Presidential Election Funding Bill Introduced in the US House

Occasionally FHQ will wade into discussions on campaign finance or campaign finance reform and typically those instances are reserved for times a consequential loophole has been discovered and utilized or when new legislation is introduced to deal with the perceived problems within the system. And hey, go ahead and throw in a reference or two to the Citizens United decision while you're at it. But as was the case with the congressional election funding system proposed during the 2009 session of the 111th Congress, David Price's (D-NC, 4th district) revamped presidential election funding bill (HR 414) that was introduced on January 25 is likely going nowhere fast. This is even clearer given that the Republican Party now controls the House and furthermore that the party just voted to eliminate the system altogether as a means of cutting costs.

But let us set those realities to the side for a moment and look at the new provisions within the bill on the merits. The key with any bill on the campaign finance front is that it offer prospective candidates enough of a carrot that they voluntarily opt into the system in the first place. In other words, if a candidate has to think about whether he or she can out-raise the new limits then the battle has already been lost. Here are some of the highlights:

In the primaries phase:

• The dollar for dollar match from the federal coffers jumps to a 4:1 ratio. For every dollar raised, the federal government matches with four. This was the same ratio that was used in the congressional funding system from 2009.
• The US government will match up to $100 million. If, as a candidate, you can raise $25 million, then you get $100 million from the government funding system. That $125 million sum -- which would/could be available six months prior to the first delegate selection event -- sounds reasonably sufficient until you see that Obama was able to raise that $25 million in the first quarter of 2007 and was just getting started at that point. In a crowded field with multiple frontrunners that might work, but that doesn't happen all that often.
• Contributions limits are adjusted based on inflation, but the overall caps on what the government will match do not.

In the general election phase:

• The bill includes a repeal of federal funding of national party conventions. This is strange to me. I get the intent, but if you are going to argue that the parties should fund this, should not the argument also be made that parties should handle the funding of candidates as well? Both are party business after all. [Yes, there are several attendant conflicts on the latter point, but it should not go unmentioned.]
• To receive any general election matching funds a candidate must have participated in the primary matching phase.
• The cap on what the government will match is $150 million ($50 million plus a 4:1 match capped at $100 million). That's approximately double what McCain got in 2008 and about the same amount that Obama raised in September 2008 alone.

The campaign finance system may be worth saving, but it will ultimately take more than baby carrots to entice candidates into the program in the first place. There is a lot more to this bill (have a look yourself), but given the comparatively low caps and the fact that the Republican-controlled House will never go for this, HR 414 is destined to die in committee. Still, it represents something interesting at which to look.

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Idaho Bill to Move Presidential Primary Up a Week Passes State House

The election consolidation bill that includes a provision to shift the date on which Idaho's primary -- including the presidential primary -- up from the fourth week in May to the third week in May has passed the state House by a vote of 67-0 with three members absent. HB 60 now moves over to the state Senate for consideration there.

No, this isn't a significant potential shift, but it does join the bill in Texas (HB 318) as the only active bills which seek to move their state's presidential primaries forward. Due to the mandates from the national parties to allow only Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina to hold their nominating contests in February, there are a number of states with February or earlier dates that require a change to be compliant. The expectation, then, is that the majority of movement ahead of 2012 will be backward, not forward. As we have mentioned here, though, that assumes those noncompliant states opt to follow the parties' new guidelines. And that's a big if.

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

A Favorite Son Strategy by Republican Governors? In 2012?

Maybe in 1912, but not in 2012.

FHQ is hesitant to play along with David Broder's thought exercise about Republican governors being able to leverage their influence over the 2012 Republican presidential nomination process. Look, we're big proponents of thought exercises around here (See FHQ poke constructive holes in the various presidential primary reform plans here, here, here, here and here for instance.), but this one seems like a reach. And sure, it is probably fair to say that I tend to be a contrarian within these confines, so let's look at this one a bit more closely.

First, let's look at the assumptions the outcome to Broder's exercise makes. I think he is right to look at the signals gubernatorial endorsements send to rank and file primary voters and potentially have on the presidential nomination process. The significance of those endorsements is the primary contribution that Cohen et al. made to the political science literature in The Party Decides. In other words, gubernatorial endorsements serve as an institutional party cue to primary voters and caucus-goers of elite support from within the party during the invisible primary. Of course, there is a difference between the level of influence Broder is speaking about and the what Cohen et al. posit. Broder's is a more calculated and coordinated impact whereas Cohen et al. discuss more of a general influence borne of the aggregated actions of individual governors.

Often it is more about who is on the sidelines rather than who is actually endorsing presidential candidates for your party's nomination. There were, between 1980 and 2004, only two races in which more than three quarters of the governors from one party actually made endorsements. The Republican races in 1996 and 2000. Republican governors overwhelmingly backed both Bob Dole and George W. Bush in the invisible primary phase of the race. I don't have the numbers pre-Iowa from 2008, but as of the end of February there were still ten Democratic and ten Republican governors who had yet to endorse candidates. Will that change in 2012 on the Republican side? There is no way of knowing, but it should be noted that when no clear frontrunner emerges, the tendency is for more governors to wait it out. The 1988 and 2004 Democratic nomination races illustrate this nicely. Only 19% and 5% of Democratic governors in those respective cycles came forward to endorse a candidate during the invisible primary period.*

The major problem with Broder's idea, then, is that it requires a level of coordination on the part of the Republican governors not seen since the days of before presidential nomination reform. And even then, such action was likely to have manifest itself at the nominating convention rather than the invisible primary.

Can Republican governors coordinate that collective action problem (Broder is assuming in his op/ed that they can.) and even if they can, what impact do those endorsements play? I'll take that second first as it builds nicely on the point from above. With the exception of 2004, those governors who endorsed candidates during the invisible primary were more likely to have throws their support behind the eventual winner of the nomination. Again, the numbers I have for 2008 were collected in the midst of the battle for the nominations, but the Republican endorsements follow the trend (7 of 22 Republican governors supported McCain) while the Democratic endorsements were like 2004, inconclusive (10 of 28 Democratic governors backed Clinton while 7 supported Obama.). What this all seems to indicate is that the governors who play the endorsement game typically send a collective signal of their choice to voters. Typically. Now, first of all, we're talking about a plurality, not unanimity. But we also see that in multi-candidate races, there's less of a chance that even a modicum of consensus builds behind one candidate. In other words, when there is no clear frontrunner.

The conditions seem right, then. But can or will Republican governors pull the trigger on such a plan. They perhaps can, but Broder's idea also seems to require some help from the candidates; that they acknowledge that one candidate is more likely to win in one area than another and stay away. It isn't clear to me that that is a viable strategy. "Skipping" has not been and will not more than likely be a winning strategy for any candidate. Just look at Rudy Giuliani in 2008. He ceded the bulk of attention to Huckabee, McCain and Romney waiting on Florida's primary to roll around. But by then it was too late. The same will be true in 2012 no matter what the calendar ultimately looks like.

The more I think about this, the more it seems like a way to elevate someone other than the four candidates who have been talked about (and polled) the most frequently: Gingrich, Huckabee, Palin and Romney. If the longer shots like Pawlenty or Barbour try and pick and choose their spots -- and one would have to think that they would have to pick off Iowa and South Carolina respectively to catapult themselves into the conversation -- they risk yielding attention to the other candidates who may or may not be organizing and spending money in all the early states and into Super Tuesday instead of based on geography.

I just don't see the governors being able to coordinate this with the candidates. Now collectively, some group of governors and others within the party's establishment may be able to signal to voters who they want to be the choice, but that's the only way that that's going to occur. This individual endorsement having a direct influence over the outcome of a given primary or caucus hypothesis is a stretch. It is an aggregate versus individual-level issue. We see an aggregate influence over the identity of the eventual nominee, but not an individual influence over individual state results in terms of these gubernatorial endorsements.

I mean, look at how quickly Terry Branstad responded to the Broder's assertion that the Iowa governor was backing Pawlenty.

*These numbers come from Figure 1.1 in "The Invisible Primary in Presidential Nominations, 1980-2004." by Cohen et al. which appears in Mayer's The Making of the Presidential Candidates, 2004.

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Vote on Idaho Election Consolidation Bill Scheduled for Feb. 3 in House

The election consolidation bill (HB 60) that is before the Idaho state House emerged from the State Affairs Committee with a "Do Pass" recommendation and received a second reading -- following the reading upon introduction -- today. The bill is scheduled for its third reading -- the voting stage -- tomorrow. Among the provisions embedded in the bill is one to shift the date on which the Gem state's primaries -- including the presidential primary -- from the fourth Tuesday in May to the third Tuesday in May. To be sure, it isn't a significant shift, but is nonetheless a primary move.

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Woe is me.

Folks, Florida's presidential primary is already early. Perhaps you've heard me say this about two million times since I first put the 2012 presidential primary calendar together back in December 2008. I don't want to make this a reoccurring item because I suppose I've griped about this before, but I have to draw the line somewhere.

And today that somewhere was headlines about RNC Chairman Reince Priebus calling on the Florida state government to move the Sunshine state's presidential primary back to a time that would comply with the national parties' rules on delegate selection (some time on or after March 6). But that's not the image everyone got from some of the headlines floating around out there.

From Politico:

Priebus to Fla.: Don't move primary

From CNN:

RNC Chairman urges Florida not to move up 2012 primary

Now look, FHQ is not perfect (We make and have people call us on mistakes too.), but these headlines are just misleading. And to be fair, these are just the headlines. The stories are right on which is a far cry from some items that can't get some of the basic facts of the Florida situation right (like the date of the primary -- January 31, 2012 -- and various other outlets that are blurring the line on the differences in penalties for going early in both parties -- GOP takes 50% of the delegates and that is it).

For the record, then, Florida is already scheduled early and the RNC is hoping that the state will move its primary back.

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

FL Democratic Party Chair Piggybacks on Priebus' Call for Later Primary

From Kevin Derby's blog at Sunshine State News:

With RNC Chairman Reince Priebus in Tampa to check out the location of the 2012 GOP convention on Wednesday and calling for Sunshine State Republicans to schedule a later presidential primary, Florida Democratic Party Chairman Rod Smith agreed and called once again for the state to move the primary back.

The primary was held early in 2008 despite protests by both major national parties. Smith had sent a letter to the Republican Party of Florida back in January to hold the primary later in the year.

“As Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus reminds Florida’s Republican leaders of the penalties they would face unless they change the presidential primary date, today I am renewing my call for bi-partisan cooperation on this issue,” said Smith. “While changing the date of the primary would require action by the Republican Legislature and governor, I am confident that we can make this happen given the governor’s expressed desire to hold the primary as early as possible without losing delegates.”

Florida will continue to be a factor in what eventual shape the 2012 presidential primary calendar will take. And Smith is right to put this on the Republican-controlled state legislature (and Governor Scott). They hold all the cards on the decision of when the state's presidential primary will be scheduled (or if there will be a change from the current January 31, 2012 date). The legislature convenes next month.

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

RNC chairman urges Legislature: no early primaries, please

From the St. Petersburg Times on RNC Chair Reince Priebus' trip to central Florida this week:

The new chairman of the Republican National Committee Wednesday urged Florida lawmakers not to hold an early presidential primary in 2012 in violation of RNC rules.

Here's what new RNC chairman Reince Priebus said on the subject after a meeting in Tampa with members of the local Host Committee for the 2012 GOP convention:

"We're doing everything we can at the Republican National Committee to fulfill our promise to try and get presidential primaries on track with some semblance of order. One of the things that we did is that we've put together a primary schedule for the presidentials which protects four early state primaries in February" — Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada — "but then moves all the other states out of the February window to a date on or after March 1.

"In the March 1 window," he added, "that is to be a proportional-type delegate award system. And then in the April window, that is a potentially winner-take-all, if the state chooses so, delegate award system.

"As far as Florida is concerned, I would do encourage the Legislature to do everything they can to abide by the rules passed by both the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee together to make sure we can bring some order into the presidential election process," Priebus said.

The scheduling of Florida's primary is something Priebus, elected two weeks ago to replace former RNC chairman Michael Steele, said he has already discussed with Florida Gov. Rick Scott. Asked whether Scott told Priebus that he wanted a primary as early as possible without losing delegates, the RNC chairman declined further comment.

"I just don't feel at liberty to talk about a private conversation with the governor," he said.

Your move Florida legislature.

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Virginia Senate Bill to Move Primary to March Passes

SB 1246, the Virginia Senate bill to move the commonwealth's 2012 presidential primary from the second Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March, overwhelmingly passed the chamber today. Senator Vogel's (R) bill made it through the Senate with only one dissenting vote (39Y, 1N). As FHQ pointed out this morning, this clears the way for consideration of the one bill that is now before the House of Delegates. HB 1667, which would have changed the date of the presidential primary as well as reduced the petition signature requirement was incorporated into HB 1843 (the same bill as SB 1246) by voice vote in the subcommittee of the House Privileges and Elections Committee. HB 1843 subsequently emerged from that subcommittee with a unanimous (6Y, 0N) recommendation for reporting to the full committee with amendments.

As Virginia's state legislature is only in session until February 26, this bill, if it is going to be passed, is likely to move quickly.

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Vote on Primary Bill Should Come in VA Senate Today, Hearings in WA & CA Later in the Week

Yesterday, SB 1246 received its second reading (consideration of amendments if any) and was engrossed, clearing the way for an up or down vote on the measure in the state Senate to shift Virginia's 2012 presidential primary from the second Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March. That vote should come, barring other pressing business, some time today. The clearest way for this bill to pass is if its companion in the House of Delegates (the exact same bill), HB 1843, is passed and largely avoids the problem of any hiccups in conference. The next stop would be Governor Bob McDonnell's desk. And if the preliminary votes in the Senate are any indication, this bill has bipartisan support and would be difficult for the governor to ignore.

Later this week, there will also be public hearings on the bills in Washington and California. The Washington Senate bill, SB 5119, passed its first hurdle, receiving a "Do Pass" designation from the Governmental Operations, Tribal Affairs and Elections Committee, and was subsequently referred to Ways and Means which will hold the hearing on Thursday, February 3.

On the same day, California's Assembly committee on elections is due to hold a public hearing on AB 80, the legislation that would eliminate the separate presidential primary in California and place it in June with the primaries for state and local offices. That status tracker has said "may be heard in committee February 3" since it was introduced. However, I spoke with someone from the LA Times yesterday about the 2012 calendar and the California bill who is planning on covering the hearing on Thursday. No, that doesn't cement that hearing time, but it does add more certainty to it.

Both hearings will be interesting to follow from the standpoint of the pros and cons arguments that are likely to be made. Washington's state parties have scarcely utilized the state's presidential primary system for allocating delegates, and the move there is somewhat understandable from a financial perspective. And certainly there are financial concerns with the California bill as well, but the most populous state in the country would be giving up quite a position and some influence over the nomination in the process by moving. Despite the fact that California was behind the several January states and among the Super Tuesday logjam, it was still the fifth most visited state (by the candidates) overall in the 2008 cycle.*

*[Now, visits are only one metric we could use to quantify attention paid to the states, and thus, potential influence that state has over the race. One could also look at spending in each state or ad buys. The latter has been used more often lately as the matching fund system crumbled and it became more difficult to ascertain where candidates were actually spending, not raising, their money.]

CORRECTION (2/2/11): The California Assembly's Elections and Redistricting Committee -- to committee to which AB 80 has been referred -- does not have a hearing scheduled for February 3 to discuss that legislation. It should be noted that the committee meets regularly on the first and third Tuesday of every month at 1:30pm. Yesterday would have been the first opportunity for the committee to have addressed this bill and it will not have another chance until February 15 according to that schedule. Thanks to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for keeping FHQ apprised of the situation.

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

DC to Move Back? Up?

Early indications from the Council of the District of Columbia are that a bill will be introduced to move the district's primary to early July 2012. No, not the presidential primary necessarily, but the primaries for other local and district-wide offices. There has been some push by the DC Board of Elections and Ethics to hold the presidential primary concurrently with the other primaries -- more than likely as a cost-saving measure like what California and New Jersey are attempting to do.

The problem with a July presidential primary is that it falls outside of the party-designated window in which primaries and caucuses can be held. Either the two sets of primaries will continue to be held separately or the two will be held together but slightly earlier so as to fall inside the window. And while the presidential primary may remain separate from the other primaries, the move to July (from the traditional September timing) is fairly significant. It would keep DC in line with the federally-passed MOVE act.

Regardless, this July timing is seen as a starting point.

[It should also be noted that DC held its 2008 presidential primary in conjunction with Maryland and Virginia on February 12, the week after Super Tuesday. Virginia has three bills proposed in its state legislature to move the commonwealth's primary back to March and Maryland has yet to act, though there has been some talk about when the 2012 primary will be held.]

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.