Political Parties & Campaign Finance
- Explain the functions of political parties and why the U.S. has a two-party system
- Describe how campaigns are financed and regulated
- Apply Citizens United v. FEC to the debate over money in politics
What parties do and why there are two
Political parties organize competition for office. Their core functions include recruiting and nominating candidates, mobilizing voters, educating the public, and organizing government once in power. The United States has a durable two-party system, driven largely by its single-member districts and winner-take-all (plurality) elections: because only one candidate wins each seat, votes for third parties tend to be "wasted," pushing voters and politicians into two broad coalitions. This contrasts with proportional representation systems, which reward smaller parties with seats and produce multiparty legislatures.
Paying for campaigns
Modern campaigns are expensive and their funding is regulated. Hard money is given directly to candidates and is capped by law. Political action committees (PACs) raise and donate money to candidates within limits. Super PACs may raise and spend unlimited sums on independent expenditures — advertising for or against candidates — as long as they do not coordinate directly with a campaign. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) administers these rules. The balance between free-speech rights and the risk of corruption is the central tension in campaign-finance law.
Citizens United v. FEC
In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), the Court held that the government may not restrict independent political expenditures by corporations, unions, and other associations, because such spending is political speech protected by the First Amendment. The decision struck down limits on independent campaign spending and helped give rise to Super PACs and a surge of outside money. Supporters praise it as protecting speech; critics argue it lets wealthy interests dominate elections. It is a required case precisely because it reshaped the money-and-politics landscape.
A corporation wants to spend millions on television ads praising a candidate but not give money directly to the campaign or coordinate with it. Using Citizens United, determine whether the government can prohibit this spending.
- 1.Classify the spending: this is an independent expenditure (advertising) made without coordinating with the candidate’s campaign, not a direct contribution.
- 2.Recall the Citizens United holding: independent political spending by corporations and associations is protected political speech under the First Amendment.
- 3.Apply the rule: because the spending is independent and the ruling protects such expression, the government cannot ban it.
- 4.Note the boundary: direct contributions to the candidate can still be capped, and coordination is prohibited — the protection is for independent spending.
Which structural feature of U.S. elections most strongly encourages a two-party system?
Distinguish the money types cleanly: direct contributions to candidates are limited; independent expenditures (post-Citizens United, often via Super PACs) are unlimited but must not be coordinated with the campaign. Exam items frequently test the "independent and uncoordinated" condition.
The rise of Super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited money on independent expenditures, is most directly linked to which Supreme Court decision?
A Super PAC is not the same as a traditional PAC. Traditional PACs give limited money directly to candidates; Super PACs make unlimited independent expenditures but cannot donate to or coordinate with a campaign. Swapping these is a common mistake.
Answer the 2 checkpoints as you read.
Sign in to save your progress