AP GOVERNMENT – REVIEW(revised 4/10/06)

I. STRUCTURE OF EXAM

TIME # QUESTIONS TYPE OF QUESTION %GRADE 45 min. 60 Mult. Choice 50%100 min. 4 Essay 50%

The Exam is 2 hours and 25 minutes long. The majority of this is devoted to writing four mandatory essays (100 minutes).

AP scores range from a low of 1 (No recommended college credit) to a high of 5 (Extremely well qualified). You need to obtain a 3 (Qualified) in order to be considered by most colleges for exam credit. To obtain a 3, you only need to answer 50 - 60% of the multiple choice questions correctly and score in the middle to upper range on the essay portion of the exam. If you spend the time preparing for this exam and learning the basics (i.e. at least 60% of the information), you will have no problem reaching a 3. Good Luck.

II. 6 TOPICS COVERED ON EXAM

1) Topic: Constitutional Underpinnings of American GovernmentPercentage of Exam: 5 - 15%Objectives:

*Why did Madison fear factions?*Why was the Bill of Rights adopted swiftly?1. Considerations that influenced the formulation and

adoption of the Constitution.2. Separation of Powers3. Federalism4. Theories of democratic government (republican gov’t,

pluralism, and elitism)

2) Topic: Political Beliefs and BehaviorsPercentage of Exam: 10 - 20%Objectives:

1. Beliefs that citizens hold about their government and its leaders

2. Processes by which citizens learn about politics (families, school, media)

3. The nature, source, and consequences of public opinion

1

4. The ways in which citizens vote and otherwise participate in political life (voting, protest, mass movements)

5. Factors that influence citizens to differ from one another in terms of political beliefs and behaviors (demographics, race, wealth)

3) Topic: Political Parties, interest groups, and mass mediaPercentage of Exam: 10 - 20% Objectives:

A. Political parties and elections 1. Functions2. Organization3. Development4. Effects on the Political ProcessB. Interest Groups, including Political Action Comm.

(PAC’s)1. The range of interests represented2. The activities of interest groups3. The effects of interest groups on the political process4. The unique characteristics and roles of PACs in the

political processC. The Mass Media 1. The functions and structures of the media2. The impacts of media on politics

4) Topic: Institutions of National Government: Congress, Presidency, Bureaucracy, and Federal Courts

Percentage of Exam: 35 - 45%Objectives:

*What are the conflicting interests and powers of Congress and the President which help explain the repeated struggles to adopt a national budget?A. The major formal and informal institutional

arrangements of powerB. Relationships among these four institutions, and

varying balances of powerC. Linkages between institutions and the following:1. Public opinion and voters2. Interest Groups3. Political Parties4. The media5. Subnational governments

2

5) Topic: Public PolicyPercentage of Exam: 5 - 15%Objectives:

*Iron TrianglesA. Policy making in a federal systemB. The formation of policy agendasC. The role of institutions in the enactment of policyD. The role of bureaucracy and the courts in policy

implementation and interpretationE. Linkages between policy processes and the following:1. Political institutions and federalism2. Political Parties3. Interest Groups4. Public Opinion5. Elections6. Policy Networks

6) Topic: Civil Rights and Civil LibertiesPercentage of Exam: 5 - 15%Objectives:

*Marbury v. Madison -- judicial review*Terry v. Ohio -- expanded police power to ‘stop & frisk’*Mapp v. Ohio -- exclusionary rule*Roper v. Simmons – death to <18 yrs. old violates 8th

Amd.*Lemon v. Kurtzman -- separation of church & state*Van Orden v. Perry (McCreary County) – 10

commandment cases*Roe v. Wade (Griswold v. Connecticut) -- right to privacy*Lawrence v. Texas – Gay sex is ok (‘liberty’ interest)*McCulloch v. Maryland -- expanded federal power *U.S. v. Nixon -- limited power of executive privilege*Bakke v. Regents -- affirmative action/equal protection*Grutter v. Bollinger – affirmative action ok for diversity

(~25 yrs?)1. The development of civil liberties and civil rights by

judicial interpretation2. Knowledge of substantive rights and liberties3. The impact of the Fourteenth Amendment on the

constitutional development of rights and liberties

III. HOW TO TAKE THE MULTIPLE CHOICE SECTION

The score on the multiple choice section of the exam based on the number of questions a student answers correctly minus a fraction of the number answered incorrectly. (No points are deducted or

3

awarded for unanswered questions.) You can’t leave them all blank, but leaving those questions about which you have no knowledge or even a clue is a good test strategy. At least they won’t count against you. (Generally, you need to attempt about 50 of the 60 questions.)

Each question usually has five possible answers. A one-fourth of point penalty is assessed for each incorrect answer. If you have some knowledge on the topic and can eliminate one or more of the answers as clearly incorrect, then guessing is usually to your advantage. Thus, guess if you can eliminate at least one answer.

IV. HOW TO TAKE THE ESSAY SECTION

There is no choice in which essays you write. There are 4 and they are all mandatory. You cannot skip any!! Each of the essays is weighted equally, meaning that each of the four essays counts for one-fourth of the total grade on the essay portion of the test (i.e. You must try them all! Don’t just write a book on the one or two you know about. Once you get the points, the rest of your information is just a waste of time. This is not an English paper so no one really cares about your style and depth of writing!)

One or more of the essays may be data-based (i.e. requiring you to analyze and respond to information contained in a graph, chart, cartoon, etc.) You should try to time yourself and spend about 25 minutes per essay depending on the depth of the question. If you feel that you are about to run out of time, outline the remainder of your essay putting the key information in bullet form.

Read the question carefully to determine what it wants! Underline the key parts of the essay question and make sure that you perform all tasks that are listed in the question. (While this sounds simple, many people are in such a hurry, they overlook the simple things like giving 3 examples when called for or taking a position, etc.) The essays are seeking to get you to regurgitate a range of specific information. You receive points for hitting those areas. In some instances, you receive points for even picking to agree or disagree, therefore, leaving an essay blank proves you are an idiot. Play the system and obtain at least a few points. Those precious few points could mean the difference between a 2 and a 3. Although it is not encouraged, if you sort of remember a topic but are not sure if it represents x or y, beat around the bush in your essay and state both facts in an eloquent manner. If the reader feels that you knew the information, they may give you a point. Whatever you do, Never leave an essay blank.

4

Because the readers are taking about 90 seconds to read your essay, they are scanning for key points. To assist them in determining the organization and purpose of your essay, always put in a thesis sentence. Use paragraphing to make it easy for them to find point 1, point 2, etc. Below is a list of the type of question types you will see:

* To what extent (explain the relationship and role)* Evaluate the claim (determine the validity)* Assess the accuracy (determine the truth of the statement)* Critically evaluate evident that both supports and refutes (give examples that agree and disagree)* Define and evaluate the contention

(give a definition and analyze the point of view)* Compare the strengths and weaknesses (show differences)* Analyze the effects of (evaluate the impact)* Explain (offer the meaning, cause, effect, influence)* Discuss ( give examples that illustrate)

Although it goes without saying, write neatly. If they can’t read it in 90 seconds, it is not likely that they are going to try to decipher your “unique” penmanship.

V. EXAM TOPIC NUTSHELLS

A. Constitutional Underpinnings of American Government

Percentage of Exam: 5 - 15%

1. Defining “Government” and “Politics” and Their Relationship to Public Policy

Government can be defined as those institutions that create public policy. Constitutionally, this means the three branches of government (Executive, Legislative and Judicial). Modern theory of government has added a “fourth branch of government”, that of the bureaucracy that implements public policy.

A noted political scientist Harold Laswell defined politics as “who gets what, when, and how”. This definition can be expanded to include “why” some are able to succeed or fail in obtaining election or implementing public policy. Politics is not defined in the constitution, but rather evolved out of the writings of our founding fathers. Politics

5

is characterized by conflict and resolution, compromise, and the interrelationship of individuals and groups.

In the end: Government + Politics = Public Policy; What the government does through politics results in public policy.

2. Origins of Representative Democracy

Early in our nation’s history, it became evident that the founding fathers believed that a democracy should rely on the consent of the people. This emanated from the writings of John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government which states that men have natural rights in nature such as the right to life, liberty and accumulating property, and only give up their inherent freedom in becoming subservient to a government so that the government might protect them (i.e. police protect life, property, etc.) This is known as Social-Contract Theory. A necessary corollary, however, is that if the government fails to protect its citizens in the basics of life, liberty or property, then the citizens have a duty and obligation to revolt and overthrow the government. These ideas are expressed clearly by our Declaration of Independence and also shine throughout the Constitution.

Under social-contract theory, the focus of government becomes the individual. In a direct democracy, all citizens have input and the wishes of the majority become law. In a large society, such a system becomes impractical and often unfair to the individuals in the minority. Our nation has adopted a republican form of government whereby all citizens can vote for representatives who then temper the often intolerant attitude of the masses. This is called and indirect-democracy.

One important thing to remember is that our government took two attempts to get it right. The first government was based upon the Articles of Confederation. A confederation is a national government whose power emanates from the individual states that make up the nation. Without their consent, the national government is essentially very weak. Our Founding Fathers set up our new government in this manner to avoid a new tyrannical King. Thus, our national government consisted of a one-house congress in which legislation had to be passed by 2/3 majority. There was no Executive or Judiciary and the only powers of congress were to declare war, make peace and sign treaties. These powers were limited however because the congress could not draft for an army or tax individual states to raise revenue to pay for programs. All of the limitations on the national government led to chaos with individual states taxing one another to

6

achieve dominance in trade and no army to defend our fledgling nation. States and individual state legislatures became the dominant forces. Economic problems took over as our nation tried to repay its war debts. Ultimately, farmers (who were being taxed to repay war debts and were losing their farms) who believed that the new government was not fulfilling the objectives of the Declaration of Independence took up arms. Shays’ Rebellion, a farmer led march/riot led by Daniel Shays, to protest taxation of farmers and seizure of lands was quelled by the military, but not before the message was sent. The laws affecting farmers were changed. Seeing that government was susceptible to influence by armed factions, many called for change in the government. Because it took a unanimous vote of the Congress to amend the Articles of Confederation, there was no easy way to change things.

By 1787, the calls for change were loud. A Constitutional Convention finally convened in Philadelphia in 1789. Quickly, the delegates determined to not revise the Articles, but to start drafting an entirely new Constitution. This set the stage for a debate about how much power to give the national government. There arose a debate between those favoring a strong national government (The Federalists) and those favoring maintaining strong state control of national policy (Anti-Federalists).

The Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay argued that a “tyranny of the majority” would result if states and individuals simply allowed to run the national government. They believed that there should be a system of checks and balances to ensure the protection of minorities. Thus, the three branches of government (new Executive and Judiciary) would practice separation of powers. Furthermore, there was a representative system in place to ensure insulation of the government from strong factions (See Madison’s Federalist #10). (i.e. representative democracy or republican form of government described above).

The Anti-Federalists, led by the emerging middle-class believed that the new national government would firmly establish the economic elite in power and create the potential for abuse, especially in the area of individual liberties. The Anti-Federalist insisted that a Bill of Rights be attached to the new Constitution prior to its enactment.

The debate over power led to the creation of a bicameral (2 house) legislature. The lower House would be popularly elected by the citizens of each states, while the members of the upper Senate would be elected by the state legislatures (this was later changed by constitutional amendment to allow for popular election of Senators).

7

This compromise that allowed for some popular input into government while allowing a stable upper-house was called the Connecticut Compromise. Furthermore, the basic powers of the Congress were detailed in Article 1 of the Constitution. This established the basis concept of federalism in our government. That is, the division of powers between the national and state governments. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, however, this new Constitution stated in Article 5 that the national governments’ laws were supreme. This is the supremacy clause which means that states may not pass laws in conflict with those which Congress passes.

Once the structure of government had been agreed upon, the basic freedom questions were debated. Ultimately, the Anti-Federalists were successful in delaying the approval of the new Constitution until Madison and Hamilton promised that the new Congress’ first priority would be to draft a Bill of Rights to send to the states for ratification.

3. Our Republic in the Age of Initiatives

Our Founding Fathers didn’t trust us!! Remember what Madison said in Federalist #10 about “men are not angels” indicating what we know is true from Locke’s Second Treatise on Gov’t: left to our own devices, we will form groups hell-bent on getting our way and destroying all others. This leads to Madison’s “tyranny of the majority” from Fed. #10. To defuse the ability of passions of the day from becoming ruling law, the Founders instituted a system of supermajorities into the Constitution. That is, in order to change the Constitution, it takes almost all of the people’s consent (2/3 Congress; ¾ of States). Thus, while people “demand” that their Congress pass a Constitutional Amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade, require a balanced budget, allow prayer in school, or protect the flag from desecration, these Amendments have thus far failed to attract the supermajority needed for passage. Closest was the Balanced Budget Amendment which failed by 1 vote in the Senate in 1995.

4 “FORMAL” METHODS TO AMEND CONSTITUTION

a) 2/3 vote both houses of Congress, and

* Ratified by State Legislatures in 3/4 of States; or* Ratified by Ratifying Conventions in 3/4 of States.

b) Constitutional Convention (called at request of 2/3 of states), and

8

* Ratified by State Legislatures in 3/4 of States; or* Ratified by Ratifying Conventions in 3/4 of States.

That is not to say that our Constitution cannot be changed “informally.” This occurs all the time as the Supreme Court issues opinions or “Case Law” that explains our Constitution and interprets its provisions. Also, the practices of our Congress/President become accepted. For example, the ability of Presidents to use “Executive Privilege” has become a part of our established doctrine through history.

Unfortunately, while our Founding Fathers knew about human nature being corrupt at its core (“original sin”), we tend to forget such things and believe that we can trust each other. This has led to the rise of Inititiative whereby voters can gather enough signatures of registered voters on a petition to force an issue to be put on the ballot. This allows organized groups to put an issue on the ballot and then vote it into law which takes us right back to “Mob Rule” direct democracy. The self-serving nature of this is demonstrated in CA where they have limited taxes only to find themselves with no money to fund schools, roads, etc. Another area where our indirect democracy has been compromised is where Legislators abdicated their responsibility to make tough decisions by “letting the voters decide” in a Referendum. This is where the measure is simply put on the ballot for the voters to decide yes/no. While this sounds nice, how qualified is the electorate to make technical decisions on complicated issues? If the legislators with their expertise and staff can’t decide on “Clean Air Legislation”, what makes anyone think that Grandpa who watches “Wheel of Fortune” can get it right?

These rise of Initiative and Referendum are a threat to our system of indirect democracy which was implemented by our Founding Fathers to protect us from ourselves. Only via a republic (indirect democracy) can we isolate the “tyranny of the majority” and allow our nation to be evenly, equally and fairly governed.

4. Federalism (Dual, Layer Cake, Marble Cake)

Federalism is defined as the division of power between the state and national government. Where one draws the line to divide the power is a constant struggle that has even resulted in a Civil War.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights define a federal system whereby certain powers are given to the federal government (e.g. Congress in Article I, Sec. 10 allowing federal control of post offices, monetary policy and the military) while most others are reserved to the States (e.g. 10th Amendment). A limited amount of power would be jointly exercised (e.g. courts,etc.) In this structure, the power of the federal government should be interpreted narrowly. This dual federalism became the first type of relationship for the United States. Each level of government was dominant within its own sphere with the Supreme Court serving as the umpire in case of disputes. Thus, in dual federalism, the powers and policy assignments of the layers of government are distinct, as in a layer cake. Because of this, dual federalism is often referred to as layer cake federalism.

9

Even after the Civil War, this layer cake federalism continued with the states continuing to control things on the local levels. Supreme Court cases such as Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) allowed for “separate but equal” facilities for minorities, in spite of federal efforts to pass Civil Rights legislation. This form of federalism with the federal and state government controlling certain spheres existed until about the 1930’s when the Supreme Court redefined the relationship between the federal government and states.

With the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868 and the Supreme Court’s initial adoption of the Doctrine of Incorporation making the Bill of Rights applicable to the States in the 1920’s, the relationship between state and federal government was changed dramatically. In addition, the political needs of the nation during the Great Depression brought about a need for cooperation between the federal gov’t and states to make the New Deal and WWII a success. Thus, a new concept of federalism evolved whereby a cooperative federalism existed that functioned as a system to deliver governmental goods and services to the people and called for cooperation among levels of government to “get the job done.” This cooperative federalism blurred the lines of distinction between state and federal levels of control because powers and policy assignments were shared. Thus, cooperative federalism is often referred to as marble cake federalism. The major impact of cooperative federalism is that it became extremely difficult to determine where the responsibility of the federal government ended and the role of the state governments began. Cooperative federalism today has three standard methods of operation:

a) Cost Sharing -- cost of programs that would normally fall completely within state sphere are partially paid for by federal gov’t through matching programs (e.g. airport construction, sewage treatment)

b) Federal Guidelines -- In order to qualify for most federal grants, the states must follow guidelines or rules set down by the federal gov’t. This is the money with strings attached theory. In order to get federal highway construction money, states must lower speed limit to 55 and raise drinking age to 21.

c) Shared Administration -- There exists dual administration of programs such as Medicaid. Another example is the area of job training by the Department of Labor. The federal government gives billions of $ for the job training, but leaves considerable discretion in spending the money to

10

the state and local governments which implement the federal job training programs.

In the early 1970’s, Richard Nixon began an agenda of insisting on giving power back to the states. This small attempt to reverse the marble cake concept of federalism was called the New Federalism. It was later adopted by Ronald Reagan, George Bush and Bob Dole. It calls for the states to be given more responsibility in dealing with the nation’s fiscal resources and management.

This new federalism essentially amounted to a fiscal federalism whereby the states benefit from federal money in three common circumstances.

The first method of returning federal tax dollars to the states in the form of categorical grants of funds for specific purposes (2 types: project grants awarded competitively such as National Science Foundation grants; and formula grants whereby funds are given to states according to a formula such as Medicaid funding being computed based upon population, per capita income, etc. Because formula grants are given automatically to states, there is great debate in Congress over how the formula is determined so as to get ones own state a larger portion of the pie. :))

Second, large block grants were given to states allowing discretion in how to spend the money (automatic grants of money from fed to states for support of broad community and social services such as welfare.)

Finally, there is revenue sharing (no strings attached, just lots of extra money for states to use as they saw fit. This type of fiscal federalism was cut dramatically under Reagan’s administration as our government tried to balance its budget.)

5. Federalism Today (Its Death & Resurrection & Death Again)

Initially, dual federalism system allowed the 10th

Amenmdent to have full force. That is to say, the States were supreme in those matters not specifically delegated to the national government. As outlined above, the amount of power delegated to the States has slowly eroded over time.

The Supreme Court slowly expanded Congress’ power (i.e. national gov’t power) through McCulloch v. Maryland(1819) in explaining “Necessary & Proper” Clause to give Implied Powers. Note that this was only a slight expansion of power as “implied powers” could only flow from those powers actually enumerated in the Constitution.

11

More importantly, the Court stated in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) that Congress could regulate not only interstate commerce but also anything “affecting interstate commerce”, thereby allowing regulation of intrastate activity. Combining these rulings with the supremacy clause allows Congress virtually unlimited authority. This broad interpretation of federal power was at its apex in Wickard v. Filburn (1942) wherein the Court approved of regulating wheat grown totally for home consumption (logic being that if he didn’t grow his own, he would buy it and thereby ‘affect’ interstate commerce). Today, almost every single law passed by Congress is done so via their Commerce Clause power! Everything from Civil Rights laws (remember Heart of Atlanta Motel case whereby S.Ct. upheld Civil Rights laws because discrimination by private business enterprises affected commerce) to anti-violence measures are based on their impact on commerce. Steadily, the Supreme Court made rulings that destroyed dual federalism and gave all power to the federal government via commerce power (“permissive federalism” where states can only act where federal gov’t has not). This took place slowly from the 1930’s rise of New Deal federal control throughout the 1960s rise of Civil Rights and legislation to “protect” people from evil actions by States.

During the past decade, a conservative Supreme Court has made some movement to clarify federal power and resurrect the idea of true federalism and State’s Rights. Such action first came about in U.S. v. Lopez (guns on schools not an implied power or commerce) and again in U.S. v. Morrision (2000) (violence against women was not a matter that affected commerce). While these cases do reiterate that federalism is still a respected U.S. doctrine, realize that the Supreme Court is just playing with the fringes and is not about to totally reverse our well-established top-heavy (i.e. federal ) power structure. This was proven recently in Gonzales v. Raich (2005), the ‘medical marijuana’ case from California, wherein the Court ruled 6-3 in favor of regulating the marijuana because though never sold, it would interfere/disrupt/destroy enforcement of fed’s regulation of sale of illegal drugs. For the foreseeable future, the Court might rule 5-4 to occasionally slap Congress on the hand, but Congress will still continue to generally win and states lose.

6. Theories of Agenda Control(Pluralism, Elitism, Hyperpluralism)

Politics (who get what, how, when and why) is governed by several theories which focus on who controls the agenda. Theoretically, if you control the agenda, you will control the outcome of the political game. They three prevailing theories are pluralism, elitism, and hyperpluralism.

12

Pluralism involves different groups all vying for control of the agenda. No single group emerges, forcing the groups to compromise. This is generally considered the best theory of politics for all concerned (rich, poor, etc.)

The second theory is elitism (also known as class theory) which holds that economic forces control and because the wealthy dominate linkage institutions, they drive public policy agendas.

The third theory is hyperpluralism which is pluralism gone amuck. There are so many interest groups seeking control that government cannot operate. There is gridlock which leads to watered down, often ineffective policy by those that are able to influence officials.

7. Interest groups and Linkage Institutions

Politics deals with individuals and their needs, values and attitudes, so it is logical that people with similar feelings will band together to form political parties. How candidates are perceived by these groups determine the candidate’s ultimate success or failure.

A linkage institutions can be defined as the means by which individuals can express preferences regarding the development of public policy. These include a) political parties; b) interest groups; c) elections; and d) the media. The interaction of these linkage institutions leads to the election of candidates who form public policy. In a large democracy such as ours, linkage institutions translate input from the public into output from the policy-makers. By joining parties or interest groups and voting for a particular candidate, individuals are making choices that influence which policy will become law. Individuals, of course, are influenced by the media, and candidates try to attract their support in “soundbites”.

B. Political Beliefs and BehaviorsPercentage of Exam: 10 - 20%

1. NATURE & SOURCE OF PUBLIC OPINION

Some of the things which influence our opinions are:1) Age2) Race3) Income4) Occupation5) Group Affiliations (e.g. ACLU, Church, etc.)6) Family

13

7) Schools -- job is to indoctrinate children to be “good citizens”. 8) Role Models -- these people have more than usual influence of others. May be professionals, local community leaders, activists, or movie stars.9) Media -- Radio, T.V., films, newspapers, magazines, and books all work to influence us. 98% have televisions and they are on an average of 7 hours a day.

2. PROCESSES BY WHICH CITIZENS LEARN ABOUT POLITICS

Mass Media include in order of influence: T.V., newspaper, Radio, magazines. People acquire most of their political information from these sources. Television is now the principle source of information for an estimated 80% of the population.

The media’s influence is most visible in two areas: 1) the public agenda; and 2) electoral politics.

Regarding the setting of the American political agenda, the media focuses the public’s attention to certain matters. They don’t tell the public what to think, but they do tell people what to think about . This is important because media is now driven by commercial concerns. Pure “hard news” does NOT make money. As such, the “news” is now made up of more and more “soft news” “human interest” stories that are catchy and attract voters. These tend to include mostly scandals, blood and violence.

Thus, voters are shown a warped view of the world. They are bombarded with “Kids killing kids with guns” and “Sharks attacking Swimmers”. Even though the actual number of kids using guns is actually decreasing, the public has the perception that gun violence is out of control. Likewise, summer 2001 people thought sharks were going crazy when in fact, the number of attacks was the same as always (i.e. low). But, importantly for you, realize that when asked by pollsters what concerned them, voters would respond: Gun violence, sharks, etc…. Politicians, always eager to please their constituents, then rush to action filing bills and passing laws to address problems that really don’t exist except within an editing booth at some media outlet.

As the media has grown to cover political events, it has influenced electoral politics and to some degree lessened the impact of political parties. Instead of turning to the party to learn about

14

issues, people turn to t.v. or radio. Instead of relying on the party to reach voters, a candidate can use television to appeal directly to the voters. Unfortunately, as people watched more t.v., their attention span has grown shorter. Thus, candidates must focus on creating “sound bites” or snappy spots that only last 30 or 45 seconds long. This emphasis has shifted the focus from substance to style. It no longer matters on content, but delivery. An unintended consequence of the focus on the candidate and not his message is that politics has become “candidate centered”. As such, personal failures of a candidate are fair game for journalists. This has given us tabloid politics whereby anything in a candidate’s past will be turned into a tell-all expose. (e.g. George W. Bush’s 30 year old DWI coming to light just 1 week before the 2000 election; Gary Hart’s affair that ended his hopes for the 1988 Democratic nomination; Gary Condit’s evasiveness about affair with missing Chandra Levy caused him to lose re-election; CBS’s Dan Rather’s embarrassment in 2005 upon putting false documents on the air to ‘prove’ Bush was AWOL during Vietnam Reserve duty)

3. FACTORS INFLUENCING POLITICAL BELIEFS/BEHAVIORS (DEMOGRAPHICS SUCH AS RACE OR WEALTH)

a) Who joins what party?

Party identification is a psychological link between individuals and a party. In 1992, 36% said they were Democrats, 25% Republicans and 38% Independent. Remember: 30% liberal, 40% moderate, 30% conservative.

A persons family is very important in influencing them to join a particular party. Nearly 2 out of 3 will follow their parents’ allegiance to party. Major events, however, can also be influential, as can economic status, level of education, etc.

Membership in political parties is purely voluntary. Members of certain segments of society tend to align themselves with one or the other of the major parties. Thus, African Americans, Jews, and Catholics have voted more often for Democrats. On the other hand, white males, Protestant and business owners more inclined to support Republicans.

There have been some evolving changes in these “stereotypes” though. During 1980s, blue-collar workers saw standard of living eroding and went to Republican party to “protect American jobs.” Also, they went to Republicans to get “personal responsibility” back into the American agenda. Also, in 2004, a slim majority of Catholics voted Republican largely on its pro-life platform.

15

On the other hand, Northern white Protestants not as Republican b/c employed by government and sympathetic to its role in solving problems. Well-educated voters also growing toward Democrats due to issues such as health-care and environment.

The 2000 election provides a good snapshot at where Republican and Democratic voters reside. Bush won 80% of nations counties, but got less than 50% of popular vote. So, where did Gore get his popular vote majority? The answer is: Big, Urban, Metropolitan cities. Gore won key states with large populations (i.e. large electoral vote counts) by winning large cities. As such, he carried New York, California, etc. When looking at a map, he carried all of the states on the West Coast, states along the Great Lakes (industrial corridor) and the New England (liberal) states. These areas had sufficient population centers to give Gore a majority of the votes.

Bush, on the other hand, was able to bring rural, conservative voters to his side. Looking at the map, Bush looks to have won in a landslide. The areas he won, however, were sparcely populated and gave him few electoral votes. He did win in Florida, however. But how? Florida is made up of mostly old people, right? Mostly, but one has to analyze the cross-cutting cleavages (i.e. issues that push people to vote one way but other issues push them to voter another). Florida is a retirement state, therefore lots of conservative Mid-westerners move there. They are pushed by roots to vote Republican which tends to overshadow their elderly status and need for Social Security that would otherwise cause them to vote Democratic. Thus, Bush picked up a large elderly block. Also, he picked up the Cuban vote. While Hispanics tend to vote Democratic due to minority status, they have a strong cross-cutting cleavage in political ideology in their opposition to Fidel Castro’s communist regime in Cuba. Because Republicans have long welcomed Cuban refugees and shunned Castro, Cubans have always voted for the most part as a Republican block. Together, these blocks gave Bush just enough to get over the top (with a little help from Ralph!)

It continues to be helpful to know the “Stereotypical” voter for purposes of the AP exam. They are as follows:

VOTER PROFILES

WHO VOTES REPUBLICAN?

A. Education *College graduates.

B. Age

16

*Persons over 50 years old.*Older voters

C. Income *Middle-income to upper-income brackets

D. Occupation *Professionals & Business people

E. Gender(recent phenomenon) *Men

F. Religion *Protestants

G. Ethnic Group *Whites

H. Geography *Midwest and South (in Presidential elections only)*Suburbs, smaller cities and rural areas

WHO VOTES DEMOCRAT?

A. Education *Less than college

B. Age *Younger voters

C. Income *Lower-income brackets

D. Occupation *Manual workers*Members of Labor Unions

E. Gender(recent phenomenon beginning with Clinton) *Women

F. Religion *Jews*Catholics (split in 2004 on pro-life issue)

G. Ethnic Group *Non-whites(African-Americans, Hispanics)

H. Geography *West, North, and East (South still often votes Dem. in local elections)*Large Cities

4. WAYS IN WHICH CITIZENS VOTE AND OTHERWISE PARTICIPATE IN POLITICAL LIFE (E.G. VOTING)

a) Who can Vote?

The Framers of the Constitution could not agree on specific requirements to be a voter. Thus, the States control who qualifies to vote. So, other than a few Constitutional voter qualifications listed

17

below (e.g. 26th Amd. and age to vote) and the general Constitutional requirement that if someone can vote for state legislature, they must be allowed to vote for U.S. Congressmen, the states are in control. Suffrage means the right to vote.

Originally, only white male property owners could vote. Even after the Civil War, Southern Whites were afraid of black voter activism, therefore they took measures to stop them from voting by enacting such barriers as literacy test (Remember Alabama Literacy Test which required extensive knowledge of the U.S. Constitution; Congress outlawed literacy tests by passing the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970) and poll taxes (eliminated by 24th Amd.).

The franchise was expanded due to the passage of:1) 15th Amendment allowed black males to vote;2) 19th Amendment in 1920 allowed all women to vote;3) 24th Amendment in 1964 eliminated poll tax as a condition of voting, and4) 26th Amendment in 1971 allowed anyone above 18 years old to vote.

Over time, requirements that served as barriers to voter registration have disappeared, and now over 200 million people are eligible to vote in U.S.

b.) What are the general qualifications to vote in most states?

1. CitizenshipAliens are generally denied the right to vote, but the

Constitution does not forbid them from voting and States may allow them to. As a practical matter, however, few do so. Texas requires you to be a citizen.

2. ResidencyMost states require someone to live within the state for a

certain period before being eligible to vote. This combats people hiring voters to come to the state. Originally, these time periods were about one year in the state and about six months in the county in which you wanted to vote. Today, those time periods have been shortened. Many states allow you to vote if you have lived there for as little as one month.

3. RegistrationStates require people to register to vote in order to

prevent fraudulent voting. Thus, they compile a list of the eligible voters. Generally, one must register to vote prior to the election day.

18

This gives the elections officials time to prepare the election poll books for the election judges. Texas requires that you be registered at least 30 days prior to the election.

c) What has the Government done to influence voting behavior? (Voting laws and Civil Rights)

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 applied to all elections held in the U.S. This law moved the government forward to eliminate poll taxes, literacy tests, or any other discriminatory means. Most importantly, it sent federal voter registrars into counties where less than half of the people registered and voted in the election of 1964. (Theory: if so few registered, there must be barriers to registration.) Thus, registrars were dispatched to all of Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina and Louisiana and large part of North Carolina. Further, the law also stated that those areas had to obtain “preclearance” from the Department of Justice prior to making any changes to election procedures. (States had to show clean record of non-discrimination for 10 years to escape supervision.)

Most recently, however, the government has passed legislation called Motor-Voter Laws. This law encourages states to adopt policies which automatically register a citizen to vote when they do such tasks as renew their Driver’s license. This has been a large success in registering voters, but the voter turnout is still the lowest in decades. You can register them, but getting them to show up is an entirely different matter!

d) Are People Voting? The Problem with Non-Voting!

Of the estimated 189 million eligible voters for the 1992 presidential election, some 85 million did not. Thus, barely 55% of the eligible electorate decided the presidency.

Off-year (mid-term) elections even worse only 39% of electorate voted in off-year elections of 1994.

Primaries are the worst where only 10% of electorate voted in 1986.

Only Switzerland has lower voter turnout!

Turnout in primaries is quite low. In the 1992 presidential primaries, average turnout for Democratic primaries was 12%, while Republican turnout was 8%. Voters in primaries are unrepresentative of the public at large. They tend to have higher incomes and education. Also tend to be older, more interested in politics and more partisan.

19

WHY DO PEOPLE NOT VOTE?Some reasons nonvoters give include:

1) Choose not to vote b/c distrust politicians and politics;2) Choose not to vote b/c they are convinced that it does not make

any difference (no sense of Political Efficacy, the feeling that they can make a difference.);

3) Elections are too frequent and campaigns last so long (often referred to as “voter fatigue” as presidential campaigns last ~1 -1/2 years);

4) Simply are not interested (usually woefully uninformed not knowing even simple facts about upcoming elections.);

5) Didn’t know eligible? (alien status, mental disability, or felon status [13% African American men ineligible in March 2001 b/c of felony conviction]); or

6) Are satisfied with way it is.

WHAT FACTORS INFLUENCE NON-VOTING?

* Education

• 80% chance a college graduate will vote• 50% chance a high school graduate will vote

* Income

• 2 of 3 non-voters have incomes below nat’l average• “Class Gap” in turnout is widening

* Occupation

• Working class voter at lower rate than middle & upper class

20

* Age • Young people vote much less frequently than older people(e.g.) 1992 Presidential election: 38% of 18-20 year olds voted

70% of over 65 year olds voted1994 Mid-Term election: 17% of 18-20 year olds voted

61% of over 65 year olds voted

C. Topic: Political Parties, Interest groups, and Mass MediaPercentage of Exam: 10 - 20%

1. WHAT IS A POLITICAL PARTY?

DEFN: A Political party is a group of persons who seek to control government by recruiting, nominating, and electing their members to public office.

2. WHAT DO POLITICAL PARTIES DO?

A. NOMINATING FUNCTION The major function of a political party is to name candidates for public office.B. INFORMER-STIMULATOR FUNCTION Parties inform the public and stimulate their interest by taking stands on issues, criticizing candidates, etc.C. SEAL OF APPROVAL FUNCTION Parties serve as a “bonding agent” to encourage good performance in its candidates and officeholders. D. GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION Public office holders are often chosen only on the basis of party. The public believes that certain parties support certain issues. This is important in that most government business done on partisan basis. E. WATCHDOG FUNCTION Parties serve to watch over the party in power. The party out of power plays the “loyal opposition.”

21

3. TWO-PARTY SYSTEM AND ITS EVOLUTION

The Founding Fathers didn’t like political parties.There were three reasons for this:1) Parties created conflicts that undermined consensus.2) Small and narrow interests could use parties to impose

their will on society.3) Parties stifled independent thought and behavior.

James Madison feared parties like interest groups b/c both pursued selfish interests. (Very important to remember the ‘factions’ in Federalist #10). John Adams thought the formation of parties was one of the greatest political evils. In a bit of irony, by creating popular elections in the Constitution, the Founders created parties, the very factions which were deemed undesirable yet necessary in a democracy.

The importance of parties has grown and waned. In late 1800s, party was very important, but now its importance has declined. At times, one party dominates. And then, another emerges as the stable “rock of the nation.” The transition from one stable party system to another is called a realignment. There have been several in our history.

A. Early 1800sAlexander Hamilton’s Federalist supported strong, central

government. Thomas Jefferson feared this. He mounted campaign and gathered support of able leaders. Jefferson won in 1800. By his 2d term, 90% of Congressmen identified as either Federalists or Jeffersonians.

B. Election of 1828Jeffersonians split into factions; one of which was the

Democratic party. Andrew Jackson rode the Democratic party to White House in 1828. Jackson encouraged common people’s participation. Thus, Jacksonian Democrats demonstrated the first real use of a mass-population based party.

C. Civil War EraThe Whigs had developed to oppose the Democrats. The Whigs

splintered over slavery. By 1860, a new party, the Republicans emerged. They represented abolitionist concerns and nominated Lincoln. Northern Democrats who opposed slavery joined the Republicans. This created a new majority party. After the Civil War, the Republicans usually won the presidency and controlled Congress. This represents a major realignment.

22

23

D. Populist MovementIn the election of 1896, the Progressives pushed an agenda to

benefit the commoners. Such items as voter registration and secret ballot, and the direct primary were enacted. These items weakened political parties.

E. The Depression and FDRIn 1920s, the Republicans ignored immigrants. Big Mistake!!

After the Depression hit in 1929, these immigrants joined the Democratic Party to elect FDR in 1932. Thus, another big realignment.

F. The Reagan Revolution Some argue that the South (and indeed, perhaps the nation) is undergoing a current realignment toward the Republican party. They argue that the dissatisfaction with Democratic leadership in the ‘70s under Carter (stagflation in economy; Iranian hostages abroad; Soviet threat) allowed Ronald Reagan to bring the “silent majority” of conservatives into the Republican fold. There is some evidence to support such claims.

For example, no Democrat running for President has carried the South since Jimmy Carter in ’76. Also, many states in South are trending toward voting Republican even in local elections. Texas, for instance, in 1998 elected Republicans to EVERY statewide elected office. Local office-holders have switched in a wave to the Republican party. Nationally, there was even a small blurb in the newspaper of summer 2001 that said more people are identifying themselves as Republicans than Democrats for the first time since modern polling began.

Those who would argue against a modern realignment point to local elections in the South where many, if not most, elections are still solidly controlled by Democrats. Thus, the willingness to vote for a Republican president doesn’t count as a realignment in and of itself. Also, there appears to be lots of ticket-splitting today. Voters are trying to find the “best candidate” regardless of party. This is reflected in the polls that show a large number of voters describing themselves as “moderates” or “Independents”.

G. Independents and Third Parties? Republicans got smart in 1952 and nominated a war hero,

Eisenhower. Although Democrats won in 1960 with Kennedy, the civil rights issue divided the party. Have not had a really strong dominating party since FDR.

Today, we have lots of ticket splitting where people vote for different parties depending on the office, etc. Most evident at

24

national level. For long time (since 1968), Republican in White House, Democrats in Congress.

Also, people have begun to choose not to identify with a party, instead identifying themselves as Independents (38% in 1992). Really evident in 1980 and 1990s. These independent voters have led some to believe that the U.S. is ready to support a third party.

Third-parties” are not really successful. Had a few in history: 1) Know-Nothings in 1856 who ran opposing immigrants; 2) Prohibition Party and 3) Ross Perot’s Reform Party. Generally though, the system is stacked against them. This is because of several factors including:

a) The major parties tend to take care most ideological perspectives. Thus, liberals go Dem., conservatives go Rep. Also, the major parties moderate enough to attract most voters in the General election. This leaves little room for a third party platform. As such, most 3 rd party platforms are a bit extreme. For example, Nader’s Green Party advocated a “living” minimum wage of about $10.00/hour, not to mention some of their environmental policies. Also, some 3rd parties are simply aligned on a single issue such as “marijuana legalization”. Such “extreme” platform ideas limit the 3rd

party appeal for a number of voters. b) Because of inability to attract a wide spectrum of voters, 3rd

parties often lack enough cash to promote an effective nationwide campaign. Thus, a big part of Nader’s 2000 campaign was to get 5% of the national vote so he could get federal funding. He only got 3%!

c) The electoral system preserves the major parties by making it difficult for third-parties to nominate their candidates and get them listed on the ballot.

d) Single-member districts (only 1 person elected from a District, therefore 3rd party guy never wins); and

e) Winner-take-all electoral college system (even if get lots of votes, if do not get a Majority, you get NOTHING! Even in ’92 when Perot got 19% of popular vote, he got ZIP as far as electoral votes.)

Each of these tend to favor the major parties who have a real chance of winning.

H. 3 rd Parties as Spoilers While 3rd party candidates are largely locked out of any chance

of winning the election, that is not to say that they don’t matter. In both the 1992 and 2000 elections, the role of the 3rd party as spoiler was prominent.

In 1992, Ross Perot formed the Reform Party to “give our government back to the People!” His folksy wit and seemingly

25

straight-forward approach to solving America’s problems was refreshing in light of the “double-speak” from many modern candidates. By pushing issues like the balancing of our federal budget , Perot managed to draw many dissatisfied conservatives away from George Bush. A full 19% of electorate voted for a big-eared Texan. Thus, while Clinton only won 42% of popular vote, he was able to win the Presidency. Many are convinced that if Perot had not entered the race, Bush could have managed a slim victory in 1992.

In 2000, the spoiler attacked the Democrats. Ralph Nader and his Green Party consistently dogged Al Gore. While the Republicans painted Gore as an extremist “tree-hugging fool who would get rid of the combustion engine,” Nader told liberal voters in a loud voice that Gore was not doing enough. By pushing for broad environmental policies and decent wages for working Americans, Nader appealed to many idealistic liberals. In the end, Nader garnered over 98,000 votes in Florida. Bush won the official count by 537 votes!

The end result of these 3rd party campaigns was not just to cost the Democrats or Republicans the election (which they most surely did), but it also caused the major political parties to reassess their views and become more responsive to the electorate. That is a good thing!

I. Do They All Look Alike?

In the end, because of the pluralistic society in which we live, there is needed a broad consensus. Because of this need, the parties look very much alike. Both tend to be moderate. (36% of voters in 1990 identified themselves as moderates, while only 15% said conservative and 11% liberal.)

Overall, while party loyalty may be declining, party unity is on the rise. Generally, the parties have become more ideologically homogenous (i.e. most Republicans consider themselves conservatives with agenda to minimize gov’t intervention in everyone’s lives and institutionalize some morals “religious right”. Democrats have tended to become the party of civil rights and protecting basic governmental services such as Medicare and Medicaid for the poor.) Thus, while the parties do represent some very different basic philosophies of government, the implementation of those policies has been moderated in recent years so as to command the most “moderate” voters. This was evident in 2000 election where Bush and Gore both put forth “Saving Social Security” as a part of their agenda, but the fine details were different (e.g. Bush wanted to privatize 1% of Social Security withholding.)

4. ELECTIONS PROCESS

26

A. GENERAL NOMINATING FUNCTION

Political parties provide a mechanism to recruit and choose candidates, and then gather support for them. The nominating process is the process of candidate selection.

Nomination, or the actual naming of those who will seek office can be done in a number of different ways. It may be done by:

1) self-announcement;*This is the oldest form of the nominating process in American

politics. It is where a person who wants to run for office simply announces that fact.

2) caucus;*A caucus is a meeting of a group of like-minded people who

meet to select the candidates they will support in the upcoming election. (Origin of the word caucus may come from early Boston meetings where the process took place in a room formerly used by caulker’s in Boston’s shipyard. They used caulk to make ships watertight.) Originally, only influential people did the selecting, but over time, the process opened to others and political parties began to nominate candidates in caucuses. Ultimately, people began to condemn the practice, however, because of its closed and unrepresentative nature due to so few people actually participating. In 1820s, the caucus system began to be abolished for use in nominating national candidates. Today, caucuses may be used to nominate local candidates for office, but has been abandoned by many states for selecting state and national candidates.

3) convention;*As the caucuses were criticized and abandoned, conventions

took their place. Since 1832, all major party presidential nominees have been selected by conventions.

How do Conventions Work to Select Candidates 1) Party members meet in a local caucus to

select candidates for local offices and to select delegates to county conventions.

2) Party members meet at county convention to select candidates for county offices and to select delegates to state convention.

3) Delegates to state convention meet to select candidates for state office (governor,etc.) and to select delegates to party’s national convention.

27

4) Delegates to national convention meet to select presidential and vice-presidential candidates.

In theory, the will of the rank and file members of a party will be passed up the chain. In reality, this system was corrupted in the late 1800s when people played with the selection of the local delegates thereby influencing the whole chain of selection. Thus, decisions often made in “smoke-filled rooms.” In the wake of this scandal, direct primaries began to be used for nominations at state level, but conventions are still use to select national candidates.

4) direct primary; orToday, all states use primary elections, sometimes in

conjunction with caucuses or conventions.* A direct primary is an election held within the party to pick the party’s candidates for the general election.

The primary comes in two forms: a) closed primary wherein only declared party members may vote to determine that party’s candidate (38 states, including Texas, and D.C. use this format). The voter must declare their party affiliation either via pre-registration or at the polling place; and b) open primary wherein any qualified voter may vote. At the polling place, the voter gets a ballot with everyone from the parties on it. At that time, the voter selects one party and votes for their candidates. (note that this allows “Primary Raiding” whereby Democrats can go vote in the Republican primary for someone who polls say would have difficulty beating the Democratic nominee. This happened when Dems. turned out in 2000 Republican primary to vote for John McCain. A very effective technique. It cost Bush $70 million to defeat McCain for the nomination.)

5) petition.*In this method, a person is nominated by petitions signed by a

certain number of qualified voters in the election district. This is usually the process for local elections, or used at state level to nominate independent candidates. Usually, the higher the office, the greater the number of signatures required. States sometimes make it purposefully difficult for petition nominations.

B. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

28

1. Caucuses and Primaries

CAUCUSESIn 1992, 16 states selected candidates by caucuses. Caucuses

are held in private homes, schools, and churches and all who consider themselves party members can attend. The candidates receiving the most votes win delegates to later county and state conventions. The number of delegates is proportional to the vote that the candidate received at the caucuses (need at least 15%). The Iowa Caucus is one of the first elections held in the selection of a party nominee.

PRIMARIESStates often use presidential preference primaries. Thus, voters

indicated their preference for a presidential candidate, delegates committed to a candidate, or both. “Beauty contests” b/c often meaningless in terms of winning delegates. The New Hampshire Primary is the first primary to be held during the crucial race to be selected the party nominee. The news media focus upon it and the Iowa Caucus heavily. The winners of these get ‘bandwagon effect’ support which brings them big $ which can later be used to advertise and volunteers to promote themselves. This causes a “snowball effect” which allows a relatively unknown figure such as Bill Clinton to gain national exposure (came in 2nd in New Hampshire and claimed he was “the comeback kid”) and go on to win the national nomination.

Please note that the Primary season used to run from March to June. This 4 month window allowed candidates enough time to benefit from the bandwagon effect with regard to gaining money and volunteers. Over the past decade, the Primary season has shortened as states move their primaries to earlier dates. States did this because by the time June came around, there votes “didn’t matter.” The nominees had already accumulated enough votes to win at the Convention. Thus, most states moved from June to March. Thus, the primary season was condensed dramatically. In order for states like Iowa and New Hampshire to maintain their “first” status, they moved their primary dates even earlier. Thus, in 2000, the Primary elections started in last weeks of January! Still, the primary season is now condensed to basically the months of February and March (about half of the states vote on second Tuesday in March; Kansas which still holds its Primary election in June, actually cancelled its Primary in 2000 to save money that would otherwise be “wasted” ).

The effect of moving the Primary season earlier in the year has been twofold:

1) Because of the condensing of the modern Primary Season, candidates are now unable to fully utilize bandwagon effect.

29

2) Campaigns are now much longer and main candidates must wage expensive television battles for voters from January through November. This “year-long” campaign causes election costs to skyrocket! Bush/Gore spent over $500 million between them in 2000.

Positives on Current Nomination System

1) Campaigning in small states at first allows candidates to come in contact with voters on personal basis;

2) Candidates can test popularity without spending millions.3) Gives little-known candidates a good method to try election.4) Gets us away from “smoke-filled room”

30

2. Electoral College

We do not have popular elections in this country!! The Electoral College which is made up of members selected by the party hierarchy of the main parties actually elect the present by casting their votes in December after the November general election. (The slate of electors getting to actually cast their vote is determined by the winner of the General Election. As we saw in 2000, however, if the outcome of the election is uncertain, the State may seek to reclaim its role.) With the exception of Maine and Nebraska which split their electoral college votes according to who wins in each congressional district, all of each state’s votes go to the candidate winning the most votes in that state.

Winner-take-all feature of Electoral College gives advantage to large states and their urban populations. The 11 largest states have a majority (270) of electoral votes and candidates concentrate their efforts there.

If no majority in Electoral College, goes to House. This has not happened since 1824, when John Quincy Adams was chosen.

Criticism of the Electoral College is that it makes it possible for someone who doesn’t win popular vote to win presidency. This has happened four times: John Quincy Adams (1824); Rutherford Hayes (1876); Benjamin Harrison (1888); and George W. Bush (2000).

Main support for keeping the electoral college is that it magnifies the winner’s margin, thereby giving the President-elect a “Mandate” to govern.

5. INTEREST GROUPS & POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES (PACS)

Interest groups are a public or private organization, affiliation, or committee that has as its goal the dissemination of its membership’s point of view.

Interest groups seem similar to political parties but differ in the following ways:

a) Interest groups seek to influence officeholders, instead of wanting to become one.

b) Interest groups are responsible to a very narrow constituency.

c) Because interest groups’ major function is advocacy on specific policy issues, they can attract members from a large geographic area.

The fear of interest groups goes back to the Founding Fathers when James Madison referred to them in Federalist #10 as “factions”. One of the finest examples of such factions was Shays’ Rebellion

31

which led to legislative change in Massachusetts via “mob rule.” Madison did not, however, believe that interest groups (or factions) should be eliminated in a free democracy, but rather checks should be put in place to limit their influence (e.g. separation of powers, checks and balances, representative democracy known as republic).

An interest groups’ goals are carried out by special interests in the form of lobbyists and political action committees. A lobbyist is a person who uses their special knowledge and expertise to advance the special interests cause and influence public policy in their favor. The image of lobbyists have been tarnished in recent years by the revelation that many governmental employees were engaging in a “revolving-door” politic of becoming Representatives who write legislation and then going to work for special interests advising them on how to work through loopholes while also using old connections to influence future policy. Ultimately, however, lobbyists serve a pivotal role as an informer for our Representatives and Senators by preparing reports and summaries of legislation and its impact.

Political Action Committees (PACs) are the political arm of a special interest. These PACs raise money from special interest constituents and make campaign contributions on behalf of the special interest. Candidates for Congress rely on 3 sources of funding: 1) PACS; 2) individual donations and 3) donations from political parties.

Among the PACS, there are vast differences in fundraising activity. About 1/3 of the 4,700 PACS do not contribute to any candidate. Less than 10% of all PACS contribute 3/4 of the dollars. Thus, the number of key PACS is relatively small.

PAC FACTS*PACS show a distinct preference for Republicans in the presidential races. *They also give disproportionately to incumbents. *Often give after the election is over to the winner to ingratiate themselves.*Majority of PACS are business related therefore sympathetic to Republicans.*Women’s PACS, including Emily’s List, focus most of their money on non-incumbents. Their goal is to get more women elected.*PACS also target key members of congressional committees.*One-half of the PAC funds raised are now raised in Washington.

32

6. CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND ITS REFORM

In order to limit influence of special interests and appearance of bribery of politicians, Congress passed the Federal Elections Campaign Act. It limits contributions directly to candidates by individuals to $1,000.00 and $5,000 for PACs. These funds donated to candidates are called “hard money” and must be reported to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) which polices campaign finance. This law also allowed presidential candidates to obtain federal financing of their campaigns in exchange for limits on fundraising/campaign spending. Thus, ~30 million pre-convention and ~60 million post-convention.

However, funds given by special interests that do not go directly to candidates but rather to the political parties or are spent for support of issues is not limited. This is known as “soft money”. Because soft money can be used to conduct polls and pay for “issue ads”, it has largely turned into a complete loophole to federal election law. As such, over $500 million was spent by the presidential candidates in 2000. Mostly fueled by special interests.

Also, the S. Ct. stated in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) that spending to benefit political campaigns is protected symbolic speech, therefore candidates cannot be limited in the amount of their own money they spend, nor could people be limited in making donations to interest groups to support their pet issues. The Court did, however, uphold the main limits on contributions to a candidate in an effort to stop appearance of bribery in elections.

In an effort to stop the “special interests” from controlling politics, some major political figures have adopted Campaign Finance Reform as their personal mantra. One such figure is maverick, Arizona Republican John McCain. The McCain-Feingold Bill was introduced and passed in the Senate. While Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert didn’t want to bring the companion bill to a vote in the House, he was forced to by Democratic and public pressure. After passing both houses, President Bush signed the landmark campaign finance reform legislation into law in 2002.

McCain-Feingold allows individuals to give up to $2,000 per candidate but limits total contributions to all candidates/parties to $95,000.00 in any election cycle. The law does allow candidates to receive up to $6,000 per donor if they are running against a wealthy candidate who is self-financing his campaign. The real teeth of the law comes in the restrictions on ‘soft money’. Contributions from the national parties are banned while local parties can still raise up to $10,000 per donor for voter registration and party building activities. This severely limits the effectiveness of the national party organization. Furthermore, the law prohibits the use of corporate or union money to run political ads that mention a federal candidate

33

within 30 days of a Primary or 60 days of a General Election. Republicans immediately filed suit alleging that the law restricts political free speech by limiting amounts groups can spend to promote candidates. The Supreme Court ruled in McConnell v. FEC (2003) that these stunning limitation on “free speech” (limited giving to political parties/bans on tv ads) were in-fact constitutional. This just goes to show how deferential the Court will be toward Congress in its continuing battle to clean up politics. This battle is ongoing. With the 2004 election, we saw the rise of Section 527 Organizations. These groups are named after a section of the Tax Code that allows unlimited giving to those advocating on political issues. As such, 527s have essentially re-opened the door to “soft money”. Perhaps even more dangerous though because this glut of money is in hands of special interests that is not controlled by parties or candidates. It got ugly in 2004 with liberal groups like Moveon.org funding nasty ads about Bush, while conservative groups like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth savaged Kerry. For the foreseeable future, 527s will rule political campaigns.

D. Institutions of National Government: Congress, Presidency, Bureaucracy, and Federal CourtsPercentage of Exam: 35 - 45%

1. CONGRESS

a) CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR REPRESENTATIVES

i. 25 years old for House/30 years old for Senateii. Citizen 7 years for House/Citizen 9 years for Senateiii. Members must reside in state in which elected

(House members don’t need to live in district)

b) “SOCIAL” REQUIREMENTS FOR REPRESENTATIVES

i. nearly all have college degrees(majority graduate degrees)

ii. well-off financially(1/9 of Reps and 1/4 of Senators are millionaires)

iii. not blue-collar workers (most common occupation is lawyer; 40% in House/60% in Senate)

iv. over 1/2 served in State Legislatures

34

v. predominately white, Anglo, and male

c) ADVANTAGES OF INCUMBENCY

i. CASEWORK-- answering questions and assisting with problems, staffers help cut through red-tape for “home-folk”.

ii. PORK BARREL -- bring jobs and business to the constituents.

iii. FUNDRAISING -- ability to raise money from hundreds of Political Action Committee (PAC) organizations.

iv. FRANKING -- Members of Congress are allowed to mail items for free.

d) PARTISANSHIP

40% - %60 of all votes in Congress are partisan votes (i.e. majority of one party is against the other). Ideology is very important in Congress. In fact, party affiliation is the best indicator of how a Congressman will vote. On the whole, Democrats tend to vote for more liberal measures than do Republicans.

e) PASSING LEGISLATION

Bills may be introduced in either the House or Senate (tax measures only in the House!). Only members of Congress are allowed to introduce bills. Interest groups must find a sponsor.

After being introduced, a bill is:1) referred to a standing committee by the Speaker of

House or Presiding Officer of the Senate.2) it is then assigned to a subcommittee, where if

approved goes to full Committee. (This is where most legislation dies!). The committees screen bills.

3) Once approved in Committee, the bill is place on one of five calendars. Grouped by controversy, etc. The House Rules Committee sets terms of debate by issuing rules thereon. (Members basically chosen by Speaker and approved by leadership.) If they don’t issue a rule, the bill dies. This controls and expedites floor action on bills.

The Senate is less formal and does not have a “formal” Rules Committee. Things done by lots of unanimous votes, thus one Senator can kill something. Amendments need not be germane to topic. Filibuster also used. Cloture by 3/5 vote.

35

4) After debate, the bill is set for a vote.5) If passed by both House and Senate after being

ironed out in Conference Committees, it goes to the President.6) P can a) sign into law; b) veto and send back for

potential override by 2/3 vote of both Houses (N.B. vetoes are rarely overridden! Congress is successful only about 5% of the time); or c) ignore for 10 days and allow to become law without signature unless Congress adjourns then it becomes “pocket veto”.

f) COMMITTEE CHAIRS AS GODS

After filing, bills are sent to committee where almost all of them die. This reflects strong power of Committee Chairmen in:i) calling hearings;ii) setting meeting agendas; andiii) controlling committee staff and budget.

You will recall how Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) who was the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was able to single-handedly stop President Clinton’s appointment of William Weld to be ambassador to Mexico, as well as hold up the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and Kyoto Global Greenhouse Gases Treaty, and delay payment of United Nations’ dues. A single Chairman can bring the whole process to a halt, barring extraordinary action by the leadership or a Discharge Petition which requires a majority of the bodies’ members to sign. This maneuver is not often tried and is seldom successful.

Becoming Chairman of a Committee rests on:i) being a member of the Majority Party; and ii) having the most Seniority on the particular Committee.

g) FEDERAL BUDGET

The Congress decides how to spend more than $1.7 trillion each year. For years, the budget process was done piecemeal. Agencies would request funds from multiple subcommittees to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. Later, all the appropriations were added up to produce a total budget. Because people never knew what the bottom line was going to be, what Congress spent had little to do with an overall assessment of how much it should spend. In large part, this is how we came to almost expect deficit spending.

The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was designed to reform the Congressional budgetary

36

process and force Congress to consider the budget as a whole instead of piecemeal. This law established:i) A fixed budget calendar so that budgets would be timely.

Roughly, the Congress receives the President’s budget outline in February and the final budget should be completed by June with the federal government’s new fiscal (i.e. monetary, budget timeframe) year to begin on October 1 st .

ii) A budget committee in both houses of Congress which is charged with recommending target budget figures. By April 15th, Congress is to agree on the total size of the budget which will guide appropriations for the fiscal year.

iii) A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) was created to advise Congress on the probable consequences of its budget decisions and forecast revenues. The CBO also serves as a check and counterweight to the President’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) which provides the Pres. With budget data and helps him prepare his annual budget which is presented in February shortly after the January “State of the Union” address.

Essentially, the law made Congress organize itself into 13 Appropriations bills which should be for each fiscal year. This was helpful in getting an estimate of expected spending. But, the 1974 reforms have largely been ineffective in keeping Congress’ appetite for spending in check. The budget deficits continued to rise throughout the ‘70s and ‘80’s. During the ‘80s, however, budget reforms began to get some teeth. The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings (yes, Phil Gramm, our Senator from Texas) bill enacted in 1985 called for a balanced budget and specified maximum allowable deficit spending levels. If Congress failed to meet a spending restriction, automatic, across-the-board spending cuts, were to be implemented! This was an emergency measure that began to focus Congress’ attention on the budget.

Gramm-Rudman was abandoned in 1990 in favor of limiting increases in federal spending. Thus, in 1990s, discretionary spending was targeted. Any expansion of spending had to be met with a compensating tax increase or cut to “entitlement” programs such as Welfare. By 1994, Republicans were really running hard on high taxes and exploding budgets. Running on a “Contract with America” that emphasized a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, the Republicans promised to balance the budget within 7 years. After taking over the House and Senate, the Republicans fell 1 vote short in the Senate from passing the Amendment. Bowing

37

to the public’s call (i.e. trouncing of Dems in ’94) for balanced budgets and Republican pressure, President Clinton presented a balanced budget in 1997. It was the first balanced budget in a generation, but was largely accomplished by exploding tax revenues from the greatest economic expansion in U.S. history. With the recession and war on terrorism, it appears that deficit spending has returned for the indefinite future.

h) OVERSIGHT FUNCTION

As a part of the checks and balances system, Congress is set up to serve an oversight function. Basically, they are to watch the Executive branch mostly. Thus, it is the responsibility of Congress to keep the President “honest”. In exercising “oversight”, Congress has caught both Republican and Democratic Presidents doing naughty things. For example, Richard Nixon was forced to resign from office rather than be impeached and removed over the Watergate break-in and cover-up. (Please, note that Nixon was never impeached! He resigned before the full House could vote on the issue.) Likewise, President Clinton was forced to admit his perjury and endure a Senate trial after being impeached by the House on issues of perjury and obstruction of Justice stemming from the Monica Lewinsky affair. While these issues are “high-profile,” it is the day-to-day oversight that earns Congress its money.

In watching the Executive branch, Congress must remain ever vigilant. Democrats are steadily going after President Bush’s records regarding his formulation of Energy Policy. This issue even caused Bush to invoke Executive Privilege for the first time within his presidency. Sometimes, oversight is seen as intrusion by the Executive. But, more commonly, oversight is seen in members of the President’s Bureaucracy being called before Congressional Committees to explain their actions. For instance, the Secretary of the Interior might be called to explain how opening national forests to logging is helping save endangered species, or the Director of the FBI might be called to explain how an extreme, anti-terrorism law is necessary to keep our nation safe while eroding the liberty of American citizens. Furthermore, the Director of the IRS might be called to explain why his agency is “hassling” innocent taxpayers with cumbersome audits only to find that they owe “pennies.” It is up to the Congress to make sure that the Executive and its Bureaucracy stay in line with the will of the people.

If the President or any government official gets out of line, Congress can always use impeachment. Impeachment usually simply means accusation of a “high crime or

38

misdemeanor”. After Watergate, the Courts pretty much let Congress decide what is or is not a “crime or misdemeanor.” As such, the Lewinsky affair was fair game. But, as our Founding Fathers knew of the ill-will in our hearts, they put the bar very high. In order to remove an official from office, it takes a 2/3 vote of the Senate.

Only 2 presidents have been impeached: 1) Andrew Johnson, after firing one of his Cabinet members in

violation of a Congressional Act that said he couldn’t fire his own Cabinet members. The political tug-og-war ended with Johnson surviving removal by 1 vote!

2) Bill Clinton, after being accused of lying and attempting to cover-up his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Senate vote not even close. A largely partisan vote with many Senators viewing issue as a personal failure of character and not an offense for which Clinton should be removed.

2. PRESIDENCY

Article II -- The Executive Branch

Section 1

Clause 1: Executive is one man President.Vice Presidency is created.4 year term of office.

*22d Amend.: P serves maximum two termsP serves maximum 10 years

Clause 2: Electoral College picked by states (no Congressmen).Each state gets # = to Senators + Representatives

*12th Amend.: Electors meet in their state (vote for P & V.P., but not same state).Electors send ballots to Pres. of Senate.Pres. of Senate opens before Senate and House.

(President)High count of electors becomes P.If not a majority, then House votes from top three choices.Each state delegation in House gets one vote.If no P chosen by 3/4, then V.P. acts as P.(Vice President)

39

High count of electors becomes V.P.If not a majority, then Senate votes from top two choices.V.P. qualifications same as for P.

Clause 4: Congress picks day electors chosen/day they vote

Clause 5: Only “natural-born citizen” eligible to be P.Must be at least 35 to be P.Must have lived in U.S. 14 years.

Clause 6: Congress decides who takes charge if P & V.P. gone.

*25th Amend.: §1 -- If P dies/resigns, V.P. becomes P.§2 -- If V.P. gone, P nominates new V.P. (Congress confirms the choice)§3 -- If P sends ltr. to Pres. pro tempore of Senate & Speaker of House, V.P. takes over as P. P reverses with 2d letter.§4 -- V.P. becomes P if V.P. and majority of Cabinet send letter to Pres. pro tempore of Senate & Speaker of House. To become permanent, need 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress.

*20th Amend.: P’s term begins/ends on Jan. 20Senators and Reps. term begins/ends on Jan. 3Congress must meet at least once/yearIf P-elect dies, V.P. takes over.If P-elect and V.P.-elect gone, Congress decides P.

Clause 7: P get paid no more/no less.

Clause 8: P’s Oath of Office.

Section 2

Clause 1: P is Commander of Military & Nat’l Guards.P can get opinions from Cabinet.P has pardon power (federal cases only).

Clause 2: P makes treaties with 2/3 advice/consent of Senate.P appoints ambassadors, S.Ct. Justices, high officials.

Clause 3: P appoints Senator if Senate not in session.

Section 3

P is to give State of Union address to Congress.P can call special sessions of Congress.

40

P meets foreign ambassadors.P ensures laws executed, and commissions officers.

Section 4

P, V.P. and other U.S. civil officers can be removed if impeached and convicted of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

41

3. THE JUDICIARY (U.S. SUPREME COURT)

Article III of the Constitution states that the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court. It does not define what it is or how many members but only defines its jurisdiction to hear appeals of cases or controversies (no “advisory” opinions). The power of Judicial Review was first established under the leadership of John Marshall in the famous case of Marbury vs. Madison.

The Court is made of up 9 members (Chief Justice William Rehnquist and 8 others including 2 women, Sandra Day O’Conner and Ruth Bader Ginsberg). This number, however, is subject to change by Congress. In response to the Court’s repeated striking down of New Deal issues, FDR attempted to get the Congress to go along with a “Court-Packing” scheme to appoint additional FDR loyal members to the Court. Ultimately, adding members wasn’t necessary as some hostile members resigned and other Court members changed their positions in light of the threat of being “outnumbered.”

Justices for the Supreme Court serve for life. They are nominated by the President and must be confirmed by a majority vote in the Senate. The relevant political characteristics of a Court nominee are:

1) party identification (i.e. ideological slant as Conservative/Liberal; Republican presidents nominate conservative, etc…)

2) issue/policy alignment (pro-life, etc.);

3) acceptability to Senate (record show not extremist or underqualified);

4) gender (push to replace O’Connor with another woman, thereby resulting in failed nomination of Harriet Miers); and

5) race (fill Thurgood Marshall’s seat with another African-American man, thus get Clarence Thomas).

While the President usually filters any potential nominee through the American Bar Association (ABA), sometimes nominees make it out that are nonetheless controversial. In those instances, the interest groups come alive in attempting to derail the nomination. They do this by lobbying the President to appoint justices in line with the

42

groups’ views and lobbying influential Congressmen to approve or block potential nominees. Another way interest groups get involved is early in the process by giving campaign contributions. They later use this influence to ask for “friendly” nominees.

Four examples of how Interest groups worked to block Court nominations are found in:

i) Ginsburg – Once it was revealed that Ginsburg (a man, not to be confused with Ruth Bader Ginsberg, no relation) had smoke marijuana, the conservative community erupted. Reagan was forced to remove his name even before it had been formally submitted to Senate.

ii) Robert Bork – Nominated by Reagan in 1987. During his confirmation proceedings, Judge Bork was questioned extensively about his previous writings on a variety of subjects including abortion. Over the term, it became clear that he was too extreme for many members of the Senate. His nomination failed 58 – 42.

iii) Clarence Thomas – Nominated by George Bush in 1991. While he was nominated as an African American to replace the “black” seat on the Court vacated by Thurgood Marshall, Thomas was conservative in ideology. This caused many Democrats to oppose him, but more importantly, he was also accused of sexual harassment by Anita Hill. After a lengthy hearing, the Senate narrowly confirmed on a vote o 52 – 48.

iv) Harriet Miers -- Nominated by George W. Bush in 2005. Nominated as a woman to fill vacant seat of first female Justice, Sandra Day O’Connor. Had no judicial experience, therefore thought by Bush to be ‘safe’ nominee. Right wing conservatives remembered the last ‘safe conservative’ nominee, David Souter (who later aligned with liberals!). Thus, the right arose to demand Miers be withdrawn in favor of a ‘real’ conservative with a proven record. In time, Miers knew politics was against her and she withdrew her name. Bush promptly named Samuel Alito, a well-known conservative judge (voted to uphold abortion restriction in Planned Parenthood v. Casey as a Circuit Judge).

43

Because the confirmation process has become so ideologically and politically sensitive, some nominees have refused to reveal their judicial predispositions. This occurred in the confirmation of David Souter who refused to say whether or not he would move to uphold or strike down Roe v. Wade. Still, the issue of judicial philosophy is important to Senators. Many oppose the appointment of a judge who will be a judicial activist and merely use the Constitution as a “living document” and vehicle by which to implement social policy that could not otherwise be implemented into law via the Congress. Likewise, many are hesitant to confirm a so-called “strict-constructionist” who proclaims that the Constitution reflects the views of our Founding Fathers and is not to be “improved” upon via judicial rulings. While they proclaim that they are not going to be “Kings in Judicial Robes,” many Senators view them as trying to roll-back society to the “stone-age”. Senators seek to find out which philosophy is represented and determine whether the person should be confirmed.

The political make-up of the Court is now generally conservative in its rulings. The Court does not have to hear or accept for review any particular cases, but rather votes to grant review. If four members of the Court agree to hear the case, a writ of certiorari will be granted. This is known as the Rule of Four.

Writ of certiorari . At least four of nine justices must agree that the case should be put onto the Court’s docket. (When cert. is denied, it means nothing. It is of no further legal significance.)

Majority opinion which tells how the Court decided the case and upon which grounds, or the Justice may write a dissenting opinion wherein he/she outlines their reasons for not joining the majority. Finally, a Justice might write a concurring opinion wherein they state that they agree with the outcome by the majority, but state different reasons or perhaps to clarify a point not addressed in the majority opinion.

4. THE BUREAUCRACY (FOURTH BRANCH OF GOV’T)

The federal bureaucracy employs over 3 million civilians (in over 800 occupations in 100 different agencies) and another 2 million military personnel. To some, it is the Fourth branch of government.

The Bureaucracy’s job is to execute or enforce the policies made by Congress or the President. People often gripe about how inefficient the bureaucracy is, but because they are set up to promote the “public interest”, this may not be as efficient as some would like. Thus, people point to “waste” in 1) inefficiency whereby more

44

employees are hired to do a job than is necessary or consultants are hired and 2) narrow-focus programs that tend to serve only a few people (e.g. small post offices). While some of the criticism of the bureaucracy is deserved, much is not due to its mission. Under the Freedom of Information Act of 1966 (Amended 1974), people can request information from agencies that make up the government bureaucracy. Although such laws were intended for the public to get in touch with the government, very few members of the public actually take advantage of them. (e.g. over 85% of FOIA requests to FDA were from companies that it regulates.) Thus, the FOIA has been used as a tool by special interests to learn more about the function and operation of the bureaucracy.

By and large, the bureaucracy grows because it can be a source of benefits. While the public criticizes “big government,” it clamors for roads, airports, job training, consumer protection and other benefits. Ultimately, every federal agency within the bureaucracy exists because it is valuable to enough people with enough influence to sustain it. In actuality though, even with the continued demand for services, growth in public employment is not increasing at the federal level. The major growth in public employment has been at the state and local levels. (only 14% of all governmental workers were federal employees in 1994). This is not to say that the bureaucracy is stagnant! Although its size has been relatively stable in recent years, its production of regulations has grown and is expenditure of funds has doubled since 1961.

There are four types of bureaucracy: 1) Departments; 2) Independent Agencies; 3) Independent Regulatory Boards and Commissions; and 4) Governmental Corporations.

a) DepartmentsFourteen departments (heads called “Secretaries” except for

Justice who is called “Attorney General”.) The Departments employ over 60% of all civilian workers within the executive branch.

b) Independent Agencies

These agencies differ from departments in that they are smaller and their heads do not sit in the cabinet. Some examples are N.A.S.A. and the General Services Administration.

c) Independent Regulatory Boards and Commissions

These groups regulate some aspect of the economy. They are usually headed by 5 -10 presidential appointees although the

45

Board and Commission members cannot be removed if they are later disliked by the President. The appointees are also balanced by political party. Some examples are the F.C.C., Securities and Exchange Commission and the N.L.R.B. These regulatory agencies are “independent” because they are supposed to work free of partisan influences and presidential control.

d) Governmental Corporations

Governmental corporations are supposed to provide services to the public without seeking to make a profit. Some examples are the Postal Service and AMTRAK. Their costs and incomes are not counted as expenditures and revenues in the annual budget. Thus, they are an attractive device to spend without enlarging the budget. Their activities are “off budget” which makes the budget deficit look smaller.

The Bureaucracy’s general purpose is to convert the laws passed by Congress into rules that have an actual impact on people. We call this process policy implementation. It has two components: 1) making the policies and 2) administering them.

a) Making Policy (i.e. how bureaucracy screws up your life!)

This function of the bureaucracy has grown in large part due to the large number and technical nature of the problems facing society and also due to Congress’ inability to draft specific policy measures. Congress often enacts only general statements of goals and leaves the details to bureaucrats. Thus, Congress gives federal agencies delegated legislative authority, that is, the power to draft, as well as execute, specific policies. This agency-made policy is just as binding as acts of Congress because agencies make it on Congress’ behalf.

One particular kind of policymaking is called regulation. These are acts of a regulatory agency which establish guidelines or standards conferring benefits and imposing restrictions on business conduct. (e.g. 41,000 regulations concerning the hamburger. Some good such as meat health inspection while others useless such as pickle thickness.) It is important to note that while agencies try to do what the public wants, they are more likely to respond to those interests which are well-organized, well-funded and which closely monitor its actions. As a result, agency-made policy is often less responsive to the general public than to particular interests. Most

46

regulations, however, are based on laws that direct agencies to take certain actions to accomplish certain goals. (e.g. EPA set up to tell to reduce pollution by businesses).

b) Administering Policy

Bureaucracy’s oldest job is to administer the law. To “administer” is to execute, enforce, and apply the rules that have been made either by Congress or the bureaucracy itself. When administering and enforcing the “law” as expressed in their regulations, the bureaucracy causes considerable grief for many individuals and business owners. For example, anti-discrimination laws found in the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) cause business owners to have to build handicap-accessible doorways, ramps, tables, booth, bathrooms, etc. Such renovations cost lots of money even if a disabled person never visits your business. More expensive stuff like implementing the Clean Air Act are more likely to provoke a response from the business community. In such an instance where compliance with a regulation might cost $10 million, Exxon might hire lobbyists (probably former Congressmen) to complain to Congress and seek redress and relief. (SEE Section E: Iron Triangle) Ultimately, in return for campaign cash from the special interest (Exxon or whoever), the Congressman will use his Committee to exercise “Oversight” of the offending Bureaucracy. Basically, this causes headaches for the bureaucrat who ends up pleading for continued funding for his agency, etc. This becomes so much of a “burden” to avoid that bureaucrats learned early on not to “stir up” the special interest hornets nest of lobbyists. Instead, bureaucrats consult with the industry to be affected before taking regulatory action. In this way, the industry gets to help draft the regulation and will not attack the agency bureaucrats. Of course, this allows Exxon to essentially say how much “Clean Air” they will accept, which is not very good public policy. But, this is politics… By consulting with the Special Interests, the Bureaucracy avoid conflict with Congress over their budget. Special Interests are happy therefore they give big contributions to the Congressman exercising Oversight over the Bureaucracy. One big happy family.

c) Continuity in Government

The bureaucracy also serves to provide continuity in government. Although the President may change, large portions of the bureaucracy within the Defense Department etc. will largely stay the same under Civil Service laws.

47

E. Topic: Public PolicyPercentage of Exam: 5 - 15%

1. IRON TRIANGLES

The iron triangle of government is made up of the U.S. Congress, the federal bureaucracy, and lobbyists representing special interest groups. These three groups work together to form government legislation for the most part; it can be said that most federal legislation is a product of the iron triangle. The ties linking these three groups are quite strong; often former congress members or bureaucrats become lobbyists.

Though the power of the iron triangle originates in the tenets of factionalism, it can take away from the democratic process. The pluralist view states that different interests should be able to compete and compromise with each other to form government policy. However, because lobbyists usually only represent the wealthy individuals and corporations in the country, the rest of the public is to a disadvantage and has less influence on policy. The iron triangle makes voters feel that they cannot make a difference in government, increasing voter apathy and decreasing voter turnout. Unfortunately, members of Congress and the bureaucracy can become more concerned with the concerns of lobbyists representing special interests than with the concerns and welfare of the nation as whole. (Remember how EPA begins to consult with Exxon on writing Clean Air regulations, or FDA consulting pharmaceutical industry to determine whether drugs are safe. Fox guarding hen house.)

2. PRESIDENT AND IRON TRIANGLES

The President can attempt to influence and control the bureaucracy via such things as 1) budgeting whereby Bush cut IRS funding to target rich tax cheats, 2) appointment of those sympathetic to his ideas, and 3) lobbying and using media to influence agencies not under presidential control such as the Federal Reserve Board.

One limitation on the President’s ability to influence agency decisions is the iron triangle relationships which often exist. These exist where there are strong congressional and/or domestic groups pushing or supporting an agency decision. Thus, the President’s influence is greater with federal agencies such as the State Department where there are fewer domestic influences and Congress generally defers to the President.

48

3. CONGRESS AND IRON TRIANGLES

Congress can create and reorganize agencies and tell them what to do and how to do it. This is very powerful in controlling the bureaucracy. They also have the power of congressional oversight of these agencies. (e.g. I.R.S. hearings). Iron triangles often pose a problem in this area though as agencies ally themselves with certain congressional committees and interest groups for mutual protection.

4. PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS

Individual bureaucrats who discover abuse can report it and be protected if they are retaliated against for being a whistleblower.

F. Topic: Civil Rights and Civil LibertiesPercentage of Exam: 5 - 15%

1. IMPACT OF 14TH AMENDMENT

The 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause allowed the Supreme Court to make their interpretation of the Bill of Rights applicable to the States. This was an incredible extension of the power of the Court and is known as the Selective Incorporation Doctrine. Not all of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated to apply against the states. Those NOT incorporated as of less importance than say, the freedom of speech. They include such things as the 2nd Amd. right to bear arms, 3rd Amd. against quartering troops, 5th Amd. right to grand jury indictment, etc.

2. TEN* SUPREME COURT CASES YOU NEED TO KNOW*OK, there are more like thirty. Sue me.

*Marbury v. Madison (1803) -- established judicial review*McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) -- explained Necessary &

Proper Clause (“Elastic Clause” giving Congress “Implied Powers”)

*Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) -- expanded Congress’ Power under the Commerce Clause to include matters “affecting interstate commerce”, thereby allowing regulation of intrastate activity.

49

*U.S. v. Lopez (1995) – activity must have ‘substantial impact’ on Commerce in order to be regulated by Congress.

*U.S. v. Morrison (2000) – similar to Lopez (violence against women)

*Gonzales v. Raich (2005) – adopts Wickard (1942) expansive view of Congress’ Commerce Clause power.

*Dred Scott (1857) -- slaves were property*Plessy v. Ferguson(1896) -- allowed “Separate, but

equal”*Brown v. Board of Education (1954) -- Overruled Plessy *Bakke v. Regents (1978) -- aff. action factor is ok, quotas

are not*Adarand v. Pena (1995) -- Aff. Action only remedial*Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) – aff. Action ok to create

‘diversity’ but Court intimates a 25 yr. limit on need for such exceptions to 14th equality.

*Baker v. Carr (1962) -- established “one man, one vote”*Mapp v. Ohio (1961)-- exclusionary rule *Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) -- right to appointed

attorney*Miranda v. Arizona (1966) -- created Miranda warnings *Terry v. Ohio (1968)-- created police power to ‘stop &

frisk’*Tinker v. Des Moine (1969) -- Armband symbolic speech

*Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) -- separation of church & state

*Van Orden v. Perry (2005)/McCreary County v. ACLU (2005) – Ten Commandments cases. Van Orden upheld monument/McCreary struck down display b/c motivated by religion.

*Employment Div. v. Smith (1990) – Free Exercise of Religion can be limited by ‘content-neutral, generally applicable’ law. Gives rise to R.F.R.A. struck down in Boerne (1997).

*Furman v. Georgia (1972) – Death penalty can be ‘cruel’ if imposed without guidance.

*Gregg v. Georgia (1976) – Death penalty doesn’t inherently violate 8th Amd.

50

*Roper v. Simmons (2005) – Death penalty for under 18 yr. olds violates society’s ‘evolving standard of decency’ so as to violate 8th Amd.

*Roe v. Wade (1973) (Griswold v. Connecticut) -- right to privacy

*Webster v. Reproductive Health (1989) -- Limited Roe decision (can’t place an “undue burden” on access to abortion)

*Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) – last case to uphold abortion right, but allows broad state regulation.

*Lawrence v. Texas (2003) – gay sex is legal *U.S. v. Nixon (1974) -- limited power of executive

privilege*Texas v. Johnson (1989) -- flag burning is expression*Buckley v. Valeo (1976) – Contributions to political

campaigns is protected symbolic speech.

*McConnell v. F.E.C. (2003) – upheld political limits on free speech within McCain-Feingold (ban on soft $)

If you read this packet 5 times and remember its contents,

you will get a 5 on the AP! slackers only message – Please don’t make me look bad by doing only the Multiple Choice and leaving the Essays blank. You

could B.S. your way into a 3. At least try!! Please…..

51