Hi I’m Craig and this is Crash Course Government and Politics. And today we’re going to try and untangle the mess that is the American political campaign. One of the things about the American political system that often confuses people who don’t live in America is the way
that our politicians run for office. There are two aspects in particular that stand out about American political campaigns: their length and their expense. We’re going to look at both of these today and see that they’re related but before we do we are going to answer a burning question:
why do we need political campaigns anyway? [Theme Music] If you ask one hundred people about the reason why we have political campaigns, you’ll get well, not a hundred but at least more than one answer. And you might work for Family Feud. Probably the best answer to this question though, is
that we have political campaigns to provide voters with information they need to choose a candidate to represent them. So how do political campaigns provide information? And what is a political campaign anyway? Let’s go to the Thought Bubble. A campaign is an organized drive on the part of a
candidate to get elected to an office. It’s also the way we refer to the organization itself. For example, in 2012 we had the Obama campaign and the Romney campaign. And each consisted of a campaign organization made up of thousands of staffers and volunteers and all of their activities. Most
campaigns are temporary, geared towards an election although both parties do have permanent professional campaign organizations. At the top level are the national committees, the DNC and the RNC. Can you guess what they stand for? These organizations coordinate all national campaigns, especially
those for President. Each house of congress has a Republican and Democratic campaign committee. The individual Senate and Congressional committees are headed up by sitting members of the Senate and the House, and because these committees give money to candidates, their leaders are very popular. I
find that I’m popular when I make it rain at parties. Campaigns provide information in a number of ways. The main thing they do is communicate with the public, usually through the media which we’ll discuss in greater depth in future episodes. The main stage of political campaigns is the
organized event where candidates can present information about themselves and their policies directly through voters and speeches. These are known as stump speeches, although only rarely these days do candidates actually speak on stumps, they have podiums and stages now. In addition to these
events, candidates present the information by appearing on the TV, in debates, at town meetings, and in "impromptu" photo opportunities. They like to appear with military hardware, too, although sometimes this can backfire, as in the case of Michael Dukakis in 1988. Campaigns can spread
their messages through direct mail, press releases, news coverage, and through advertisements, often on the TV, which is like the internet, only less interactive and has a lot of real housewives on it. Thanks, thought bubble. Nowadays, there are many more ways that candidates can reach out to
voters. One way is through email. If you’ve ever given money to a candidate or a campaign, you can expect emails in ever-increasing numbers as election day approaches, and we all love that. Candidates now take to Twitter to blast out information and individual candidates and their campaigns
often have Facebook pages. There are even campaign ads made specifically for YouTube, although how their advertising algorithm works is beyond me. It’s weird to get a campaign ad for the Michigan Senate if you don’t live in Michigan. One other way that campaigns communicate information
is through raising money. Of course, they need money to pay for all the campaign ribbons and buttons and PA systems and folding chairs and tour buses and stump speeches and axes to chop down trees so they have stumps to speak on. These things ain’t cheap. Even more expensive are
advertisements on the TV. A sitting president has an advantage here in that he can usually get on TV whenever he wants and he’ll have a chance to clarify his positions in the State of the Union Address. But even he has to spend money on ads. And raising money is another way to present voters
with information because campaign solicitations usually come with some policy piece attached to them. Almost every solicitation you get will be somewhat targeted to one of your interests and tell you, or try to tell you, where the candidate asking for your money stands on that issue. So you may
have gotten a campaign solicitation and wondered, "Hey, why you need my money?" The unhelpful answer is that they need your money because campaigns are expensive. But then you might ask, "why are they so expensive?" Good question. Campaigns are expensive because they’re
huge, especially presidential campaigns; they need to reach 220 million people of voting age. Another reason they’re expensive is because they’re super long. Democrat and Republican candidates raise money, give speeches and create political action committees years before the election.
It’s ridiculous. I blame the eagle. Campaigns are also expensive because Americans expect them to be personal and this takes time and money. We like to see our candidates in person and have them show up in small towns in Iowa and New Hampshire, even though those states don’t matter all
that much in the grand electoral picture. Another reason campaigns are so expensive is that they rely increasingly on the TV and other visual media that cost a lot of money to produce. Gone are the days when William McKinley could sit on his porch in Ohio and have reporters come to him. Nowadays,
even when candidates get free exposure by appearing on nightly comedy shows, like The Daily Show, it still costs the campaign in terms of time, travel and probably wardrobe and makeup so that they can look as good as I do. No makeup. Minimal wardrobe: no pants. Sorry, Stan. How expensive are
campaigns anyway? Eh…very! In the 2008 presidential campaign both candidates together spent three billion dollars. In 2012 the candidates spent about a billion dollars each, and outside groups spent a further four billion. And congressional elections weren’t much cheaper, except when
you consider that there were a lot more of them. Combined, congressional races in 2008 cost about one billion dollars. All the money that gets spent on campaigns leads us inevitably to campaign none;">Finance rules, which were set up by Congress after 1970 and refined by the courts. We have campaign Finance legislation because all that money pouring
into campaigns sure looks like it raises the potential for corruption. Whether or not an individual’s campaign contributions can sway a congressman’s vote is highly debatable but it certainly gives the appearance of impropriety when a congressman who receives millions of dollars from
the oil industry then works hard to weaken regulations on oil companies so that they can make more Profit. Campaign contributions are not bribes, but they sure look like them to lots of people. Recognizing that campaign contributions could potentially influence the political
process, congress passes the Federal Election Campaign act of 1971. This was the first law that put limits on campaign spending and donations. It was further refined by the McCain-Feingold Campaign Law in 2002, and by court decisions that refined the rules for campaign spending and donations and
provided a legal rationale for these limits. Until recently, the most important case on campaign Finance was Buckley V Valleo. This case established the idea that limits on
campaign spending were problematic under the first amendment because limiting the amount someone could spend on politics was basically limiting what that person could say about politics. Freedom of speech, y’all! According to the rules, individuals were allowed to donate up to $2500 per
candidate and their was a total limit to the amount an individual could give. Donations to a party committee, which because they don’t go to a specific candidate and thus seem less like bribes, were limited to $28,500. Individual donors were also allowed to give up to $5,000 to a political
action committee, or PAC. But it gets more complicated. Individuals and PACs are allowed to give unlimited funds to a 527 group, named after its designation in the tax code, that focuses on issue advocacy. The most famous 527 group in recent political memory is probably Swift Boat Veterans for
Truth, which spent more than 22 million dollars to raise awareness around the issue of whether 2004 presidential candidate, and later Secretary of State John Kerry was completely honest about his Vietnam War record. If this sounds like it was more of an organization against the candidate himself,
well you can see why the line between "issue advocacy" and support for a political campaign can be kind of blurry. Now here’s something important: these limits are on contributions to candidates and campaigns, not on spending by candidates and campaigns. What this means is that a
candidate and their campaign can spend however much they raise. So if a candidate running for office has one billion dollars, they can spend one billion trying to win. There’s no concern about self-funded candidates bribing themselves, and you often see very rich people spending a lot of
their own money trying to win office. So Buckley Vs. Valleo set up the basic distinction between campaign donations, which could be limited, and campaign spending, which couldn’t. This distinction was undercut by the Supreme Court in the case of Citizens United Vs. the Federal Election
Commission in 2009. This reaffirmed the idea that money is the equivalent of speech and struck down many of the limitations on campaign donations. The Citizens United decision cleared the way for Super PACs. These organizations are allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to promote a
candidate or publicize a cause, but they may not directly contribute to a candidate or coordinate with a campaign. In the 2012 election, there were over 500 registered super PACs and 41 of them spent over half a million dollars. The largest seven had spent over 256 million by the end of August, one
of the reasons that the 2012 election was the most expensive ever, clocking in at around 6 billion. Now this sounds like a lot of money, right? It is. Gimme it. But a little context: the total spent on house and senate races was around 3.6 billion dollars, which was less than half of what Americans
spend annually on potato chips. So when you look at it this way, the amount we spend on elections doesn’t seem like so much, which may make us rethink the idea that money is corrupting American politics. Or maybe not. Maybe potato chips are corrupting American politics. Certainly corrupting
my belly. American political campaigns are big and high stakes and raise questions about the influence of money in politics that are tough to answer. On the one hand, it does seem like there’s the potential for very rich people to have a lot of influence on the elections. On the other hand,
limiting a person’s ability to register his or her preference of a candidate through spending on that candidate does seem like a limitation on their political speech. One of the arguments for limits on campaign contributions is that forcing candidates to raise money in small amounts from a
large number of donors will make them reach out to larger numbers of constituents, and appealing to large numbers is the essence of Democracy. But it’s also time consuming for a politician to reach out to all those potential donors and congressmen already spend a considerable amount of time
raising money when they should be legislating. And watching Real Housewives. And eating Little Caesar’s. There’s a lot to do. But this is the system we have, and unless congress passes a law limiting campaign expenditures, or shortening the campaign season, we can expect campaigns to
remain long and get more and more expensive. Thanks for watching, I’ll see you next time. Crash Course Government and Politics is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios. Support for Crash Course US Government comes from Voqal. Voqal supports non-Profits that use
technology and media to advance social Equity. Learn more about their mission and initiatives at Voqal.org. Crash Course was made with the help of all of these campaign financiers. Thanks for watching.
CashNews, your go-to portal for financial news and insights.
Social media is free. And this is primarily how you g voters receives their information. And you g voters will decide the winning vote.
We will not be voting for Cecil graves.
My online school used to have these videos available in their material and now their new material doesn't. I'm just happy to find it on youtube! Thanks for making history and politics less boring.
Love your sense of humor!!
eagle abuse!!!
Imagine we didn’t spend money on campaigns and instead voted based on their actions in theirs communities. Its a pointless popularity contest
Imagine having 28k to give it to a politician lol I cannot even afford a bicycle
You say oil companies can give millions of dollars to one candidate, but you also say you cannot give more than $2,500 to one candidate. So, how can a company give millions to a single candidate?
Review
basically this video says nothing and avoids taking any position. Thats a shame given its on an extremely harmful for democracy matter: on how the financial power of some destroy the equality for all. this should be fought against , no excuses, full stop.
No… there bribes, let's stop speaking "legally " and start calling ducks ducks, dogs dogs and bribes BRIBES.
Public financing of elections and do away with superPACs and i would say private donations altogether….have debates on public television free of corporate advertisements (which inherently come with corporate bias) make attendance on first come first serve open to the public without price of admission. (Its not surprising at all that a room full of people who could afford $1800/ ticket for the SC primary debate would boo the idea of raising taxes on the wealthy. have the debates formatted to give lengthy policy based answers and time to rebuttal…. have a multiple moderators from all over the political spectrum that ask follow up questions.
These videos have taught me more about government in ten minutes than my government teacher has taught me in five week.
"youtube advertisments" eh? anyone recall the 20831264134012 tom steyer ads
He seems sad in this video:(
Love this! Thank you.
Only a small percentage of people donate to politicians, and a HUGE percentage of people buy chips. Not a good comparison
Well don't worry. I LIKE YOUR WORK
7:02 Bloomberg LOL
I still dont understand why campaigns need to raise hundreds of million of dollars for hotel rooms and flights….maybe a commerical here and there.. still things ain't adding up.
Just like the rest of the DNC/liberal mainstream media (aka propaganda mill), PBS has been corrupted by the democrats (aka liberals/globalists) so its info is unreliable. The lighthearted humor doesn't sufficiently disguise your misinformation. Why not do a video on how politicians get rich via donations running for office (e.g. Bernie Sanders and ALL of the others)? Wouldn't want to expose the truth, right?
'contributions are not bribes' based on what?
what do you suggest they are, charity?
corporations showing civic responsibility?
Craig, I knew John Green. John Green was my friend. Craig….. You are no John Green
How many are watching this for test coming up for civics
Is it legal to make a youtube video advertising a presidential candidate without working or volunteering at an organization?
Doesn't trump have a written note written in all caps that's says, everything is PERFECT! Hard to argue with all caps.
I love PBS!
So, if the donation goes to a "good cause", the donation can essentially be unlimited, and candidates can join these "good cause" organizations in order to receive more money per individual. Am I correct in my assumptions based on this video?
If Craig only foreseen how Trump changed everything
Talk slower bruh
I see a lot of “money shouldn’t equal speech,” but the thing is that Political Speech is the MOST protected type of speech under the First Amendment. SCOTUS ruled to get rid of spending limitations because it infringed on freedom of political speech. Whether you believe this is good or not, it is a product of Judicial Activism and is how SCOTUS decided to interpret the Constitution.
Iowa is a swing state… making it pretty important in the presidential election 🙂
I hope I don't come across as mean, but I think this video is undermined by the extremely unfunny "jokes".
SMHMMMMM SNIFF YIP YOU CAN SMELL THE UNDIAGNOSED POLITICAL AUTISM