DOCSLIB.ORG

The Rise and Impact of Fact-Checking in U.S. Campaigns by Amanda Wintersieck a Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment O

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. To my cohort members and friends, Jill Carle, Erik Bumgardner, Chris Hale, Emily Molfino and John Cuffe, this journey would not have been the same without you. Thank you for listening to me on the roughest days and for celebrating with me on the good ones. And finally, I would like to thank my parents, Philip and Donna Cristelli, and my siblings, Jenny, Mary, and Emily who unquestionably supported me throughout my academic career. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................. vii LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. ix CHAPTER 1 FACT-CHECKING AMERICAN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS ............................. 1 Fact-Checking American Political Campaigns ......................................... 3 Who Visits Fact-Checking Websites? ....................................................... 7 The Influence of Informaiton During Campaigns ..................................... 7 The Impact of the Message ........................................................................ 8 The Impact of the Source ......................................................................... 13 The Impact of Audience Characteristics ................................................. 17 Summarizing the Theoretical Predictions ............................................... 20 Dissertation Outline ................................................................................. 21 2 METHODS AND DATA ............. ............................................................................ 23 The Content of Fact-Checking ................................................................. 23 How Fact-Checking Influences Evaluations of Candidates and Their Political Communications ........................................................................ 25 Validity of the Experiments ..................................................................... 30 Summary of Experiments ........................................................................ 30 3 THE RISE OF FACT-CHECKING IN AMERICAN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS 32 Methods .................................................................................................... 32 Results: Fact-Checking In American Politics ......................................... 35 iv CHAPTER Page Results:Fact-Checking Campaign Events ............................................... 38 Results: Fact-Checking by Partisanship and Status ................................ 39 Results: Types of Communications Being Fact-Checked ...................... 43 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 46 4 FACT-CHECKING NEGATIVE ADS: RESULTS FROM A 2012 SENATE RACE ....................................................................................................... 48 Hypotheses ............................................................................................... 49 Methods .................................................................................................... 54 Results ...................................................................................................... 59 Conclusion and Implications ................................................................... 72 5 FACT-CHECKING A POLITICAL DEBATE: RESULTS FROM A 2013 GUBERNATIORAL ELECTION ........................................................................... 77 Hypotheses ............................................................................................... 79 Methods .................................................................................................... 83 Results ...................................................................................................... 87 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 98 6 FACT-CHECKING NEGATIVE POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENTS:RESULTS FROM A 2014 SENATE ELECTION .................................................................... 101 Hypotheses ............................................................................................. 103 Methods .................................................................................................. 105 Results .................................................................................................... 108 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 118 v CHAPTER Page 7 HOW FACT-CHECKING MATTERS FOR AMERICAN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS ........................................................................................................... 121 Summary of Findings ............................................................................. 122 A Note to Practioners ............................................................................. 128 A Note to Fact-Checking Organizations ............................................... 129 Future Research ...................................................................................... 130 REFERENCES....... ............................................................................................................. 133 APPENDIX A CHAPTER 1: FIGURES AND TABLES ............................................................. 151 B CHAPTER 2: METHOD AND SAMPLE-RELATED DOCUMENTS ............. 157 C CHAPTER 3: FIGURES AND TABLES ............................................................. 238 D CHAPTER 4: FIGURES AND TABLES ............................................................ 248 E CHAPTER 5: FIGURES AND TABLES ............................................................. 260 F CHAPTER 6: FIGURES AND TABLES ............................................................. 275 vi LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1.1. Summary of Theoretical Expectations ............................................................ 156 2.1. Description of Experiments Used in Dissertation .......................................... 158 3.1. Accuracy of Claimants Advertisements by Claimant Status .......................... 247 4.1. Internet Survey Experiment ............................................................................ 254 4.2. Comparison of Internet Sample with 2010 Census and 2012 Pew Research Center ............................................................................................... 255 4.3. OLS, Effect of Political Characteristis and Experimental Condition on Overall Assessment of the Advertisement .................................................................. 256 4.4. OLS, Effect of Partisanship and Experimental Condition on Overall Assessment of the Advertisement .................................................................. 257 4.5. OLS, Effect of Partisanship and Experimental Condition on Acceptance of Claims in the Negative Advertisement ........................................................... 258 4.6. OLS, Effect of Political Characteristics and Experimental Condition on Acceptance of Claims in the Negative Advertisement ................................... 259 5.1. Comparison of Student Sample with 2010 Census and 2012 ANES ............ 271 5.2. Debate Experiment Conditions ...................................................................... 272 5.3. OLS, Effect of Partisanship and the Fact-Check on Assessments of the Candidates’ Debate Performance ..................................................................... 273 5.4. GLM, Effect of Partisanship and the Fact-Check on Assessments of the Debate Winner .................................................................................................. 274 vii Table Page 5.5. GLM, Effect of Partisanship and the Fact-Check on Respondents’ .. Vote Choice ......................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • OMA Government Affairs Committee Meeting Materials
    Table of Contents Page # Government Affairs Agenda 3 Manufacturers’ Evening Invitation 4 Committee Guest Bios 5 March 14, 2012 OMA Counsel Report Tort Reform Case Decision: Havel v. Villa St. 8 Joseph Marijuana Ballot Initiatives and Potential 10 Concerns for Ohio Manufacturers Ohio Supreme Court Contest 2012 13 Election Results List by Hannah News 14 Public Policy Report 19 Leadership News Articles 21 Legislative Update 32 Announcing the Ohio Steel Council 40 Ohio Prosperity Project 2012 Participant Engagement 41 Summit NAM Public Affairs Conference 2012 43 Energy 48 Environment 80 Tax 100 Workers’ Compensation 115 Human Resources 124 2012 Government Affairs OMA Government Affairs Committee Meeting Sponsor: Committee Calendar Wednesday, March 14, 2012 Wednesday, June 6, 2012 Thursday, September 20, 2012 Wednesday, November 14, 2012 Additional committee meetings or teleconferences, if needed, will be scheduled at the call of the Chair. Page 1 of 133 Page 2 of 133 OMA Government Affairs Committee March 14, 2012 AGENDA Welcome & Self-Introductions Jeff Fritz DuPont Committee Chair Ohio Primary Election Review Federal Highlights Barry Doggett Boiler & Utility MACT / NAM Conference Eaton Corporation NAM Regional Vice Chair OMA Counsel’s Report Kurt Tunnell Civil Justice / Ballot Issues / Supreme Court Bricker & Eckler, LLP Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Luke Harms New State Level Trend Whirlpool Manufacturing Advocacy Robert Lapp Ohio Steel Council Formed, Vertical Groups & OMA, The Timken Company Ohio Prosperity Project Food Manufacturing Dialogue Lee Anderson General Mills Staff Reports Ryan Augsburger Tax, Workers’ Comp, Energy, Environment The Ohio Manufacturers’ Association Kevin Schmidt The Ohio Manufacturers’ Association Honorable Ross McGregor Special Guests Ohio House of Representatives Honorable Kristina Roegner Ohio House of Representatives Workplace Freedom Polling Presentation Jeff Longstreth Ohio 2.0 Hans Kaiser Moore Information Committee Meetings begin at 10:00 a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • October 20, 2017
    Distributed Free Each Friday Since 2009 October 20, 2017 www.pcpatriot.com Locally Owned And Operated ELECTION PREVIEW INSIDE Candidates sharply differ on gun issues RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — The two major party to be able to carry a concealed candidates in Virginia's race for governor sharply handgun without a permit. disagree when it comes to guns. Earlier this year, Democratic Republican Ed Gillespie has an A rating from the Gov. Terry McAuliffe vetoed National Rifle Association. He pledged to "oppose legislation allowing that — any and all attempts to weaken the Second against the wishes of the GOP- Amendment." controlled General assembly. Democrat Ralph Northam said he favors stricter Democrats in the legislature controls on gun ownership. He's backed by former have pushed unsuccessfully for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's group Gillespie universal background checks, as well as by former Democratic Rep. Gabrielle including mandatory checks at Giffords, who was grievously wounded in a 2011 gun shows. shooting. Governors also can take uni- The positions play against type. Northam grew lateral action on guns, like up hunting on Virginia's Eastern Shore and owns McAuliffe did in banning guns two shotguns. from certain state-owned office Gillespie wrote in his 2006 book that he doesn't buildings by executive order. own a gun and recently declined to answer whether Guns on campuses are also a that was still the case. regular and poignant point of discussion due to the 2007 THE ISSUE: mass shooting at Virginia Tech. Northam Debates about guns take up a significant amount Liberty University President WEEKEND WEATHER of time each legislative session and groups on both Jerry Falwell Jr.
    [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]
  • Brief of United States Senatorsenatorssss Sheldon Whitehouse and John Mccain As Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents ______
    No. 11-1179 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States _______________ AMERICAN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP , INC ., F.K.A. WESTERN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP , INC ., ET AL ., Petitioners, v. STEVE BULLOCK , ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MONTANA , ET AL ., Respondents . _______________ On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The Supreme Court of Montana _______________ BRIEF OF UNITED STATES SENATORSENATORSSSS SHELDON WHITEHOUSE AND JOHN MCCAIN AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS _______________ NEAL KUMAR KATYAL Counsel of Record JUDITH E. COLEMAN HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 637-5528 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... ii STATEMENT OF INTEREST .................................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................... 2 ARGUMENT ............................................................... 3 I. THE MONTANA SUPREME COURT APPLIED THE CORRECT LEGAL STANDARD TO THE FACTUAL RECORD BEFORE IT. ........................................................... 3 II. THE COURT SHOULD IN ALL EVENTS DECLINE PETITIONERS’ INVITATION TO SUMMARILY REVERSE. ............................... 5 A. Political Spending After Citizens United Demonstrates that Coordination and Disclosure Rules Do Not Impose a Meaningful Check on the System. ................... 8 B. Unlimited, Coordinated and Undisclosed Spending Creates a Strong Potential for Quid Pro Quo Corruption. ........ 17 C. The Appearance of Corruption
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Organizational Characteristics on Super PAC
    The Impact of Organizational Characteristics on Super PAC Financing and Independent Expenditures Paul S. Herrnson University of Connecticut [email protected] Presented at the Meeting of the Campaign Finance Task Force, Bipartisan Policy Center, Washington, DC, April 21, 2017 (revised June 2017). 1 Exe cutive Summa ry Super PACs have grown in number, wealth, and influence since the Supreme Court laid the foundation for their formation in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and the decisions reached by other courts and the FEC clarified the boundaries of their political participation. Their objectives and activities also have evolved. Super PACs are not nearly as monolithic as they have been portrayed by the media. While it is inaccurate to characterize them as representative of American society, it is important to recognize that they vary in wealth, mission, structure, affiliation, political perspective, financial transparency, and how and where they participate in political campaigns. Organizational characteristics influence super PAC financing, including the sums they raise. Organizational characteristics also affect super PAC independent expenditures, including the amounts spent, the elections in which they are made, the candidates targeted, and the tone of the messages delivered. The super PAC community is not static. It is likely to continue to evolve in response to legal challenges; regulatory decisions; the objectives of those who create, administer, and finance them; and changes in the broader political environment. 2 Contents I. Introduction 3 II. Data and Methods 4 III. Emergence and Development 7 IV. Organizational Characteristics 11 A. Finances 11 B. Mission 14 C. Affiliation 17 D. Financial Transparency 19 E.
    [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]
  • Senate Section
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 116 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 166 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, JULY 29, 2020 No. 134 Senate The Senate met at 10 a.m. and was Our two countries, as you know, have the institutions of American life can- called to order by the President pro a centuries-old relationship. That rela- not stay totally shut down until our tempore (Mr. GRASSLEY). tionship will be further strengthened race for a vaccine hits the finish line. f by a comprehensive deal that presents Our Nation needs to smartly and economic opportunities for our farm- safely reopen while keeping up the PRAYER ers, our manufacturers, and our service medical battle. We need to get kids The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, of- providers to the benefit of both sides of safely back to school and adults safely fered the following prayer: the Atlantic. back to work without losing ground in Eternal God, You have taken care of I will continue to insist that an the healthcare fight. us in the years that have gone. We agreement reached between our two The coronavirus does not care that honor You for Your glory and strength. countries will allow us to reach our full we are divided. The coronavirus will May we place our hope in You and potential as trading partners, particu- not care if Washington Democrats de- never forget that You can also sustain larly when it comes to agricultural cide it suits their partisan goals to let us in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Minority Percentages at Participating Newspapers
    Minority Percentages at Participating Newspapers Asian Native Asian Native Am. Black Hisp Am. Total Am. Black Hisp Am. Total ALABAMA The Anniston Star........................................................3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 Free Lance, Hollister ...................................................0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 12.5 The News-Courier, Athens...........................................0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lake County Record-Bee, Lakeport...............................0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 The Birmingham News................................................0.7 16.7 0.7 0.0 18.1 The Lompoc Record..................................................20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 The Decatur Daily........................................................0.0 8.6 0.0 0.0 8.6 Press-Telegram, Long Beach .......................................7.0 4.2 16.9 0.0 28.2 Dothan Eagle..............................................................0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 4.3 Los Angeles Times......................................................8.5 3.4 6.4 0.2 18.6 Enterprise Ledger........................................................0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 Madera Tribune...........................................................0.0 0.0 37.5 0.0 37.5 TimesDaily, Florence...................................................0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 3.4 Appeal-Democrat, Marysville.......................................4.2 0.0 8.3 0.0 12.5 The Gadsden Times.....................................................0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Merced Sun-Star.........................................................5.0
    [Show full text]
  • Limiting Political Contributions After Mccutcheon, Citizens United, and Speechnow Albert W
    Florida Law Review Volume 67 | Issue 2 Article 1 January 2016 Limiting Political Contributions After McCutcheon, Citizens United, and SpeechNow Albert W. Alschuler Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr Part of the Election Law Commons Recommended Citation Albert W. Alschuler, Limiting Political Contributions After McCutcheon, Citizens United, and SpeechNow, 67 Fla. L. Rev. 389 (2016). Available at: http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr/vol67/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UF Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida Law Review by an authorized administrator of UF Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Alschuler: Limiting Political Contributions After <i> McCutcheon</i>, <i>Cit LIMITING POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS AFTER MCCUTCHEON, CITIZENS UNITED, AND SPEECHNOW Albert W. Alschuler* Abstract There was something unreal about the opinions in McCutcheon v. FEC. These opinions examined a series of strategies for circumventing the limits on contributions to candidates imposed by federal election law, but they failed to notice that the limits were no longer breathing. The D.C. Circuit’s decision in SpeechNow.org v. FEC had created a far easier way to evade the limits than any of those the Supreme Court discussed. SpeechNow held all limits on contributions to super PACs unconstitutional. This Article argues that the D.C. Circuit erred; Citizens United v. FEC did not require unleashing super PAC contributions. The Article also considers what can be said for and against a bumper sticker’s declarations that “MONEY IS NOT SPEECH!” and “CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE!” It proposes a framework for evaluating the constitutionality of campaign-finance regulations that differs from the one currently employed by the Supreme Court.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 – 2019 COMMONWEALTH BUDGET These Links May Expire
    2018 – 2019 COMMONWEALTH BUDGET These links may expire: July 6 Some telling numbers lie deeper in state education budget The new state education budget officially put into action July 1 has numbers that should make local school administrators a bit happier. Every Luzerne County district saw an increase in combined basic and special education funding, ranging from a 0.1 percent hike for Northwest Area (a... - Wilkes-Barre Times Leader Philadelphia officials fear late addition to state budget could harm health of low-income teens PHILADELPHIA (KYW Newsradio) -- Philadelphia officials are denouncing a provision, tucked into the state budget bill at the last minute, that they say will result in more teenagers getting hooked on tobacco. But there's little they can do about it. As the state's only first class city, Philadelphia has been able to... - KYW State budget has implications for Erie The $32.7 billion spending plan for the 2018-2019 fiscal year boosts funding for education and school safety. June’s passage of a $32.7 billion state spending plan provides more money for education, including school safety, as well as workforce development programs.... - Erie Times- News July 5 Malpractice insurer sues PA for the third time in three years Governor Tom Wolf and legislative leaders are being sued in federal court over a budget provision to fold a medical malpractice insurer and its assets into the state Insurance Department. It’s the latest development in the commonwealth’s repeated attempts to take $200 million from the group’s surplus.... - WHYY Lancaster County schools to receive $3.5M boost in basic education funding in 2018-19 Lancaster County schools in 2018-19 will get nearly $3.5 million more in state basic education funding than last year, under the budget enacted by the governor in June.
    [Show full text]
  • Bill Bolling Contemporary Virginia Politics
    6/29/21 A DISCUSSION OF CONTEM PORARY VIRGINIA POLITICS —FROM BLUE TO RED AND BACK AGAIN” - THE RISE AND FALL OF THE GOP IN VIRGINIA 1 For the first 200 years of Virginia's existence, state politics was dominated by the Democratic Party ◦ From 1791-1970 there were: Decades Of ◦ 50 Democrats who served as Governor (including Democratic-Republicans) Democratic ◦ 9 Republicans who served as Governor Dominance (including Federalists and Whigs) ◦ During this same period: ◦ 35 Democrats represented Virginia in the United States Senate ◦ 3 Republicans represented Virginia in the United States Senate 2 1 6/29/21 ◦ Likewise, this first Republican majority in the Virginia General Democratic Assembly did not occur until Dominance – 1998. General ◦ Democrats had controlled the Assembly General Assembly every year before that time. 3 ◦ These were not your “modern” Democrats ◦ They were a very conservative group of Democrats in the southern tradition What Was A ◦ A great deal of their focus was on fiscal Democrat? conservativism – Pay As You Go ◦ They were also the ones who advocated for Jim Crow and Massive resistance up until the passage of the Civil Rights Act of in 1965 4 2 6/29/21 Byrd Democrats ◦ These were the followers of Senator Harry F. Byrd, a former Virginia Governor and U.S. Senator ◦ Senator Byrd’s “Byrd Machine” dominated and controlled Virginia politics for this entire period 5 ◦ Virginia didn‘t really become a competitive two-party state until Ơͥ ͣ ǝ, and the first real From Blue To competition emerged at the statewide level Red œ
    [Show full text]
  • The Fourteen-Billion-Dollar Election Emerging Campaign Finance Trends and Their Impact on the 2020 Presidential Race and Beyond
    12 The Fourteen-Billion-Dollar Election Emerging Campaign Finance Trends and their Impact on the 2020 Presidential Race and Beyond Michael E. Toner and Karen E. Trainer The 2020 presidential and congressional election was the most expensive election in American history, shattering previous fundraising and spending records. Total spending on the 2020 election totaled an estimated $14 bil- lion, which was more than double the amount spent during the 2016 cycle and more than any previous election in U.S. history. 1 The historic 2020 spending tally was more than was spent in the previous two election cycles combined.2 Moreover, former Vice President Joseph Biden and Senator Kamala Harris made fundraising history in 2020 as their presidential campaign became the first campaign in history to raise over $1 billion in a single election cycle, with a total of $1.1 billion.3 For their part, President Trump and Vice Presi- dent Pence raised in excess of $700 million for their presidential campaign, more than double the amount that they raised in 2016.4 The record amount of money expended on the 2020 election was also fu- eled by a significant increase in spending by outside groups such as Super PACs as well as enhanced congressional candidate fundraising. Political party expenditures increased in 2020, but constituted a smaller share of total electoral spending. Of the $14 billion total, approximately $6.6 billion was spent in connection with the presidential race and $7.2 billion was expended at the congressional level.5 To put those spending amounts into perspective, the $7.2 billion tally at the congressional level nearly equals the GDP of Monaco.6 More than $1 billion of the $14 billion was spent for online advertising on platforms such as Facebook and Google.7 203 204 Michael E.
    [Show full text]