Electoral Reform

The Progressive reformers of the early 1900s and their heirs sought to remake the U.S. political system. They supported electoral reforms such as the open and direct primaries that were designed to take power from the political bosses and machines and give it to the voters. In the last decades of the twentieth century reformers focused on reforming the U.S. campaign finance system, first with FECA and most recently with the McCain-Feingold Act. While both types of reforms sought to create a political system that would be more representative of the people, the results have been mixed.

Certainly electoral reform, especially the “nouveau Progressive” thrust of the Democratic Party since the 1970s, has enabled more people to participate in the political process. The embarrassing 1968 Chicago convention, which nominated Vice President Hubert Humphrey despite the fact that he had not competed in a single primary, could not be repeated. There are no longer king-makers such as former Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley who could make or break candidacies with a single word. Today nominations must be fought for and slugged out state-by-state in the primaries and caucuses.

While citizens have gained power at the expense of the parties and party bosses, there are limitations on that power. The recent trend toward “front loading” primaries gives the voters of the early primary states a stronger voice than those of the middle or later primaries, unless there is a close race such as the 2008 Obama/Clinton fight. Although the days of the party bosses acting as kingmakers are over, the media often end up becoming modern “kingmakers,” as they proclaim candidates winners or losers after the early primaries. The extent of a citizen’s power to affect the nomination process also depends on whether he or she lives in a primary or caucus state; in the caucus states it is may be difficult for working people to find the time to leave work to attend party caucuses. Finally, while political parties and their state and local leaders have become less important in the presidential nomination process, the individual presidential candidates and their staffs have increased in power and prominence.

Recent campaign finance reform, particularly the Mc Cain Feingold Act, sought to curtail the influence of large donors and special interests on the electoral process, but this has been a mixed success as well. Despite the ban of “soft money” by the McCain Feingold Act, the “527” groups can still exert great influence in presidential campaigns. While banning soft money donations, the Act raised the limits for hard-money contributions. While both McCain and Feingold would prefer that presidential candidates accept only public financing, as a means of lowering the cost of elections, the McCain-Feingold Act does not prohibit candidates from opting out of public financing, as Obama did in 2008. Both McCain and Feingold sharply criticized Obama for doing so, and for raising a record amount of money in his successful presidential bid. In challenging some of the basic premises behind McCain-Feingold, and campaign finance reform generally, Obama and his supporters ended up running a very democratic campaign that engaged the interest and funds of many small donors.www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?id=N00009638