DOCSLIB.ORG

I State Political Parties in American Politics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
I State Political Parties in American Politics State Political Parties in American Politics: Innovation and Integration in the Party System by Rebecca S. Hatch Department of Political Science Duke University Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ John H. Aldrich, Supervisor ___________________________ Kerry L. Haynie ___________________________ Michael C. Munger ___________________________ David W. Rohde Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Political Science in the Graduate School of Duke University 2016 i v ABSTRACT State Political Parties in American Politics: Innovation and Integration in the Party System by Rebecca S. Hatch Department of Political Science Duke University Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ John H. Aldrich, Supervisor ___________________________ Kerry L. Haynie ___________________________ Michael C. Munger ___________________________ David W. Rohde An abstract of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Political Science in the Graduate School of Duke University 2016 Copyright by Rebecca S. Hatch 2016 Abstract What role do state party organizations play in twenty-first century American politics? What is the nature of the relationship between the state and national party organizations in contemporary elections? These questions frame the three studies presented in this dissertation. More specifically, I examine the organizational development of the state party organizations and the strategic interactions and connections between the state and national party organizations in contemporary elections. In the first empirical chapter, I argue that the Internet Age represents a significant transitional period for state party organizations. Using data collected from surveys of state party leaders, this chapter reevaluates and updates existing theories of party organizational strength and demonstrates the importance of new indicators of party technological capacity to our understanding of party organizational development in the early twenty-first century. In the second chapter, I ask whether the national parties utilize different strategies in deciding how to allocate resources to state parties through fund transfers and through the 50-state-strategy party building programs that both the Democratic and Republican National Committees advertised during the 2010 elections. Analyzing data collected from my 2011 state party survey and party-fund- transfer data collected from the Federal Election Commission, I find that the national iv parties considered a combination of state and national electoral concerns in directing assistance to the state parties through their 50-state strategies, as opposed to the strict battleground-state strategy that explains party fund transfers. In my last chapter, I examine the relationships between platforms issued by Democratic and Republican state and national parties and the strategic considerations that explain why state platforms vary in their degree of similarity to the national platform. I analyze an extensive platform dataset, using cluster analysis and document similarity measures to compare platform content across the 1952 to 2014 period. The analysis shows that, as a group, Democratic and Republican state platforms exhibit greater intra-party homogeneity and inter-party heterogeneity starting in the early 1990s, and state-national platform similarity is higher in states that are key players in presidential elections, among other factors. Together, these three studies demonstrate the significance of the state party organizations and the state-national party partnership in contemporary politics. v Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xii Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................xvi 1. Introduction........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Party Organizational Strength and Technological Capacity in the Twenty-First Century .................................................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Party Building, 50-State Strategies, and the National-State Party Relationship ...... 6 1.3 Do State and National Party Platforms “Cluster” Together? A Cluster Analysis and Dissimilarity Analysis of Party Platforms from 1952-2014 ....................................... 8 2. Party Organizational Strength and Technological Capacity in the Twenty-First Century ......................................................................................................................................... 11 2.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 14 2.1.2 Summary .................................................................................................................... 19 2.2 Statement of Theory and Expectations ........................................................................ 22 2.3 Data and Methods .......................................................................................................... 28 2.4 Measuring Change in State Party Organizational Strength ..................................... 31 2.4.1 Overall Changes in Organizational Complexity and Programmatic Capacity 33 2.4.2 Comparing State Democratic and Republican Party Changes ........................... 36 2.5 Evaluating the Dimensions of State Party Organizational Strength ....................... 42 2.6 State Party Organizational Strength and Technological Capacity .......................... 46 2.7 Discussion and Conclusions ......................................................................................... 51 vi 3. Party Building, 50-State Strategies, and the National-State Party Relationship ............ 57 3.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 63 3.1.1 Party-System Nationalization and Party Building ............................................... 63 3.1.2 Party Building and Campaign Finance .................................................................. 70 3.1.3 Party Building and Howard Dean’s “50-State Strategy” ..................................... 77 3.2 50-State Strategies in the 2010 Elections ...................................................................... 83 3.2.1 “Organizing for America” and the DNC ............................................................... 83 3.2.2 “Delaware-to-Hawaii” and the RNC ...................................................................... 91 3.3 Theories of Party Building: Battleground Strategies versus 50-State Strategies.... 98 3.4 Data................................................................................................................................. 106 3.5 National-State Party Interactions from 1960-2011 ................................................... 107 3.6 National-State Party Interactions during the 2010 Elections .................................. 115 3.6.1 General Party Interactions ...................................................................................... 116 3.6.2 National Party Fund Transfers to the State Parties in the 2010 Elections ....... 121 3.6.3 50-State Strategies and Party Interactions in the 2010 Elections ....................... 131 3.7 National Party Resource Allocation Strategies during the 2010 Elections ........... 143 3.7.1 Explaining National Party Fund Transfers to the State Party Organizations during the 2010 Elections ................................................................................................ 149 3.7.2 Explaining Interactions between the National and State Party Organizations through 50-State Strategies during the 2010 Elections ................................................ 154 3.8 Discussion and Conclusions ....................................................................................... 162 4. Do State and National Party Platforms “Cluster” Together? A Cluster Analysis and Dissimilarity Analysis of Party Platforms from 1952-2014 ................................................. 179 vii 4.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 186 4.2 Theory ............................................................................................................................ 196 4.3 Data and Methods ........................................................................................................ 213 4.3.1 Document Collection .............................................................................................. 214 4.3.2 Document Processing ............................................................................................. 223 4.3.3 Text Processing .......................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Presidential Candidates in 2016 Should Not Underestimate the Power of Urban Identity—It Allowed Obama to Halve Bush’S Urban Victories
    blogs.lse.ac.uk http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2015/03/19/presidential-candidates-in-2016-should-not-underestimate-the-power-of-urban-identity- it-allowed-obama-to-halve-bushs-urban-victories/ Presidential candidates in 2016 should not underestimate the power of urban identity—it allowed Obama to halve Bush’s urban victories In 2008, Barack Obama was elected as America’s first urban president, with large victories in the biggest urban centers. What lessons should 2016’s potential candidates be taking from these victories? In new research which examines election results in 92 ‘core’ counties – which accounted for 35 million votes in 2012 – Joshua D. Ambrosius finds that President Obama identified with urban voters in the way that Republicans could not. He argues that this is not likely to change in the near future, as the urban electorate is identifying less and less with the Republican Party, which is doing little to claim cities as their own. Bill Clinton claimed the presidency in 1992 with his famous campaign mantra, it’s “the economy, stupid.” No doubt the Republicans and Mitt Romney believed that the weak economy was their ticket to unseating the nation’s first urban president in November of 2012. We all know how that turned out. Despite the conventional wisdom at the time, identity trumped the economy in 2012 in the nation’s largest urban centers; and it was the strength of this urban advantage that helped carry President Barack Obama—the nation’s first urban president—to an easy Electoral College victory and an eked-out popular vote.
    [Show full text]
  • Saia, David Joseph (1904-1990), Papers, 1938-1990
    Pittsburg State University Pittsburg State University Digital Commons Finding Aids Special Collections & University Archives 3-2012 Saia, David Joseph (1904-1990), Papers, 1938-1990 Special Collections, Leonard H. Axe Library Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pittstate.edu/fa Recommended Citation Special Collections, Leonard H. Axe Library, "Saia, David Joseph (1904-1990), Papers, 1938-1990" (2012). Finding Aids. 71. https://digitalcommons.pittstate.edu/fa/71 This Finding Aid is brought to you for free and open access by the Special Collections & University Archives at Pittsburg State University Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Finding Aids by an authorized administrator of Pittsburg State University Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 72 Saia, David Joseph (1904-1990), Papers, 1938-1990 2.5 linear feet 1 INTRODUCTION Personal and professional correspondence, organizational newsletters, legal documents, and other items collected by David J. “Papa Joe” Saia during his tenure as Crawford County Commissioner and chairman of the Crawford County Democratic Party. DONOR INFORMATION The David Joseph Saia Papers were donated to Pittsburg State University by Mr. Saia on 28 July 1975. Materials in the collection dated after 1975 were compiled by curator Eugene DeGruson. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH David Joseph “Papa Joe” Saia was a long-time resident of Frontenac, Kansas and one of the most prominent figures in the Kansas Democratic Party. Saia was born on 2 May 1904 in Chicopee, Kansas and began working in the coal fields of Crawford County at age thirteen. His political career began at the same time as a member of the United Mine Workers “pit committee,” a group which carried grievances to the pit bosses in the mines.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Election Commission 1 2 First General Counsel's
    MUR759900019 1 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 2 3 FIRST GENERAL COUNSEL’S REPORT 4 5 MUR 7304 6 DATE COMPLAINT FILED: December 15, 2017 7 DATE OF NOTIFICATIONS: December 21, 2017 8 DATE LAST RESPONSE RECEIVED September 4, 2018 9 DATE ACTIVATED: May 3, 2018 10 11 EARLIEST SOL: September 10, 2020 12 LATEST SOL: December 31, 2021 13 ELECTION CYCLE: 2016 14 15 COMPLAINANT: Committee to Defend the President 16 17 RESPONDENTS: Hillary Victory Fund and Elizabeth Jones in her official capacity as 18 treasurer 19 Hillary Rodham Clinton 20 Hillary for America and Elizabeth Jones in her official capacity as 21 treasurer 22 DNC Services Corporation/Democratic National Committee and 23 William Q. Derrough in his official capacity as treasurer 24 Alaska Democratic Party and Carolyn Covington in her official 25 capacity as treasurer 26 Democratic Party of Arkansas and Dawne Vandiver in her official 27 capacity as treasurer 28 Colorado Democratic Party and Rita Simas in her official capacity 29 as treasurer 30 Democratic State Committee (Delaware) and Helene Keeley in her 31 official capacity as treasurer 32 Democratic Executive Committee of Florida and Francesca Menes 33 in her official capacity as treasurer 34 Georgia Federal Elections Committee and Kip Carr in his official 35 capacity as treasurer 36 Idaho State Democratic Party and Leroy Hayes in his official 37 capacity as treasurer 38 Indiana Democratic Congressional Victory Committee and Henry 39 Fernandez in his official capacity as treasurer 40 Iowa Democratic Party and Ken Sagar in his official capacity as 41 treasurer 42 Kansas Democratic Party and Bill Hutton in his official capacity as 43 treasurer 44 Kentucky State Democratic Central Executive Committee and M.
    [Show full text]
  • Libertarian Party of Nevada Hosted "Speed Dating" Events Over 2 Days at Different Venues in Las Vegas
    Endorsement Committee This year, we formed an Endorsement Committee comprised of 18 members plus additional Libertarian leadership; the “Committee.” The Committee members conducted their own independent research on each of the candidates and asked them questions at our events. The Committee members took notes and made recommendations on grades and endorsements. Endorsement Committee Chair: Jason Weinman Committee Members: Jason G Smith Jim Duensing Jason Nellis Lesley Chan John McCormack JD Smith Lou Pombo Brady Bowyer Scott Lafata Tim Hagan Brett H. Pojunis Brandon Ellyson Debra Dedmon Nick Klein Andrew Lea Ross Williams Tarina Dark Steve Brown Format - Why "Speed Dating?" The Libertarian Party of Nevada hosted "Speed Dating" events over 2 days at different venues in Las Vegas. The goal was to meet as many candidates as possible in a format similar to speed dating. LPNevada endorsed Candidates in non‐partisan races and graded Candidates in partisan races for the 2014 General Elections. Most organizations do not get one‐on‐one interaction with the candidates; we felt this is important. Endorsements and Grading Non‐Partisan candidates received either a positive (thumbs up) or negative (thumbs down) endorsement from the Committee. Partisan Candidates received a grade of 1 to 5 stars. Candidates who received 1 star were not very Libertarian and candidates who received 5 stars were very good in regards to their position on issues important to Libertarians. The Libertarian Party of Nevada has the following 15 Candidate on the 2014 Ballot. Adam Sanacore, Assembly District 21 Lou Pombo, Assembly District 37 Chris Dailey, White Pine County Commission Louis Gabriel, Assembly District 32 Donald W.
    [Show full text]
  • Accepted Resolutions Table of Contents Resolution 2020 – P1 4 Resolution Supporting the Electoral College
    Idaho Republican Party Accepted Resolutions 2020 Idaho Republican Party Accepted Resolutions 2020 Winter Meeting of the State Central Committee January 3 - 4, 2020 1 Idaho Republican Party Official Document Idaho Republican Party Accepted Resolutions 2020 Accepted Resolutions Table of Contents Resolution 2020 – P1 4 Resolution Supporting the Electoral College Resolution 2020 – P2 5 Resolution on Amending Idaho Code Section 59-904a Regarding Filling Legislative Vacancies Resolution 2020 – P3 6 Resolution Preserving Parents’ Freedom to Designate Religious Beliefs Regarding Sexual Behavior Education of their Minor Children Resolution 2020 – P5 7 Resolution to Decriminalize Cannabis Plants Known as Hemp Resolution 2020 – P6 9 Resolution Regarding Legislative Districts in Idaho Resolution 2020 – P7 10 Resolution Regarding the Redistricting Commission Resolution 2020 – P8 11 Resolution in Support of the Citizenship Question on the 2020 Census Form Resolution 2020 – P10 12 Resolution Regarding Children’s Health Resolution 2020 – P12 13 Resolution in Support of Returning the State of Idaho to a Republican form of Government Resolution 2020 - P14 15 Resolution Encouraging the Idaho Legislature to Repeal the Grocery Tax Resolution 2020 - P15 17 Resolution Supporting President Trump’s Efforts to Bring Our Troops Home Resolution 2020 - P16 20 Resolution Urging Congressional Hearings On The “Afghanistan Papers” And Gold Star Families Lawsuit Against Military Contractors Funding The Taliban Resolution 2020 - P17 22 Resolution Regarding the proposed
    [Show full text]
  • Addendum a to Resolution to Reestablish Republican Unity and Principles
    Addendum A to Resolution to Reestablish Republican Unity and Principles Note: This addendum is attached to the Resolution to ensure clarity and justification for the claims and appeals made within the Resolution. Towards Integrity, Then Unity We, the Nevada Republican Central Committee make it known that we delayed presentation and publication of this Resolution until after the 2012 Presidential Election to unmistakably demonstrate support and respect for our Republican candidate. Unlike events at the 2012 Republican National Committee (RNC) Tampa Convention, we demand integrity and sincere unity in Republican Party affairs. The RNC silenced the delegates, and therefore, all Republicans, during the vote to accept the RNC Rules Committee Report, in violation of RNC Rules, specifically, our Preamble. The Preamble of our RNC Rules sets out a clear vision for the Party to function properly. The leadership of the Party exercised exceptionally poor judgment in their decision making, clearly violating that Preamble. As members of the Republican Party it is our duty to take actions necessary to ensure that our Party respects our rules. Specific Grievances 1) The report of the 2012 RNC Convention Rules Committee was not accepted properly. Legitimate cries of “Division” were heard, clearly requiring actions which were not taken (see Rules of the House of Representatives, Rule XX, 1. (a) Voting and Quorum Calls) 2) Therefore, Rule 40 (b) could not have been amended and the original requirement for five states remained the criteria. Considering this and that the RNC Secretary was handed candidate nomination forms in accordance with the rules, there should have been a nomination from the floor.
    [Show full text]
  • First Amended Complaint Exhibit 1 Donald J
    Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 18-1 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 3 First Amended Complaint Exhibit 1 Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration | Donald J Trump for Pre... Page 1 of 2 Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 18-1 Filed 02/01/17 Page 2 of 3 INSTAGRAM FACEBOOK TWITTER NEWS GET INVOLVED GALLERY ABOUT US SHOP CONTRIBUTE - DECEMBER 07, 2015 - CATEGORIES DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON VIEW ALL PREVENTING MUSLIM IMMIGRATION STATEMENTS (New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's ANNOUNCEMENTS representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, ENDORSEMENTS among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security ADS Policy released data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts ARCHIVE that pose great harm to Americans, especially women. Mr. Trump stated, "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to NOVEMBER 2016 anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and OCTOBER 2016 why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of SEPTEMBER 2016 horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise and Impact of Fact-Checking in U.S. Campaigns by Amanda Wintersieck a Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment O
    The Rise and Impact of Fact-Checking in U.S. Campaigns by Amanda Wintersieck A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy Approved April 2015 by the Graduate Supervisory Committee: Kim Fridkin, Chair Mark Ramirez Patrick Kenney ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY May 2015 ABSTRACT Do fact-checks influence individuals' attitudes and evaluations of political candidates and campaign messages? This dissertation examines the influence of fact- checks on citizens' evaluations of political candidates. Using an original content analysis, I determine who conducts fact-checks of candidates for political office, who is being fact- checked, and how fact-checkers rate political candidates' level of truthfulness. Additionally, I employ three experiments to evaluate the impact of fact-checks source and message cues on voters' evaluations of candidates for political office. i DEDICATION To My Husband, Aza ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my sincerest thanks to the many individuals who helped me with this dissertation and throughout my graduate career. First, I would like to thank all the members of my committee, Professors Kim L. Fridkin, Patrick Kenney, and Mark D. Ramirez. I am especially grateful to my mentor and committee chair, Dr. Kim L. Fridkin. Your help and encouragement were invaluable during every stage of this dissertation and my graduate career. I would also like to thank my other committee members and mentors, Patrick Kenney and Mark D. Ramirez. Your academic and professional advice has significantly improved my abilities as a scholar. I am grateful to husband, Aza, for his tireless support and love throughout this project.
    [Show full text]
  • Lobbying Contribution Report
    8/1/2016 LD­203 Contribution Report LOBBYING CONTRIBUTION REPORT Clerk of the House of Representatives • Legislative Resource Center • 135 Cannon Building • Washington, DC 20515 Secretary of the Senate • Office of Public Records • 232 Hart Building • Washington, DC 20510 1. FILER TYPE AND NAME 2. IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS Type: House Registrant ID: Organization Lobbyist 35195 Organization Name: Senate Registrant ID: Honeywell International 57453 3. REPORTING PERIOD 4. CONTACT INFORMATION Year: Contact Name: 2016 Ms.Stacey Bernards Mid­Year (January 1 ­ June 30) Email: Year­End (July 1 ­ December 31) [email protected] Amendment Phone: 2026622629 Address: 101 CONSTITUTION AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, DC 20001 USA 5. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE NAMES Honeywell International Political Action Committee 6. CONTRIBUTIONS No Contributions #1. Contribution Type: Contributor Name: Amount: Date: FECA Honeywell International Political Action Committee $1,500.00 01/14/2016 Payee: Honoree: Friends of Sam Johnson Sam Johnson #2. Contribution Type: Contributor Name: Amount: Date: FECA Honeywell International Political Action Committee $2,500.00 01/14/2016 Payee: Honoree: Kay Granger Campaign Fund Kay Granger #3. Contribution Type: Contributor Name: Amount: Date: FECA Honeywell International Political Action Committee $2,000.00 01/14/2016 Payee: Honoree: Paul Cook for Congress Paul Cook https://lda.congress.gov/LC/protected/LCWork/2016/MM/57453DOM.xml?1470093694684 1/75 8/1/2016 LD­203 Contribution Report #4. Contribution Type: Contributor Name: Amount: Date: FECA Honeywell International Political Action Committee $1,000.00 01/14/2016 Payee: Honoree: DelBene for Congress Suzan DelBene #5. Contribution Type: Contributor Name: Amount: Date: FECA Honeywell International Political Action Committee $1,000.00 01/14/2016 Payee: Honoree: John Carter for Congress John Carter #6.
    [Show full text]
  • 2012 Platform Was Drafted After Soliciting Testimony from a Geographically Diverse Range of Hoosiers at Hearings in South Bend, New Albany and Indianapolis
    Preamble We've come a long way in a short time. With a focus and a commitment to serve Hoosier taxpayers, and not special interests, Indiana's Party of Purpose has enacted improvements that have made government smaller and more efficient, improved our state's economy, and ensured Indiana's Comeback continues to move full steam ahead. After years of government spending and debt, Republican leadership balanced the budget without raising taxes. At the same time, services have improved across the state. A leaner state government has actually improved quality. Our Bureau of Motor Vehicles is now a model for efficiency, moving customers through in 10 minutes or less. Major Moves has improved infrastructure by providing a decade worth of funding for projects around the state that had been promised and delayed for decades. Property taxes in Indiana are among the lowest in the nation, having been cut by 30 percent and capped permanently by the voters and by our State Constitution. Along the way, we have lived by a number of simple principles, but atop that list is the fact that Hoosiers know what's best for Hoosiers. We don't ask for, or want, the federal government to interfere with or dictate how we should live our lives. The improvements we have made, together, have come from within, from Hoosiers. We owe a debt of gratitude to Governor Mitch Daniels and Lieutenant Governor Becky Skillman , our dynamic Hoosier duo, who have worked and led to make Indiana a better place to live, work and invest, alongside House Speaker Brian Bosma , Senate President Pro Tempore David Long and our majorities in the House and Senate.
    [Show full text]
  • Party and Non-Party Political Committees Vol. II State and Local Party Detailed Tables
    FEC REPORTS ON FINANCIAL ACTIVITY 1989 - 1990 FINAL REPORT .. PARTY AND NON-PARTY POLITICAL COKMITTEES VOL.II STATE AND LOCAL PARTY DETAILED TABLES FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 999 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20463 OCTOBER 1991 I I I I I I I I FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Commissioners John w. McGarry, Chairman Joan D. Aikens, Vice Chairman Lee Ann Elliott, Thomas J. Josefiak Danny L. McDonald Scott E. Thomas Donnald K. Anderson, Ex Officio Clerk of the u.s. House of Representatives Walter J. Stewart Secretary of the Senate John C. Surina, Staff Director Lawrence M. Noble, General Counsel Comments and inquiries about format should be addressed to the Reports Coordinator, Data System Development Division, who coordinated the production of this REPORT. Copies of 1989-1990 FINAL REPORT, PARTY AND NON-PARTY POLITICAL COMMITTEES, may be obtained b writing to the Public Records Office, Federal Election Commission, 999 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20463. Prices are: VOL. I - $10.00, VOL. II - $10.00, VOL. III - $10.00, VOL IV - $10.00. Checks should be made payable to the Federal Election Commission. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. DESCRIPTION OF REPORT iv II. SUMMARY OF TABLES vi III. EXPLANATION OF COLUMNS viii IV. TABLES: SELECTED FINANCIAL ACTIVITY AND ASSISTANCE TO CANDIDATES, DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN STATE AND LOCAL POLITICAL COMMITTEES A. SELECTED FINANCIAL ACTIVITY OF DEMOCRATIC STATE AND LOCAL POLITICAL COMMITTEES AND THEIR ASSISTANCE TO CANDIDATES BY OFFICE AND PARTY Alabama 1 Missouri 37 Colorado 7 New York 43 Idaho 13 Ohio 49 Kansas 19
    [Show full text]
  • Funding the State Political Party Committees Pre- and Post-BCRA, 1999–2016
    Funding the State Political Party Committees Pre- and Post-BCRA, 1999–2016 Analysis by the National Institute on Money in State Politics: Edwin Bender, Calder Burgam, Ciara O’Neill, Pete Quist, Denise Roth Barber, Greg Schneider, J T Stepleton Prepared for the Bauer Ginsberg Campaign Finance Research Task Force, May 15, 2017 National Institute on Money in State Politics, 833 N. Last Chance Gulch Helena, MT 59601, 406-449-2480, www.FollowTheMoney.org Submitted May 15, 2017 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................................ 3 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5 FUNDING THE STATE PARTY COMMITTEES ....................................................................................................................... 8 CONTRIBUTIONS FROM WITHIN THE POLITICAL PARTY SYSTEM ................................................................................................................ 9 CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OUTSIDE THE POLITICAL PARTY SYSTEM ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]