Rich People, Not Corporations, Fund Super PACs

In Defying the Odds, we discuss campaign finance and campaign technology. The 2019 update includes a chapter on the 2018 midterms.

David Shribman at LAT:

“The current system of campaign finance is one that is dramatically different from the one that jumps out from the pages of the statutes,” according to a report from the Bipartisan Policy Center prepared by, among others, scholars from the New York University and Stanford law schools. “The current system has been shaped by a combination of legislative, judicial, and administrative actions, and is not a system that, in its entirety, Congress ever established.”

But the notion that the Citizens United decision opened the donation floodgates to 21st century corporations is a myth.

The power of corporate contributions in modern times — $95 million in 2016 — is arguably about the same as it was in 1896, when businessman Mark Hanna was able to raise the 2019 equivalent of $90 million from banks and insurance companies on behalf of Republican presidential candidate William McKinley to battle the populist Democratic nominee William Jennings Bryan. McKinley won.

Not one major American corporation spent money independently in support of a candidate in 2014 and 2016. Only two smaller companies in 2014 and 10 two years later made independent expenditures, amounting to a total of $753,282.

“Even when the expenditures reported by trade associations or other business organizations are considered,” according to the Conference Board study, “the role of business spending is relatively insignificant.”

Students of campaign finance believe a major reason for the relatively small corporate contributions — money specifically directed to an individual campaign, as opposed to super PAC contributions — is a reluctance to alienate customers. “You want to sell soap to everybody, not just to Republicans or just to Democrats,” said Corrado, the Colby College political scientist.

Another surprise since 2010 has been the degree to which grass-roots fundraising has changed politics, arguably serving as an antidote to big-money contributions. Internet-based, small-dollar individual contributions have soared, largely funding candidacies such as those of Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, and changing the dynamics of many congressional campaigns, especially on the Democratic side.

The California Primary

In Defying the Odds, we discuss California's place on the electoral landscape. The update looks at political and demographic trends through the 2018 midterm.

In the March 3 California presidential primary, no-party-preference voters (i.e., independents) may vote in the Democratic race but not the GOP side.  But the catch is that they must request a Democratic ballot. To vote in the Democratic primary by mail, they would have had to file the request in December.  But they can still make the request at any early voting station or a primary-day ballot station.  And they still have more than a month to change their registration to Democratic.

Kathleen Ronayne at AP:

So far, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and billionaire Michael Bloomberg have been most aggressive in pursuing independents. Sanders, the independent senator who has thrived on anti-establishment enthusiasm, is urging his California supporters to become Democrats, despite the fact that they can vote for him as independents. At a December rally, he walked the audience through changing their voter affiliation, telling them to use the secretary of state’s website.

His campaign argues that this approach ensures voters get the ballots they need, rather than having to take additional steps, as independents must. Californians can change their party registration until Feb. 18. The campaign is also adding a feature on its mobile app that will let supporters look up the party registrations of friends and family, so that they can send them instructions on how to vote for Sanders.

...
As of last week, just 8% of independents who vote by mail had asked for a ballot in the presidential primary, according to data collection by Paul Mitchell, who runs the nonpartisan Political Data Inc., which collects and sells voter data to campaigns. Not all counties had reported data.

Complicating matters is the fact that for most elections, Californians are accustomed to open primaries in which all the candidates appear on the same ballot, regardless of party. Many may not know that the presidential race runs differently. The state also moved up its primary from June to March, and the earlier voting could catch some people by surprise

...

Candidates must earn support from 15% of voters in a congressional district to gain the delegates that will determine who wins the nomination. And since California has more congressional districts than any other state, independents could make the difference between clinching much-needed delegates or leaving the state empty-handed.

“If they’re targeting certain congressional districts, they’re not having to beat their opponent by 100,000 votes,” Mitchell said. “Delegates are going to be won on the margins up and down the state.”

A larger-than-usual number of downballot races in the top-two primary could end up as Democratic-on-Democrat.  Joel Fox tells why:

Traditionally, Republican voters turn out in higher percentages relative to their registration numbers compared to Democrats in primary elections. That may not hold true when California voters go to the polls on March 3. 

With all the attention on the Democratic presidential nomination race in California and Republican voters prohibited from asking for a Democratic ballot, one wonders the effect on down ticket races if many Republicans choose to stay home.

Because of California’s unique election system, all candidates for an office other than president are listed on the same ballot and a voter can vote for any of the candidates regardless of party. Yet, party preferences of candidates are identified on the ballots. An occasional Democratic voter who is driven to vote this time because of the close presidential contest on the Democratic side will probably be looking for Democrats to vote for in other races.

Meanwhile, Republicans who see no major presidential challenger to President Trump just may sit this election out. That is the fear of state Republican officials.

Americans Think Obama Did Better on Iran

In Defying the Odds, we discuss foreign policy issues in the 2016 campaign. Our update takes the story through the 2018 election.

Andrew Romano reports on a Yahoo/YouGov poll:

Conducted from Jan. 8 to 10 — after Iranian ballistic missiles struck Iraqi bases in retaliation without causing American casualties and Trump declared that “Iran appears to be standing down” — the poll found that 42 percent of Americans opposed Trump’s approach to Iran (versus 36 percent who supported it). Forty percent said Trump was wrong to withdraw from the Obama administration’s nuclear treaty with Tehran (versus 35 percent who said he was right), while 41 percent said Trump has been less effective on Iran than Obama (versus 34 percent who said the current president has been more effective). On all three questions, about a quarter of respondents said they were either not sure or neutral.

Trump's Public Opinion Problems, at Home and Abroad

In Defying the Odds, we discuss foreign policy issues in the 2016 campaign. Our update takes the story through the 2018 election.

Susan Page at USA Today:

Americans by more than 2-1 said the killing of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani has made the United States less safe, a nationwide USA TODAY/Ipsos Poll finds, amid broad concerns about the potential consequences ahead.

A majority of those surveyed, by 52%-34%, called President Donald Trump's behavior with Iran "reckless."

Americans were divided on the wisdom of the drone strike at the Baghdad airport last week that killed Soleimani and others: 42% supported it, 33% opposed it; 25% said they didn't know what to think. Republicans were much more supportive than Democrats; independents were almost evenly split.

But there was overwhelming agreement – in each case by more than 6-1 – that the attack made it more likely Iran would strike American interests in the Middle East (69%), that there would be terrorist attacks on the American homeland (63%), and that the United States and Iran would go to war (62%).

From Pew:

As has been the case throughout his presidency, U.S. President Donald Trump receives largely negative reviews from publics around the world. Across 32 countries surveyed by Pew Research Center, a median of 64% say they do not have confidence in Trump to do the right thing in world affairs, while just 29% express confidence in the American leader.

Anti-Trump sentiments are especially common in Western Europe: Roughly three-in-four or more lack confidence in Trump in Germany, Sweden, France, Spain and the Netherlands. He also gets especially poor reviews in Mexico, where 89% do not have confidence in him.

College America, Warren, and Mayor Pete

In Defying the Odds, we discuss the demographics of the 2016 campaign.   College education has emerged as a major dividing line in American politics.

Timothy P. Carney at The Washington Examiner:

Warren has always relied heavily on the Connected Class. That includes doctors and lawyers, but, in general, it's the larger class of college-educated white people. This may, in fact, have been the biggest chunk of her support.

At her Iowa peak, when Warren was leading the field in mid-October, she was getting about 33% of all college graduates according to an Iowa State University poll, while Buttigieg was pulling in about 19%.

Now, Buttigieg is winning the college-educated vote 26% to 24%, according to the Iowa State University poll in December. If you were to screen out those with graduate degrees, and look at those whose highest degree was a bachelor’s (which is about a quarter of the Democratic electorate), we’ve swung from a 14-point Warren lead in October to a 5-point Buttigieg lead at the New Year.

Warren is falling mostly because white, college-educated voters are leaving her for Buttigieg.

Left v. Biden

In Defying the Odds, we discuss primaries.

Marc Caputo at Politico:

The progressive movement is kicking off 2020 with a full-scale, whack-a-Joe mobilization against the former vice president, marked by intensified attacks and protests designed to bloody Biden in advance of the Iowa caucuses.

The grassroots assault hit from a variety of angles, starting Monday when the Progressive Change Campaign Committee demanded Biden retract statements about sexism in politics. Hours later, the group Indivisible criticized him over his immigration plan. Then, activists aligned with the Sunrise Movement recently picketed him at a New York City fundraiser hosted by a billionaire.

While Biden has taken flak from the Democratic Party’s left flank for the past year, the effort marks the first time he’s been the subject of a sustained barrage from the left, amplifying recent back-to-back broadsides from two of Biden’s top opponents, Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, over Social Security and bankruptcy legislation.

The shared offensive comes on the heels of Biden’s best fundraising quarter — he pulled in nearly $23 million — since entering the presidential race in April. And it follows recent polling that shows he remains the frontrunner in national primary polls and a top-tier contender in first-in-the-nation Iowa, which holds its caucus Feb. 3.

Dems Keep Lead in Party Identification

In Defying the Odds, we discuss demographic and partisan gaps in the 2016 election.

Jeffrey M. Jones at Gallup:

In 2019, on average, 47% of U.S. adults identified politically as Democrats or said they were independents who leaned toward the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, 42% identified as Republicans or were Republican-leaning independents.

Americans' political leanings have been quite stable since 2016, the year Donald Trump was elected president. The Democratic figure has not changed in the past four years, and the Republican figure has been 41% or 42% each year since 2012.

The latest results are based on aggregated data across all Gallup Poll surveys in 2019, which include interviews with more than 29,000 U.S. adults.