Many if not all Americans are aware that money plays a large role in American elections, but fewer people know exactly how. Check out these five facts on election campaign finance to check your knowledge, or learn more.
Thanks to Learning Life intern Samantha MacFarlane for helping to research and write these facts.
Federal Election Spending More than Triples in 14 Years
Spending on election campaigns has increased substantially nationwide. In federal elections (i.e., elections for Congress and the President), total spending by candidates, parties and interest groups increased from $1.6 billion to $6.3 billion from 1998 to 2012. The split between Democrats’ and Republicans’ spending fluctuates between 40% and 60%, often leaving 1% just to third party spending.
Below are the spending totals during the last four presidential elections. Click here for the spending totals during mid-term Congressional elections in 1998, 2002, 2006, and 2010.
There are spending limits for individuals but not for all organizations. For 2015-16 federal elections, individuals can give up to $2,700 to a candidate per election, and PACs (political action committees) and parties can give up to $2,700 or $5000 depending on the type of organization.
However, due to the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial Citizens United v. FEC decision in 2010, political organizations can, separately, collect and spend an unlimited amount to attack or support any federal candidate, so long as these organizations do not formally coordinate with any particular candidate (see below for more on Citizens United v. FEC).
Less than one-third of one percent of Americans (0.31%) give $200 or more to a political candidate, party or PAC, and this tiny minority is responsible for 67% of all individual contributions.
Federal elections are largely financed by special interest groups trying to promote their own goals and ideologies. Among the many special interests putting money in politics, finance (banks, investment firms, insurance companies, real estate investors) give the most.
The financial sector often splits contributions between the two major parties, leaning slightly towards the party in power. Most business groups give more to Republicans, but unions, lawyers, lobbyists, and communications & electronics industries tend to give more to Democrats.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)
In this landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court opened the way for even more money in politics. The Court’s majority ruled that the First Amendment, which asserts the freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition, protects, as a form of speech, independent organizations’ (e.g., businesses, labor unions, political action committees) right to produce media supporting or opposing particular candidates. These groups can now spend unlimited amounts to broadcast political messages supporting or opposing candidates as long as they are not collaborating with a candidate or party and no financial transactions between the two are involved. Following this case, some groups became “Super PACs” — political action committees that can engage in political advertising without limits on their income and spending.
It’s presidential election season in America. If there is a time when more Americans pay attention to politics, it is now. Now is thus perhaps the best time to challenge how Americans think about democracy. More often than not, the word “democracy” conjures electing representatives to govern. As important as that is, there is more to democracy, and that “more” is well worth pondering.
The influential 20th century American philosopher, John Dewey was one of democracy’s most ardent proponents. But his view of democracy was broad and participatory, not limited to electing politicians to govern (Dewey 1927, Morris & Shapiro 1993). As historian James Kloppenberg explains, summarizing the work of one of Dewey’s intellectual chroniclers, “First, Dewey believed that democracy is an ethical ideal rather than merely a political arrangement. Second, he considered participation, not representation, the essence of democracy. Third, he insisted on the harmony between democracy and the scientific method: ever-expanding and self-critical communities of inquiry, operating on pragmatic principles and constantly revising their beliefs in light of new evidence, provided Dewey with a model for democratic decision making…Finally, Dewey called for extending democracy, conceived as an ethical project, from politics to industry and society” (Kloppenburg 1992).
To Dewey then, democracy is an ongoing way of being that involves participation in learning and decision-making in most if not all domains of life, including family, work, associations and government. Dewey is, of course, not alone in advocating a more “participatory” version of democracy (e.g., see Pateman 1970, Mansbridge 1983, Barber 2004, Fishkin 2011), but this version is not what prevails in the United States and other modern democracies.
What prevails political observers commonly call representative democracy, or a republic. In contemporary republics, democracy is like a gladiator’s contest, as the political scientist Lester Milbrath (1965) aptly described: at any given time, about 5-7% of citizens are the gladiators who run for office and lead political campaigns and organizations. The spectators, who comprise 55-65% of the public, pay attention, express support and vote. The rest, whom Milbrath called “the apathetics,” comprising 30-40% of citizens, don’t bother to come to the show — they don’t pay attention, let alone act politically, and thus know little about politics. This republican democracy is associated with greater inequalities in participation and power as well as greater apathy and partisanship.
Some political scientists claim that republican democracy is inevitable, that one cannot realistically expect citizens to be engaged in the same way all the time, and that more engagement may only lead to more conflict and crisis from competing citizen demands. These claims though generally assume that democracy should be limited to government, and that active citizens are partisans rather than deliberators.
Dewey, like other participatory democrats, contends that all organizations – governmental, business and nonprofit – engage in decision-making, and that decision-making can be made more democratic, involving more people rather than habitually delegating to executives or representatives. Further, whether citizens become rigid, self-interested partisans or flexible, public-interested deliberators depends in no small part on the rules of engagement organizations establish, including the ideal citizens organizations uphold.
Clearly, as numerous notable political observers (e.g., more recently, Haidt 2012, Fukuyama 2014) remark, drawing on evolutionary science, humans are inclined to be self-interested, but we are also routinely cooperative when it suits us, and for better or worse, even self-abnegating when moved by another individual or group to whom we feel committed. As social scientists know well, how we act depends a lot on our social circumstances, and the organizations in which we live and work every day play a large role in defining those circumstances.
The implications are that (a) more participatory democracy is possible, and (b) democratic organizations can make it happen. Indeed, there are plenty of contemporary examples, including organizations like Voice of the People, Healthy Democracy and the Center for Deliberative Democracy. Groups like these get diverse citizens involved in local to international dialogues that nurture more equitable, tolerant, informed and public-spirited decision-making among citizens and policymakers alike. Yet to make democracy a routine practice, as Dewey envisioned, rather than a periodic choice, calls for imagining, discussing and enacting models that democratize not only government, but also society.
Barber, Benjamin. 2004. Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Dewey, John. 1927. The Public and its Problems. New York: Holt.
Fishkin, James. 2011. When the People Speak. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fukuyama, Francis. 2014. Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
Haidt, Jonathan. 2012. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. New York: Pantheon Books.
Kloppenberg, James T. 1992. Book review of John Dewey and American Democracy, by Robert B. Westbrook in American Historical Review, p.919-920.
Mansbridge, Jane. 1983. Beyond Adversary Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Milbrath, Lester. 1965. Political Participation: How and Why Do People Get Involved in Politics? Chicago: Rand McNally & Co.
Morris, Debra, and Ian Shapiro, eds. 1993. John Dewey: The Political Writings. Indianapolis: Hackett.
Pateman, Carole. 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory. London: Cambridge University Press.
Mass Shootings in the USA
Mass shootings are more common in the United States than many other developed countries. When mass public shootings occur, they often attract national attention, and lead some to wonder whether Americans are becoming more violent. The following five facts highlight the types of mass shootings as well as their violence, and answer whether mass shootings are on the rise.
What Is a “Mass Shooting”?
Criminologists typically define crimes by type (e.g., murder, arson, burglary), style (e.g., number of offenders, weapons used, time frame, locations) and victim counts.
Mass shooting = 4 or more victims murdered with firearms, in one incident, in one or more locations in close proximity. (The offender is not counted as a victim if he/she dies.)
Note: Definition matters because it specifies what one is talking about, and is one key to determining whether or not mass shootings are on the rise. A word of caution though: definitions can vary and change. The above definition comes from Krouse & Richardson 2015.
What Are the Kinds of Mass Shootings?
Krouse & Richardson distinguish three kinds of mass shootings:
Public shootings occur in one or more public places (e.g., streets, churches, schools, workplaces) and are not “attributable to any other underlying criminal activity or commonplace circumstance (armed robbery, criminal competition, insurance fraud, argument, or romantic triangle).”
Familicide mass shootings in which most or all victims are family members (most commonly an intimate partner and children), and are not “attributable to any other underlying criminal activity or commonplace circumstance (e.g., armed robbery, criminal competition, insurance fraud, argument, or romantic triangle)
Other felony mass shootings are “attributable to any other underlying criminal activity or commonplace circumstance (armed robbery, criminal competition, insurance fraud, argument, or romantic triangle).”
Mass Shootings on the Rise
1970s: 1.1 mass shootings per year, with 5.5 victims murdered, 2 wounded per incident.
1980s: 2.7 mass shootings per year, with 6.1 victims murdered, 5.3 wounded per incident.
1990s: 4.0 mass shootings per year, with 5.6 victims murdered, 5.5 wounded per incident.
2000s: 4.1 mass shootings per year, with 6.4 victims murdered, 4.0 wounded per incident.
2010-3: 4.5 mass shootings per year, with 7.4 victims murdered, 6.3 wounded per incident.
Thus, the number of incidents has consistently risen decade by decade since the 1970s, but the deadliness has not. Given the small number of mass shootings (small relative to the total number of firearm murders) per year, one particularly violent mass shooting (e.g., the 2012 Newtown, CT school shooting) can bump up the yearly average number of killed and/or wounded.
Note: The vast majority of mass shootings are committed by one person. An incident can last minutes, hours, or days.
Most Common Mass Shootings: Familicides
Between 1999 and 2013 in the USA, familicide mass shootings were the most common, accounting for 40% (127 incidents) of all mass shootings over the period, compared with 39% (124 incidents) for other felony mass shootings, and 21% (66 incidents) for public ones.
Most Violent but Least Deadly Mass Shootings: Public Shootings
Attempts to kill are generally more successful with guns rather than knives, fists, or other weapons. But among mass shootings, in 1999-2013 in the USA, familicides were the most deadly, ending in 576 total killed vs. 37 wounded. Other felony mass shootings are also deadly (532 killed vs. 75 wounded). Public mass shootings are least deadly (446 killed vs. 329 wounded).
In short, in 1999-2013, among the three types of mass shootings, public shootings involved the most dead and injured combined, but the least dead.
Source
Krouse, William J., and Daniel J. Richardson. 2015. “Mass Murder with Firearms: Incidents and Victims, 1999-2013.” Washington D.C.: Congressional Research Service.
Intern Spotlight: Kathryn Moss
This is the fifth in a series of five individual profiles of our summer 2015 student interns. This summer, Learning Life’s social enterprise partner, Signia Surfaces, has five interns who are working on marketing, sales and educational content. To learn more about interning with Learning Life or Signia Surfaces, email learninglife@letlearninglive.org.
Where were you born and raised?
I was born in Fairfax, and raised in Loudoun County in northern Virginia! It’s a beautiful area and I’m thrilled that I’ve gotten to spend so much time in it with friends and family, including my six siblings…three of whom are our wild Golden Retrievers!
What is your current occupation?
I’m going to be a junior at George Mason University in northern Virginia this fall. I am studying marketing.
What do you like to do in your free time?
Free time is my favorite time! Sometimes I really do enjoy doing nothing, just relaxing on the couch for three days straight. Kidding, I’ve never done that, but a few hours of relaxing always helps reenergize me! I also love to play the piano, make music and art, bake brownies, cookies or anything with chocolate, and occasionally proceed to eat all of it in one night. I also like being outside, exploring, and just laughing and talking with the people around me. Laughing is probably my favorite thing to do in my free time since it’s something I never get tired of!
What is the most beautiful place you have seen on Earth, and why is it so beautiful?
The Channel Islands in California or Mount Rainier in Washington are the most beautiful places I’ve seen. Both were extremely peaceful, the weather was perfect, with just a slight breeze, the landscape’s colors were so vivid it was unreal, and I was with family. I also love the drive-through line at McDonald’s with the red roof and smell of fast food. Kidding. I do however find any areas with grass and trees, whether it’s my own backyard or on the side of the road, to be beautiful.
Is there a particular life experience you have had that has shaped you as a person? If so, what was it, and how has it shaped who you are?
The way that I’ve been raised has most clearly defined me. Feeling encouraged and genuinely cared for by those around me (not to say that I haven’t had more than a few sibling arguments growing up!) has made me someone who isn’t really afraid of the uncertainty of what’s to come since I know I’ll always have someone by my side, as cliché as that sounds! I’d also say it’s made me quick to trust people; I don’t tend to doubt anyone’s honesty. I think people are genuinely special and each have something unique and magnificent to offer to the world!
Why did you choose to intern with Signia Surfaces?
I chose to intern with Signia Surfaces because of the exciting opportunity to learn more about marketing! Being exposed to new aspects and characteristics of a social enterprise and all that comes with it is something I enjoy about Signia Surfaces. Also, being able to coordinate with a team of interns should be both exciting and rewarding!
What are your career plans?
I don’t know where life is going to take me. Perhaps one day I’ll be a marketing manager, or I’ll start up my own company, or I’ll be playing music, or I’ll be the next host of Jeopardy once Alex Trebek finally retires. Who knows!
candidates, parties and interest groups increased from $1.6 billion to $6.3 billion from 1998 to 2012. The split between Democrats’ and Republicans’ spending fluctuates between 40% and 60%, often leaving 1% just to third party spending. 
