G.O.P. projected to allow legislative gridlock until 2012

Like every election in American history, the 2010 mid-term election has its implications and so-called “consequences”. However, the drastic Republican takeover of government that many Americans, who were clearly not Political Science majors, expect to happen in the next two years is unrealistic. Though one aspect of politics in which Republican domination is inevitable is redistricting. David Mayhew argues that reelection is the main goal of members of Congress as it is absolutely essential in order to achieve any other goals. One can expect minimal policy changes by Congress until 2012 since Republicans Control only the House.

As I discussed in my last blog, the Republicans will control the redrawing of Congressional districts this year. This is arguably the only area in which the Republican party will undoubtedly have a major impact on future elections. Since extensive gerrymandering is very likely, according to political consultant Brett Di Resta, the problem of partisan politics will swell. Districts will be redrawn to favor incumbent Republicans over the incumbent Democrats and Republican Representatives will be less likely to make policy compromises.

With reelection on the mind, the newly elected Republican legislatures are probably not going to be wasting time and money on passing or implementing new legislation. Members of Congress will get credit for taking a position, not passing innovative legislation. Completely ignoring the pressure to compromise would satisfy the major promise of Republican campaigns; oppose the enormous overreach by Obama and the Democrats that led to increased spending, debt, bailouts, etc. An interesting article in The Daily Caller pointed out that most Americans don’t realize that the next 2 years are not about how much the Republicans can accomplish. These next two years will really be about Republicans limiting the damage that Obama and the Senate can do.

Congress after the 2010 mid-term election

It is obvious that President Obama and his fellow Democrats will be focusing on preserving their legislative achievements while the Republicans in the House intend to reverse, or at the very least, reduce it. As this article explains, the make-up of the 112^th Congress leaves slim chances of overriding a presidential veto. Likewise, major policy issues will likely see two years of gridlock. The only policy changes that are likely to be made with this stalemate will be the essential ones like appropriations.

For all those Republicans out there who are gung-ho about making major policy comebacks this time around, I’m sorry to burst your bubble but you’ll probably have to wait until 2012 before you can claim any political bragging rights. 

Republicans to redistrict, Democrats scramble for reasons to keep hope

Political parties covet the redistricting process so they can draw lines to give their respective parties an advantage, especially incumbents. The outcomes of this past election are significant in that Republicans now control more seats in the U.S.’s state legislatures than they have since the Great Depression and they now have control over the redistricting process.  However, in the state of Illinois, the state legislature and the governor are both controlled by the Democratic party. A review of the Voting Rights Act by the Department of Justice may be the only hope for the rest of the nation’s Democrats.

The Republicans of Illinois are worried that they will be pushed even further into a minority status with the redistricting. The new boundaries will put forth candidates for every seat in the Illinois House and Senate as well as every congressional district in 2010.  While these circumstances favor Illinois’ Democrats, the majority of the country’s boundaries will be redrawn by Republicans; roughly 190 according to this article.

The Republican party seems to have a great advantage of this redistricting process but some Democrats remain opmtomistic. For the first time in nearly 50 years, the Democrats have the advantage in the Justice Department to review the Voting Rights Act. Will Department of Justice help Democrats and review the previously upheld maps of G.W. Bush’s DOJ? Or will Republicans backfire and argue that such use of the review process on behalf of the Democratic party is unfair?

The true effects of this year’s redistricting will not be exposed for another 23 months but will last an entire decade. Whether or not the DOJ will rehear relevant cases of the past is hard to tell. While the power to review rulings is fundamental to the country’s democratic growth and evolution, the Justices are not supposed to hear cases that are politically motivated. Not to mention the provisions of the Voting Rights Act that are at stake are issues of great controversy; immigration. While the Obama Administration  and the Democratic party have bigger fish to fry, those fish will not even make it into the frying pan if Democrats sit back and watch Republicans gerrymander.

So any Democratic politician with half a brain will recognize the need to make all efforts possible to block or at least limit the gerrymandering. Better start sending in amicus briefs.

Check out this link to see the top 10 most gerrymandered districts in the U.S. 

Evaluating the FEC shows growing need for campaign reform

If there is anything to be said about campaign finance after the 2010 mid-term election, it’s that big money really does win and the need for reform is greater than ever.

The Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC back in January 2010 made it possible for corporations and unions to make enormous independent expenditures on elections through front groups. Likewise, the number of political players has skyrocketed while the percentage of donor disclosures by organizations has plummeted. To say that the system is flawed would be an understatement.

 The federal agency that is charged with monitoring and implementing campaign and election legislation is the Federal Election Commission. The Court held that the disclosure requirements of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) were justified by a “governmental interest” for the accessibility and availability of the electorate to information relevant to election expenditure funds (OYEZ, case 558 U.S. 2010). The FEC uses a variety of methods to detect violations of election laws including, but not limited to, revision of committee reports, Commission audits, and a complaint process that allows individuals and other government agencies to report possible violations (FEC, 2010).

Nonetheless, there are indeed management and enforcement flaws within the organization that inhibit effective implementation of federal campaign finance laws. Specifically, there is an apparent lack of enforcement of disclosure requirements. An FEC enforcement case or Matter Under Review, by law, must remain confidential until they are closed (FEC, 2010). By the time the FEC has assessed and revised the disclosure file submissions, election season has long ended and any violations are moot. Moreover, the consequence for violations involving late submission of FEC reports or failure to file reports is an administrative fine that poses little threat to culprits (Best, 2009).

In grading the FEC on its implementation and enforcement I give the commission an F and legislators receive a 0 for whatever efforts were made to reform the campaign finance laws.

Check out these links to find out who’s taking advantage of the Citizens United ruling and who is, or isn’t, doing something about it.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/readersrespond/bs-ed-campaign-finance-reform-letter-20101119,0,3579976.story

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/11/the-wave-of-unlimited-influence-7-e.html

Victory for Dold in Illinois' 10th Congressional District

The race for the seat in Illinois’ 10^th Congressional District was a tossup until the very last vote was cast. The seat had been held for 3 consecutive terms by Republican Mark Kirk who is now Illinois’ Senator-elect. This particular race was significant at both the local and national levels in that it was one of the only open seats that the Democratic Party had a shot at gaining this election season. Up until the week before the election, polls had consistently shown an extremely close race between the two candidates with the Democratic candidate, Dan Seals in the lead by a very small margin.

            Dan Seals was endorsed by Vice President Biden. This was a pivotal election in that the Nation was shifting away from the Presidential party and toward the Right. Likewise, the Vice President as a constituent was not much help for Seals who took 49% of the votes and lost by only 5,006 votes!

            The 10^th District’s Representative-elect, Bob Dold, utilized his relationship with Mark Kirk as a way in. Dold was competing with the name recognition that Seals had gained from the two previous times he ran for this seat and used the popularity of his successor to his advantage. The voters of the 10^th district clearly like Kirk enough to elect him into Congress 3 times and now into the Senate, so of course teaming up with him would be beneficial. Dold was also endorsed by several other political hotshots listed on his website.

            The Democrats of Illinois’ 10^th Congressional District had high hopes for this election, and through it all Dan Seals’ campaign and self-presentation seemed to be the most fitting for this Dirstrict, but Dold rode in on the coat tale of Kirk.

More money equals more votes?

            If campaign spending and fund raising is any indication of election outcomes, the candidates for the 10th district of Illinois have done so relentlessly. As candidates from one of the wealthiest districts in the nation, both Dan Seals and Bob Dold have had few problems keeping up with the others’ campaign finances. In fact, this district is apparently the only district in Illinois where the candidates raised the same, or even close to the same amount of money for their own campaigns.

            As reported October 13th, the candidates were neck-and-neck, each raised approximately $2.5 million however Seals spent about $2.2 million while Dold had spent about $1.7 million. History shows that winning candidates by and large outspend the losing candidate. The closeness of this race as suggested by the polls is also indicated by the dollar signs. 

            The most recent FiveThirtyEight Forecast says that Seals has a 59.4% chance of winning the seat but not by much. The same source predicted that Seals will win by 1.9% of the votes. These numbers are so close that despite political conventional wisdom and margin of error set aside, this election is not one that I would be able to place a confident bet on. Nonetheless, these projections are parallel to Seals’ narrow lead in campaign finance. 

            Additionally, OpenSecrets.com revealed that Seals raised roughly $200,000 more from local contributors than Dold. On a national level, Dold’s contributors were more widespread than that of Seals. Which of these leads is favorable to winning a congressional election you ask? Local contributions. The contributions made at local levels are an arguably accurate display of local support for one candidate over another. While money from contributors in New York and Washington, D.C. is useful, local support is essential in a congressional election. Overall, the widespread support for Republican Congressional candidates is irrelevant and meaningless if local support favors the Democratic candidate.

            The money raised by both candidates amount to impressing numbers both in size and proportion to each other. Historical trends hint that the bigger spender is more often than not the winner. Election Day is one week away and the most recent projections are lined up with these historical implications; Seals holds a narrow but persistent lead over Dold. The rest is up to the voters. 

            At this point, the results of this election are more likely to be altered by a bad storm, a huge sale at the local mall, or traffic than anything else.

Dold combats conventional wisdom on familiar candidates

While there is no incumbent running in the race for Illinois’ 10^th Congressional District, Dan Seals, may conceivably benefit from name recognition similar to that of an incumbent. Conventional wisdom infers that there is an advantage for the candidate whom voters are most “familiar” with. Studies show that voters recognize candidates’ names much more readily than they recall names. Media coverage on this race has consistently conveyed the message that since Seals is running for the third consecutive time, voters are more likely to recognize his name at the polls than his opponent, Dold, even if they cannot recall either name.

      This is a major disadvantage to novice Bob Dold who lacks any name recognition that his opponent Seals has accumulated over the years. Studies on voter partisanship have concluded that, on average, more than half of House voters defected from their party to candidates who are more familiar. This accurately corresponds to Seals’ lead in the polls and gain of endorsements formerly in support of Republican Representative Mark Kirk.

      Also, independent voters vote for the “better-known” candidate about 84% of the time in House races. Since this race is a tossup as well as one of the most crucial open seats in the Nation, the independent voters are the pivotal factor that will tilt the election one way or the other.

      Dold’s campaign has recognized that, as a candidate, his position on national issues is one of the few ways to sway independent voters. This article on Dold outlines the tactic; since nearly 30% of the voters in Illinois’ 10^th District are Jewish, Dold polished his pro-Israel credentials when he made his first trip to Israel in May 2010. However, a recent debate on October 7^th between the two candidates revealed that Seals holds the same views on Israel as Dold. Many of the individuals who attended this debate believe that Israel is the most important issue, yet they are content with the reality that there are no differences between Dold and Seals on the subject.

      Whether or not Dold’s efforts to appeal to voters as a social moderate will overcome voters’ familiarity of Seals as a candidate remains uncertain. This C-SPAN video clip suggests that what we know about voter behavior and partisanship in races for an open House seat offers little insight of election results in the context of Illinois’ 10^th Congressional District. 

Candidate plays dress-up; Dold as a ‘moderate’

Despite what CQ Politics says about this race being a complete toss-up, it is apparent that this district leans slightly Democrat. Expectedly so, Bob Dold has been persistent on identifying himself as a social moderate in attempt to gain the votes of at least, the independent voters. Dold’s campaign strategy has been to target the voters that he needs to win and build a reputation among those voters as a socially moderate candidate. Yet media sources reveal sloppy efforts by Dold’s campaign workers to convey this message.

A recent article in the Daily Herald discussed a comment made by Dold’s campaign to a tea party group preparing a voters’ guide. The guide, published in The Conservative Magazine of Illinois, said that Dold’s campaign “asks that he not be rated highly by our voter guide (indicating that he wishes to be viewed as a moderate)”.

Of course, Dan Seals has jumped on this opportunity to criticize his opponent for the entry in the voters’ guide. Aviva Gibbs, a spokeswoman for Seals, argued that “If Dold was truly the moderate he claims to be, he wouldn’t have to request a low rating from the tea party, he would simply earn one”.

The strategy of Dold’s campaign is apparent; Republican candidate to appeal to independent and moderate voters in a district leaning slightly Democrat. But appearing is not appealing. Many voters may regard the fact that Dold’s campaign insists that conservative groups do not portray him as a conservative as evidence that Bob Dold is not the moderate candidate that the District needs.

Dold brushed off this charge by the Seals campaign as an effort to get the Republican campaign to “take our eye off the ball”. Mirroring Seals’ criticism, Dold has tried to portray Seals to be more liberal than he campaigns.

It is not to say that Dold’s campaign strategy has failed; the voters of Illinois’ 10^th district may not be swayed by the voters’ guide which gave Dold 3 out of 5 stars as conservative candidate. But then again, will independent and moderate voters read a voter guide that was put out by a conservative group? Do voters actually read voter guides?