many - NAME RECOGNITION.  Subsequently, this is where money comes in.  If you have money, then you can buy your name recognition - OR-  if you have name recognition, the money will come to you!

This is why incumbents do so well - winning solidly 9 time out of 10 (90%) when running for re-election.  They generally have both money that has accumulated over the last (past) election cycle(s) - and they have name recognition.  I like to call this special access to easy re-election, "the Ivory Tower of Incumbency." See Below:  

"THE IVORY TOWER OF INCUMBENCY"

In 1996, 2000, and I believe in 2004 (though all the data isn't in yet) NO CHALLENGER to an Incumbent SPENT LESS THAN A HALF A MILLION DOLLARS ON THEIR CAMPAIGN.  The barriers to Challengers are huge.  If Name Recognition and Access to Money are the two most important ingredients to a successful campaign than Incumbents have a near monopoly on those ingredients.  The "system," any system, will protect itself - in this case those who make the laws are also those who make the rules regarding winning the opportunity to make the laws.  The above diagram gives a snap-shot of how the "system" has been built up to protect those within it.  No wonder incumbents win 9 out of 10 reelection bids (and just knowing this, keeps a bunch of well qualified, would be, candidates from entering the race in the first place.)

Sometimes, and only sometimes, "incumbency" can be a negative.  This generally happens for two reasons: 1.) The economy may be in the dumper and the people are looking for someone to blame. OR, 2.) Because of the constant hounding political figures receive by the Media. Should the candidate screw-up (even a little) it becomes news and may be the ultimate demise of an incumbent.

To sum up,  if there is one thing you should know about Campaigns is that they're expensive!  And, if there is one thing you should know about Candidates is that the ones who can afford to run for office usually win.

Make sure you, also, take a look at the Campaign Finance Reform Soft Money (MONEYS RAISED TO ASSIST CANDIDATES INDIRECTLY -AND THEREFORE NOT SUBJECT TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE REGULATION), and, Independent Expenditures (FUNDS SPENT FOR OR AGAINST A CANDIDATE BY INDIVIDUALS OR COMMITTEES THAT ARE NOT DIRECTLY TIED TO THE CANDIDATES RUNNING -AND THEREFORE NOT SUBJECT TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE REGULATION).

And, if needed, the publisher has made resources available simply by clicking the link below.  

 

But be sure to read the chapter and not simply rely on the summary (it leaves too much out).


| Back to top of page | Email Instructor |

________________________________________________________________________________________

This page is designed and maintained by Jon Williams. 
Last modified date: 05/19/08
©2001 Kellogg Community College