Dancing Without Partners: How Candidates, Parties and Interest Groups Interact in the New Campaign Finance Environment Edited by David B. Magleby J. Quin Monson Kelly D. Patterson A Report Funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy Brigham Young University © 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 Dancing Without Partners: How Candidates, Parties and Interest Groups Interact in the New Campaign Finance Environment David B. Magleby, J. Quin Monson, and Kelly D. Patterson, Brigham Young University Executive Summary....................................................................................1 Overview.....................................................................................................4 The Dance Floor: BCRA and the New Campaign Finance Environment ..6 The Dancers: Candidates, Parties, and Interest Groups in 2004.................8 The Music: Money in the 2004 Election.....................................................11 The Senior Prom: The Dynamics of the 2004 Presidential Campaign .......25 The Junior Prom: The Dynamics of the 2004 Congressional Campaigns..36 The Next Dance ..........................................................................................40 CHAPTER 2 ....................................................................................................................69 The 2004 Florida U.S. Presidential Race Robert E. Crew, Florida State University; Terri Susan Fine, University of Central Florida; and Susan A. MacManus, University of South Florida CHAPTER 3 ....................................................................................................................83 The 2004 Iowa U.S. Democratic Presidential Caucus Arthur Sanders, Drake University CHAPTER 4 ....................................................................................................................98 The 2004 Iowa U.S. Presidential Race Arthur Sanders, Drake University CHAPTER 5 ....................................................................................................................112 The 2004 Missouri U.S. Presidential Race E. Terrence Jones, University of Missouri-St. Louis; Martha Kropf, University of Missouri-Kansas City; Laura Wiedlocher, University of Missouri-St. Louis; and Lindsay Battles, University of Missouri-Kansas City CHAPTER 6 ....................................................................................................................126 The 2004 New Mexico U.S. Presidential Race Lonna Rae Atkeson, Nancy Carrillo, Mekoce Walker, University of New Mexico CHAPTER 7 ....................................................................................................................146 The 2004 Ohio U.S. Presidential Race Stephen Mockabee, Michael Margolis, University of Cincinnati; Stephen Brooks, Rick D.Farmer, and John Green, University of Akron iii CHAPTER 8 ....................................................................................................................168 The 2004 Alaska U.S. Senate Race Carl Shepro, University of Alaska-Anchorage; and Clive Thomas, University of Alaska-Southeast CHAPTER 9 ....................................................................................................................180 The 2004 Colorado U.S. Senate Race Kyle Saunders and Robert Duffy, Colorado State University CHAPTER 10 ..................................................................................................................198 The 2004 Florida U.S. Senate Race Robert E. Crew, Florida State University; Terri Susan Fine, University of Central Florida; and Susan A. MacManus, University of South Florida CHAPTER 11 ..................................................................................................................212 The 2004 North Carolina U.S. Senate Race Steven Greene, North Carolina State University; and Eric Heberlig, University of North Carolina-Charlotte CHAPTER 12 ..................................................................................................................225 The 2004 Oklahoma U.S. Senate Race Ronald Keith Gaddie, Jennifer Christol, Charles Mullin, Katherine Thorne, and Benjamin Wilson, University of Oklahoma CHAPTER 13 ..................................................................................................................235 The 2004 South Dakota U.S. Senate Race Elizabeth Theiss Smith and Richard Braunstein, University of South Dakota CHAPTER 14 ..................................................................................................................252 The 2004 Arizona 1st Congressional District Race Frederic I. Solop and James I. Bowie, Northern Arizona University CHAPTER 15 ..................................................................................................................264 The 2004 Colorado 7th Congressional District Race Kyle Saunders and Robert Duffy, Colorado State University CHAPTER 16 ..................................................................................................................275 The 2004 Georgia 12th Congressional District Race Charles Bullock, University of Georgia-Athens CHAPTER 17 ..................................................................................................................288 The 2004 Kansas 3nd Congressional District Race Allan J. Cigler, University of Kansas CHAPTER 18 ..................................................................................................................302 The 2004 New Mexico 1st Congressional District Race Lonna Rae Atkeson, Nancy Carrillo, Mekoce Walker, University of New Mexico iv CHAPTER 19 ..................................................................................................................314 The 2004 Pennsylvania 13th Congressional District Race Robin Kolodny, Sandra Suarez, and Justin Gollob, Temple University CHAPTER 20 ..................................................................................................................329 The 2004 South Dakota At-large Congressional District Race Elizabeth Theiss Smith and Richard Braunstein, University of South Dakota CHAPTER 21 ..................................................................................................................340 The 2004 Texas 32nd Congressional District Race J. Matthew Wilson, Southern Methodist University CHAPTER 22 ..................................................................................................................350 The 2004 Utah 2nd Congressional District Race Gary Bryner, Brigham Young University; and Stephen Roberds Appendix A: Methodology ..............................................................................................360 Appendix B: List of Interviews Conducted by CSED Researchers.................................368 v vi Dancing Without Partners: How Candidates, Parties and Interest Groups Interact in the New Campaign Finance Environment David B. Magleby, J. Quin Monson, and Kelly D. Patterson Brigham Young University Executive Summary The 2004 election cycle was the first cycle conducted under rules instituted by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). The dynamics of the cycle showed similarities to past cycles. However, several new developments in the areas of fund-raising and electioneering practices also emerged. It will take at least one more cycle to determine whether or not these developments become enduring features of political campaigns. Presidential The 2004 presidential election was funded at record setting levels by disclosed and limited “hard” money contributions to candidates and party committees. In this cycle, the longstanding gap in individual contributions between the parties was reversed. In 2000 the Democratic National Committed (DNC) raised three-fifths of what the Republican National Committee (RNC) did, but in 2004 the DNC for the first time in decades outraised the RNC.1 Furthermore, interest groups dramatically expanded their independent expenditures and electioneering communications through Section 527 and 501(c) organizations. Most of the early activity by these groups was on the Democratic side, but late-forming Republican-leaning groups were important to the outcome of the election because of the messages they disseminated. Overall, the 2004 election cycle was heavily focused on the presidential race, with some groups allocating unprecedented proportions of their electoral resources to this contest. The 2004 election saw dramatic growth in individual contributions to candidates and political parties. From 2000 to 2004, the DNC increased its individual contribution revenue by 3.2 times, from $111 million to $356 million; the RNC increased by 1.8 times from $186 million to $344 million.2 Presidential candidates raised a combined $234 million in 20003 and $631 million in 2004.4 While some of the surge in individual contributions to candidates and parties was the result of the higher individual contribution limits enacted under BCRA, the surprises of 2004 are the dramatic growth in the number of individuals contributing and the surge in party and candidate receipts. Prior to passage of BCRA, the national party committees had depended on the unlimited soft money which often came in large contributions or from sources otherwise prohibited from contributing to parties or candidates, like labor union and corporation general funds. In 2000, 40 percent5 and in 2002 44 percent6 of funds raised by the DNC, RNC, DSCC, NRSC, DCCC, and NRCC consisted of soft money. The increase in hard-money contributions