The Role of Parties
As with many other concerns, the role of the political parties is one that transcends strictly financial issues.
The reforms of the early 1970s sharply curtailed the financial involvement of political parties in both presidential and congressional campaigns, thereby leading to a further weakening of these structures. As noted in the first section, several provisions of the FECA Amendments of 1979 were designed to respond to these concerns regarding presidential campaigns. In addition, there have been suggestions that the limited ability of the two major parties to finance congressional campaigns has led to diminishing partisan loyalties on the part of legislators, making it increasingly difficult to mobilize votes in Congress.
However, the weakening of the political parties predates the appearance of campaign finance reform on the congressional agenda. To some degree, U.S. political parties have fallen victim to a more educated, more transient, more independent-thinking electorate. Television also has played an important role. Congress has been populated increasingly by non-traditional politicians who, rather than rising through the ranks of political parties, have ignored party structures and used some form of media to get their messages directly to the voters.
In short, parties have lost a great deal of their effectiveness, with many of their functions absorbed by other institutions or left unfulfilled. What the reforms in the political process, including political finance laws, have done is to give rise to a number of institutions, such as PACs, providing candidate support and dialogue with the community. These changes are so basic that it is doubtful that any legislation could succeed in reversing them.
The proposals to reinvigorate parties have, in part, been a response to the rapid growth of PACs. Advocates of this approach argue that channelling money to congressional candidates through political parties, which collect it from a variety of sources, is more desirable than the one-to-one dependence on special interest PACs. The reforms of the 1970s placed strict limits on the amounts of money that national, state and local party committees could give directly to a particular candidate (see table 1.1).
The framework of the law, however, did permit coordinated expenditures under which national and state party committees could pay for certain expenditures undertaken by the candidate. The allowed amount of coordinated expenditures is based on a formula of two cents per voting age population, plus cost-of-living adjustments. In 1990, these expenditures could amount to large sums - as much as $2 million in a California Senate race - and as little as $100 560 in the smallest states. The House limit was $50 280 (see table 1.7). These amounts, which may or may not be spent on specific contests according to the availability of money and candidate need, are disclosed as disbursements by the giving committee(s) but not by the candidates on whose behalf the payments are made; accordingly, the actual costs of some Senate or House campaigns are understated, even in tabulations made by the FEC.
The question of what role to give the parties is not without significant partisan motives. The Republicans, whose national party committees have regularly raised more funds than their Democratic counterparts by wide margins in recent years, would like to substantially loosen - if not altogether remove - the current contribution limits and coordinated expenditure limits on party spending in congressional races. Unsurprisingly, the Democrats, who have had trouble matching the Republicans in terms of party money channelled to congressional contests through either means, are leery of such proposals.
Table 1.7 Party spending limits — Senate elections, 1990
| State | Voting age population | 1990 party spending limits ($) |
| Alabama | 3 010 000 | 151 343 |
| Alaska* | 362 000 | 50 280 |
| Arizona | 2 575 000 | 129 471 |
| Arkansas | 1 756 000 | 88 292 |
| California | 21 350 000 | 1 073 478 |
| Colorado | 2 453 000 | 123 337 |
| Connecticut | 2 479 000 | 124 644 |
| Delaware* | 504 000 | 50 280 |
| Florida | 9 799 000 | 492 694 |
| Georgia | 4 639 000 | 233 249 |
| Hawaii | 825 000 | 50 280 |
| Idaho | 710 000 | 50 280 |
| Illinois | 8 678 000 | 436 330 |
| Indiana | 4 133 000 | 207 807 |
| Iowa | 2 132 000 | 107 197 |
| Kansas | 1 854 000 | 93 219 |
| Kentucky | 2 760 000 | 138 773 |
| Louisiana | 3 109 000 | 156 321 |
| Maine | 917 000 | 50 280 |
| Maryland | 3 533 000 | 177 639 |
| Massachusetts | 4 576 000 | 230 081 |
| Michigan | 6 829 000 | 343 362 |
| Minnesota | 3 224 000 | 162 103 |
| Mississippi | 1 852 000 | 93 119 |
| Missouri | 3 854 000 | 193 779 |
| Montana | 588 000 | 50 280 |
| Nebraska | 1 187 000 | 59 682 |
| Nevada | 833 000 | 50 280 |
| New Hampshire | 828 000 | 50 280 |
| New Jersey | 5 903 000 | 296 803 |
| New Mexico | 1 074 000 | 54 001 |
| New York | 13 600 000 | 683 808 |
| North Carolina | 4 929 000 | 247 830 |
|
North Dakota*
|