Congressional Campaign Committees Research Articles

Convergence or Divergence? Do Parties and Outside Groups Spend on the Same Candidates, and Does It Matter?

There is a good deal of discussion currently among political scientists about the nature of political parties and the impacts of changing party–group relations. Are so-called outside groups promoting extreme candidates and, thus, contributing to polarization? Or perhaps, party-allied groups follow the party’s lead and support the same candidates the party supports. We view parties as extended party networks (EPNs) and examine the campaign spending practices of formal party organizations (the House congressional campaign committees) and some of the groups that are seen as allied with each party and some we expect to be outside each party’s network. We analyze the levels of congruence and divergence in party and group spending in the 2014 House elections. We find that most nonparty groups support the same candidates favored by the party with which they most identify, and very few are outside each party’s EPN-supporting candidates who are challenging the party’s picks.

Does party support help candidates win?

The parties’ congressional campaign committees have made it their business to strategically provide contributions to candidate campaigns in order to help their candidates win. However, the effectiveness of these contributions in terms of increasing the competitiveness of party-sponsored candidates remains untested. Using contribution data from the U.S. Federal Election Commission in a series of mixed effects models as well as a matching analysis, the receipt of direct party contributions and coordinated support is shown to significantly improve the competitive position of challengers but not open seat candidates in races for the House. Further, independent expenditures by the parties do not significantly increase candidates’ competitiveness. The implications of these results for future party strategies are explored.

The Fading Exceptionalism of American Political Parties?: Evidence from Party Allocation Decisions

Using qualitative comparative analysis to mirror the decision-framework employed by the leaders of the Democratic and Republican congressional campaign committees, I demonstrate party leaders simultaneously consider multiple factors when they decide how to distribute their party’s limited resources to candidates. In contrast to studies, which characterize American party organizations as strategically pragmatic rather than ideologically motivated like parties in many other countries, I find the congressional candidate’s ideology is an increasingly important criterion for the receipt of party support as politics in the United States becomes more polarized.

Turning the Tables: Individual Contributions, Member Contributions, and the Changing Campaign Finance Environment

The BCRA soft money ban enacted in 2002 posed a serious challenge to Democrats. Could they compete in fundraising with the Republicans in a hard money only environment? Some even went so far as to suggest that BCRA was a "suicide bill" for the Democrats. Such dire predictions have not proven true. Democrats have exploited good candidates, strong party committee leadership, messaging, and technology to be competitive with the Republican Party overall in fundraising among individuals. The surge in individual donors to the Democrats is most pronounced in the 2008 presidential race but extends to the two congressional campaign committees as well.

Look Who's Coming to Dinner

House congressional campaign committees (CCCs) have increasingly relied on incumbents for financial support during the past decade. To raise money for their party's CCC, incumbents can (a) contribute to the CCC through their own principal campaign committee and/or leadership PAC or (b) broker contributions from donors. The authors argue that direct incumbent contributions make available to the party campaign committee broader contribution networks than do brokered incumbent contributions. One observable implication of this thesis is that ties to D.C. lobbyists should be a more powerful predictor of brokered than of direct contributions to the CCCs. Comparing Federal Election Commission data on direct member contributions to the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) with unique data on member ticket sales to the 2005 NRCC March Gala, the authors find strong support for this expectation. Soliciting direct contributions from incumbents appears to be a better means for the CCCs to gain access to new campaign money.

The Election after reform: money, politics, and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act

Chapter 1 Assessing the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act Part 2 Part I: The Political Parties Post-BCRA Chapter 3 Party Finance in the Wake of BCRA: An Overview Chapter 4 The Parties' Congressional Campaign Committees in 2004 Chapter 5 State and Local Political Parties Part 6 Part II: Interest Groups and Advocacy Organizations Chapter 7 BCRA and the 527 Groups Chapter 8 Interest Groups and Advocacy Organizations After BCRA Part 9 Part III: Air Wars and Ground Wars Chapter 10 Much More of the Same: Television Advertising Pre- and Post- BCRA Chapter 11 Stepping Out of the Shadows? Ground-War Activity in 2004 Part 12 Part IV: Candidates and Elections Chapter 13 The First Congressional Elections After BCRA Chapter 14 Self-Financed Candidates and the Millionaires' Amendment Chapter 15 A Public Funding System in Jeopardy: Lessons from the Presidential Nomination Contest of 2004

Redistributing Campaign Funds by U.S. House Members: The Spiraling Costs of the Permanent Campaign

In this article, we document and analyze the increase in the redistribution of campaign funds by U.S. House members during the 1990 through 2000 election cycles. By examining the contribution activity of members' leadership PACs and principal campaign committees, we show that House incumbents substantially increased their contributions to other House candidates and to the congressional campaign committees. The amount of money a member redistributes is a function of that member's institutional position: the greater the position's level of responsibility to the party caucus, the more campaign money the member redistributes, particularly as competition for majority control increases. Also, a member's capacity to raise surplus campaign funds, his or her support for the party's policy positions, and the level of competition for partisan control of the institution all affect the amount the member redistributes.

Incumbent Contributions to the Congressional Campaign Committees, 1990-2000

Incumbent Contributions to the Congressional Campaign Committees, 1990-2000

Incumbent Contributions to the Congressional Campaign Committees, 1990-2000

House incumbents now regularly transfer significant sums of campaign money from their reelection accounts to the party campaign committees. This article conducts the first comprehensive exploration of this activity. After briefly reviewing the federal regulations that govern member contributions to the campaign committees, I present data for the 1989-1990 through 1999-2000 election cycles that illustrate the steep rise in these contributions. I then test several hypotheses about members’ willingness to support their parties financially in light of the electoral conflict between incumbents and parties described by Jacobson (1985-1986). I find that a member’s leadership status in the House and ability to raise “surplus” campaign dollars are the two most consistent determinants of his or her financial support for the party campaign committees.

Pursuing Majorities: Congressional Campaign Committees in American Politics

Pursuing Majorities: Congressional Campaign Committees in American Politics

Pursuing Majorities: Congressional Campaign Committees in American Politics. By Robin Kolodny. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1998. 318p. $29.95 cloth, $18.95 paper.

Pursuing Majorities: Congressional Campaign Committees in American Politics. By Robin Kolodny. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1998. 318p. $29.95 cloth, $18.95 paper.

Pursuing majorities: congressional campaign committees in American politics

Pursuing majorities: congressional campaign committees in American politics

Party-Orchestrated Activities for Legislative Party Goals

Recent efforts by the congressional campaign committees (CCCs), the party organizations charged with electing candidates to the US House of Representatives, have been unusually proactive in pursuing House majorities. The CCCs convinced other party-related actors, such as the national committees, political action committees (PACs) and members of Congress, to help achieve majorities in the House. These party-orchestrated activities are notable for their focus on the legislative party's goals, rather than on the party's presidential candidate. The cooperative efforts of the CCCs with their respective national committees, their attempts to induce cooperation from the PAC community, and their outreach for assistance from their own office-holders are explored. These initiatives in the 1990s reflect a significant shift in tactics. They are a reaction to changes in the level of electoral competition, concurrent with the presence of party entrepreneurs who convinced other political actors to view the party's House electoral success as consistent with their own goals.

The Importance of Party Campaigning

Political parties are facing some stiff challenges: party labels are irrelevant to many voters, political action committees (PACs) are spending unprecedented amounts of election money, and contemporary campaigns are candidate-centered and run by professional consultants. However, I contend that an examination of party activity in elections reveals that parties are meeting the challenges posed by the new politics and that parties really do matter. My analysis is based on information drawn primarily from interviews with officials of the Democratic and Republican national, congressional, and senatorial campaign committees, interviews with and mail questionnaires from 385 candidates and campaign managers in the 1984 elections for the House, mail questionnaires from 77 candidates and campaign managers in the 1984 and 1986 elections for the Senate, and a less formal set of discussions held with a small group of PAC managers and state and local party officials.' The evidence demonstrates that parties are playing an important role in the campaigns of many candidates for public office. This is especially true for candidates running in competitive districts: incumbents who are in danger of losing their bids for reelection and nonincumbents who appear competitive enough to possibly defeat a sitting incumbent or capture an open seat. Party assistance can be divided into three types. First, parties assist candidates by providing them with money, professional campaign services, and strategic and administrative advice. Second, parties assist their candidates in making contacts and agreements with professional campaign consultants and PACs that result in the flow of money and other resources to the parties' most competitive contestants. Third, parties fund voter registration, get-out-the-vote drives, and mass media advertising designed to assist all of the candidates on the party ticket. Turning first to the assistance given directly by the parties to the can-

Do Parties Make a Difference? The Role of Party Organizations in Congressional Elections

Political scientists have expressed concern over the decline of political parties in recent years. This study provides evidence that at least one element of the political party, the party organization, is experiencing a resurgence rather than a decline. Data collected from nearly 400 House candidates reveal that party organizations continue to play an important role in congressional elections. National party committees, particularly the parties' congressional campaign committees, are now providing candidates with valuable assistance in activities that require technical expertise, in-depth research, or connections with the Washington campaign community. Included among these activities are campaign advertising, issue development, and fund-raising. State and local party organizations continue to assist candidates with gauging public opinion and mobilizing the electorate. Republican party organizations, especially the Republican National Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee, provide candidates with more assistance than do their Democratic counterparts. The RNC and the NRCC are more effective at targeting their assistance to candidates involved in competitive races. Party organizations are successfully adapting to the changing political environment. T he last few decades comprise an era of tremendous change for American political parties. Newly enacted campaign finance laws have served as a catalyst for the growth of vast numbers of political action committees (PACs), which now compete with parties for influence over candidates and voters. Party-initiated reforms in the nomination process have restructured the roles of party organizations in candidate recruitment and selection. The emergence of a more independent and more volatile electorate has helped to bring about changes in the tactics that candidates and parties use to garner support. Finally, technological innovations developed in the field of public relations have been adapted to the

Some Notes on the Congressional Campaign Committees

MERICAN POLITICAL party organization, nationally and locally, has tended toward proliferation and atomization. At the national level both parties have four committees, each spending considerable sums of money to promote the party interest in one way or another. These are the national committees, the congressional committees, the senatorial committees and the Senate committees. For good measure, the House Republicans converted their steering into the House policy committee in 1949.1 In recent years several political scientists have investigated and reported on the precinct, district, county, and state central committees in several of the states. To date very little has appeared in print on the national party organizations. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that these organizations operate without bylaws and almost never publish annual reports, and that much of their organization and operation is highly fluid and personal in character. Basic and strategy are usually determined in secret and the most intriguing aspects of their operation are kept confidential. With the congressional and senatorial committees in particular, interview provides the only method of investigating their activities, and the interviewer soon finds that some of the most vital aspects of their work will not be made available to him. This article attempts to report and to evaluate some of the facts which have been learned about these little-publicized party institutions.2 Several generalizations are made which are relevant to these committees during the Eighty-third and Eighty-fourth Congresses and are not necessarily valid during other sessions. The behavioral scientist, dedicated as he is to the search for uniformities, will find that the congressional committees (as well as the national and Senate committees) are often not functionally the same at different times. There also exists a rather substantial difference

Some Notes on the Congressional Campaign Committees

Some Notes on the Congressional Campaign Committees