than an ad urging the support or defeat of a candidate, it could not be banned. Private Funding of Federal Election Campaigns FECA illustrates the way that election- campaign-finance laws work. FECA requires that candidates for federal office form a cam- paign committee and a campaign fund and that they disclose campaign contributions to the Federal Election Commission. A candidate is subject to these requirements if the candidate or his or her authorized agent has received campaign contributions totaling more than $5,000 or has made campaign expenditures totaling more than $5,000. Most campaigns for federal office cost considerably more than $5,000, so most candidates are subject to the financial-reporting requirements set by the act. FECA places dollar limits on campaign contributions. For the 2009–2010 campaign cycle, for example, no person may contribute more than $2,400 per elect ion to a candidate’s campaign committee. No person may contrib- ute more than $30,400 in one calendar year to a candidate through the candidate’s national political committee, and no more than $10,000 may be contributed to other political commit- tees (§ 441a[2][3]). The act also places special limits on contributions by national banks, corporations, labor organizations, and govern- ment contractors (§§ 441b, 441c). A person may contribute unlimited sums of money to the state and national committees of a political party, but only if those sums are for the benefit of the party in general. If a contribution is intended to fund a candidate’s campaign directly, the contribution will be subjec t to the limits set by the act. FECA makes several exceptions to the limits on contributions made directly to a candidate’s campaign committee. It excludes from the definition of contribution assistance such as the donation of real property, of services, and of funds to buy promotional materials such as bumper stickers, handbills, and poste rs (§ 431[8][B]). The act also creates a limited exception to limits for contributions to state and national committees of a political party. Under § 441a(d) (1)(2), the natio nal committee of a political party may contribute to its presidential candi- date an amount equal to two cents multiplied by the number of people of voting age in the United States. The national and state commit- tees of a political party may contribute to a Senate candidate an amount equal to two cents multiplied by the number of people of voting age in the candidate’s home state, or at least $20,000. A House of Representatives candidate may receive $10,000 from the national and state committees of his or her political party. Critics argue that FECA strengthens the domination of the two major political parties. By limiting an individual’s direct contributions to a candidate, the act prevents minor parties from amassing enough funds to gain ground on the two major parties. The Democratic and Republican parties can survive such limitations because they have large numbers of contribu- tors. According to some critics, they have large numbers of contributors because they have the power to give political favors. Minor parties, by definition, begin their missions with fewer supporters and have no political favors to bestow. With contribution limits on their few supporters, minor parties have few opportu- nities to mount serious challenges to the major- party candidates. Other critics of FECA focus on the reporting and bookkeeping responsibilities required by the act and the sheer complexity of the law. Minor parties, with their meager funds, have difficulty in managing the detailed records and reporting requirements, and in paying for the legal assista nce that they need in order to comply with the law. By comparison, major parties possess enough experience and support staff to surmount the demands of the act. “Soft” money is another concern for critics of FECA. In the context of political campaigns, soft money is cash that is given to a political party, not directly to a candidate. There is no limit to the amount that a person or organiza- tion may give to a political party. Political parties may use the contributions that they receive to benefit themselves generally; they may not use those contributions to benefit one particular candidate. There are, however, effec- tive detours around this roadblock. For exam- ple, a party may run a television advertisement that criticizes the opponent of a particular candidate. The money spent by the party on such a commercial will not be listed as a direct contribution to the party’s candidate if the advertisement does not mention the party’s own GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCING 99 candidate. Major-party candidates, with this kind of help from the national and state committees of their party, benefit from this practice more frequently than do minor-party candidates. Defenders of FECA note that the major parties are subjected to the same requirements as are the minor parties. They also point out that nothing in the act prevents the large numbers of people who contribute to the major parties from switching and contributing to minor parties. Public Funding of Presidential Campaigns Some presidential candidates may receive fed- eral tax dollars to fund their campaigns. Federal funding for presidential campaigns comes in three forms: general-election grants, given to individual candidates; matching funds, given to nominated candidates for primary campaig ns; and funding provided to parties for their nominating conventions. Under the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act (Fund Act) (26 U.S.C.A. §§ 9001-9013), Should Campaign Financing Be Reformed? T he 1996 presidential and congres- sional elections revealed the grow- ing amount of private money that businesses, unions, and individuals con- tribute to political campaigns. Congres- sional hearings in 1997 revealed that the Democratic National Committee had solicited and received contributions from questionable sources. Despite these revela- tions, many members of Congress did not see any reason to reform federal campaign finance laws. Nevertheless, Congress con- sidered a series of bills proposed by JOHN MCCAIN (R-Ariz.), a presidential candidate himself in 2000, and Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) from 1998 through 2002 that finally led to the enactment of the Biparti- san Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (Pub. L. No. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81 [2 U.S.C.A. § 431 et seq.]), commonly known as the McCain-Feingold bill. The debate over campaign financing was initially framed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Buckley v. Valeo (424 U.S. 1, 96 S. Ct. 912, 46 L. Ed. 2d 659 [1976]). The Court ruled that provi- sions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), (2 U.S.C.A. §§ 431– 456), which sets mandatory limits on the amount of money a candidate may spend in a campaign, violated the FIRST AMEND- MENT . Though the Court upheld the provisions of FECA that set disclosure requirements, private contribution lim- its, and public funding of qualified presidential candidates, the elimination of mandatory spending limits meant that campaign costs and the funds to pay for them steadily escalated thereafter. Soft Money The most troubling issue for reformers has been the growing importance of soft money (money given to a party to further the party rather than a particular candidate). U.S. corporations and unions provided unprecedented amounts of soft-money contributions during the 1996 and 2000 election cycles. At the same time, the FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION had its budget cut, making the commission virtually helpless to prevent the parties from skirting existing campaign finance laws. In light of the impact soft money made on elections, reformers believed soft money must either be eliminated or severely limited. The McCain-Feingold legislation im- posed a soft money ban on all federal elections. It also limited the amount of soft money contributors may give to state, district, and local committees. The ban on soft money was one of the highlights in the legislation, but it was expected to come under attack in light of Buckley v. Valeo. Critics of the soft- money ban argue that the contribution of money to political parties is a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment. Lawsuits were filed chal- lenging the soft money provision as well as other parts of the act. The Supreme Court, in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (540 U.S. 93, 124 S. Ct. 619, 157 L. Ed. 2d 491 [2003]), upheld most of the act’s provisions. The McCain-Feingold legislation ac- tually increased the amount of “hard” money that individuals and other sup- porters could contribute. The amount of money individuals might contribute to state parties in federal elections increased from $5,000 to $10,000. The total amount these individuals might contrib- ute to federal candidates, parties, and other organizations increased from $25,000 to $30,000. Campaign Spending Limits Expen- ditures for advertisements on television and radio have steadily increased. Some reformers believe that government- licensed forms of communications should provide significant amounts of free airtime to candidates. Free airtime, reformers argue, would reduce the cost of campaigns and dramatically ease the need to raise millions of dollars. Televi- sion and radio stations are adamantly opposed to such a proposal, contending GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 100 ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCING presidential candidates must meet certain stan- dards in order to obtain federal tax money for their campaigns. The Fund Act distinguishes between major-party candidates and minor- party candidates. For purposes of the act, a major party is defined as any political party that received at least 25 percent of the popular vote in the previous presidential election. A minor party is defined as a political party that received less than 25 percent but more than 5 percent of the popular vote in the previous presidential election. Under the Fund Act, a presidential candi- date from a major party is entitled to a general- election grant of $20 million plus cost-of-living expenses. In 1996 this amount totaled more than $60 million each for President BILL CLINTON and REPUBLICAN PARTY nominee Bob Dole. This number increased to more than $67.5 million for the 2000 presidential election between GEORGE W. BUSH and AL GORE,and$74.5millionbetween President Bush and John Kerry. BARACK OBAMA declined federal funds in the 2008 election, relying on an aggressive fundraising effort that produced that it would be unfair to place the burden of reform on their industry. Some reformers believe limiting pri- vate campaign contributions or spending is not the best way to improve the political system. These reformers advocate full disclosure of all funding sources. Politi- cians would have to document on a daily basis the source and size of every contri- bution, including donated labor and equipment. Critics of the full disclosure require- ments have stated their beliefs that this approach is unrealistic, because it could create a serious record-keeping problem. Documenting all contributions costs time and money and could be particu- larly hard on smaller groups that cannot afford to hire legal advisors and support staffs to track donations on a daily basis. PAC Reform Many advocates of re- form, including liberal PUBLIC INTEREST groups and politicians, argue that a ban or strict limitations be placed on money that comes from Political Action Com- mittees (PACs). One of the reasons for limiting or banning PAC money is that PAC campaign contributions are biased toward incumbents, which has serious implications for competitiveness in elec- tions. PAC contributors are more likely to give to incumbents because they want to preserve an existing relationship or create a new one. Because of the high cost of campaigns, PACs give incum- bents a head start over challengers. Critics of placing more restrictions on PACs, or banning them completely, contend that such “reform” would fur- ther concentrate power in the hands of government, particularly those already in office. Campaign contributions can be viewed as “protection ” money, according to these observers. Without PAC dollars, politicians would have less incentive to look at issues put forward by individuals and interest groups. One form of contribution on media outlets began to appear in the form of advertisements paid for by unions and corporations. Many of these advertise- ments were not covered by the FECA because they did not explicitly endorse a candidate for office. These entities spent large amounts of money on these adver- tisements without disclosure. The McCain-Feingold legislation placed dis- closure requirements on all contributors who spend more than $10,000 on com- mercials showing the name or likeness of a candidate within a prescribed period of time prior to an election. The Supreme Court, in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (551 U.S. 449, 127 S. Ct. 2652, 2674 [2007]), struck down the act’sbanonissueadvertisements30 days preceding a primary election or 60 days preceding a general election. Foreign Contributions Reformers also seek better ways to prevent the possible influence of foreign business interests on the federal government. The disclosures about the way foreign con- tributions were obtained since the 1996 election cycle have led reformers to seek a complete ban on foreign gifts. Critics of an outright ban on foreign contributions point out that this com- plex issue was considered and rejected by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in 1991. The FEC rejected a proposal to prohibit companies that were more than 50 percent foreign owned from establish- ing corporate PACs. The commission reasoned that with businesses becoming more global, it is difficult to judge whether a company is foreign or domes- tic. U.S. companies may have ownership in a foreign business, which then has a U.S. subsidiary, making it unclear whe- ther the subsidiary is a foreign or a domestics company. Enforcement would be difficult and a ban would raise a constitutional issue. U.S. citizens work- ing for a foreign subsidiary in the United States are entitled to participate as fully in the U.S. political process as their colleagues working for a company that is completely U.S owned. Workers at a U.S. Ford plant should not have more rights than workers at a U.S. Honda plant, the FEC concluded. FURTHER READINGS Baran, Jan Witold. 2002. The Election Law Primer for Corporations. Chicago: American Bar Association. Lowenstein, Daniel Hays, and Richard L. Hasen. 2001. Election Law: Cases and Materials. Durham, N.C.: Carolina Aca- demic Press. CROSS REFERENCES Elections; McCain, John Sidn ey. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCING 101 a record $750 million. Senator John McCain received $85 million from federal grant money. Minor-party presidential candidates may receive a general-election grant only if their party had a candidate on the ballot in at least ten states in the previous presidential election, and if that candidate won at least 5 percent of the popular vote. If a minor-party candidate qualifies, the election grant is equal to the total amount of the general-election grants received by the major-party candidates in the previous presidential election, multiplied by the percent- age of popular votes received by the minor- party candidate, divided by the percentage of popular votes received by the two major-party candidates. To illustrate, assume that each of the two major-party candidates received $50 mil- lion under the act in the previous election. The minor-party candidate received 5 percent of the popular vote, and the major-party candidates together received 95 percent of the popular vote. The minor-party candidate will receive $1 for every $19 received by the major-party candidates, or about $5.3 million. Some presidential candidates may qualify for additional taxpayer funding for their campaigns. Under 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 9031-9042, the Federal Election Commission may authorize funds to presidential candidates who participat- ed in their party primaries. Under the act, the presidential-campaig n fund matches every con- tribution of $250 or less that was given to the candidate during the primaries. To qualify for these matching funds, a presidential candidate must receive at least $5,000 in contributions from contributors in at least 20 different states. Only contributions of $250 or less may be counted in reaching the $5,000 threshold. Under the matching-funds provision, no candidate may spend more than a specified amount in each state’s primary election cam- paign. If a presidential candidate is eligible for matching funds and decides to claim them, the candidate may spend no more than $50,000 of his or her own money on the campaign. Candidates must keep specific records and must submit them to the commission for audit. No distinction is made between major and minor parties in determining whether a candidate qualifies for federal matching funds. Finally, under Section 9008, a political party may receive taxpayer funds to pay for its political convention. Major parties are entitled to receive public funds for their conventions. In 2008 the Democratic and Republican Parties each received more than $16 million for their conventions. A minor party is entitled to the same amount that its candidate received under the Fund Act. For the vast majority of minor political parties, this amount is zero, because most minor-party presidential candidates re- ceive less than 5 percent of the popular vote. Like private fun ding, public funding for presidential campaigns is criticized as being biased towa rd the two major parties. Under the Fund Act, major-party candidates and their parties receive more money than do minor- party candidates and their parties. With more money, major-party candidates can spend more on support staff, advertising, traveling, and personal appearances. By creating these advan- tages, the federal funding scheme, according to critics, ensures the continued success of the two major parties in presidential campaigns and the continued failure of minor-party candidates. Generally, advocates of the funding scheme for presidential candidates concede that it favors the two major parties. However, they insist that it should not be expensive for popular candi- dates to run for president and that public funding is necessary to ensure that it is not. Defenders note further that the funding scheme does not restrict access to ballots and that it does not prevent people from voting for the candidate of their choice. Finally, according to defenders of the funding scheme, any claim that the scheme is responsible for the inability of minor parties to win presidential elections is speculative. As the Supreme Court stated in Buckley, “[T]he inability, if any, of minor-party candidates to wage effective campaigns will derive not from lack of public funding but from their inability to raise private contributions.” FURTHER READINGS Currinder, Marian. 2008. Money in the House: Campaign Funds and Congressional Party Politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. LaRaja, Raymond J. 2008. Small Change: Money, Political Parties, and Campaign Finance Reform. Lansing: Univ. of Michigan Press. Pinaire, Brian. 2008.The Constitution of Electoral Speech. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Law Books. CROSS REFEREN CES Democratic Party; Elections; Independent Parties; Republi- can Party. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 102 ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCING ELECTION OF REMEDIES The liberty of choosing (or the act of choosing) one out of several means afforded by law for the redress of an injury, or one out of several available forms of action. An election of remedies arises when one having two coexistent but inconsistent remedies chooses to exercise one, in which event she or he loses the right to thereafter exercise the other. Doctrine provides that if two or more remedies exist that are repugnant and inconsistent with one another, a party will be bound if he or she has chosen one of them. The doctrine of the election of remedies was developed to prevent a PLAINTIFF from a double recovery for a loss, making the person pursue only one remedy in an action. Although its application is not restricted to any particular CAUSE OF ACTION, it is most commonly employed in contract cases involving FRAUD, which is a MISREPRESENTATION of a material fact that is intended to deceive a person who relies on it. A plaintiff can sue for either damages, thereby acknowledging the contrac t and recovering the difference between the co ntract price and the actual value of the subject of the contract, or rescission—annulment—of the contract and the return of what has been paid under its provisions, restoring the plaintiff to the position he or she would occupy had the contract never been made. If a plaintiff sought both damages and rescission, the person would be asking a court to acknowledge and enforce the existence of a contract while simultaneously requesting its unmaking—two inconsistent demands. The granting of both remedies would result in the plaintiff recovering the difference between the contract price and actual value as well as what was paid to the DEFENDANT. The person would, therefore, earn a profit by the defen- dant’s wrongful conduct against him or her, since the person would have more than he or she had when entering the contract. Once a plaintiff elects a remedy, he or she precludes the pursuit of other inconsistent methods of relief. Not all jurisdictions require a plaintiff to elect remedies, and many have abolished this requirement because of its some- times harsh effects. In the jurisdictions that retain the election of remedies, a plaintiff usually must choose a remedy early in the action. Since an election can be made by conduct, a plaintiff who does not take affirmative steps in designat- ing a remedy is often deemed to have done so by inactivity. For example, a court may preclude a plaintiff from rescission if there has been an unreasonable lapse of time from the time of injury until the time of the commencement of the action. The only remedy available to the person in such a situation is to seek damages. Although a revocation would not adversely affect the rights of a defendant, a plaintiff cannot revoke an election and seek another means of relief. In some jurisdictions, an election does not compensate a plaintiff for all his or her losses. A plaintiff who elects to rescind a contract—as opposed to suing for damages for its breach—might not recover any expenses incurred in the transaction that were not paid to the defendant. Such expenses would be considered damages, a remedy from which the plaintiff is precluded by his or her election of the remedy of rescission. ELECTIONS The processes of voting to decide a public question or to select one person from a designated group to perform certain obligations in a government, corporation, or society. Elections are commonly understood as the processes of voting for public office or PUBLIC POLICY , but they also are used to choose leaders and to settle policy questions in private organizations, such as corporatio ns, labor unions, and religious groups. They also take place within specific government bodies. For example, the U.S. House of Representatives and state legislatures elect their own leaders. In elections, a candidate is a person who is selected by others as a contestant. A ballot is anything that a voter uses to express his or her choice, such as a paper and pen or a lever on a machine. A poll is the place where a voter casts his or her ballot. For government policy and leadership, a general election is commonly understood as a process of voting that regularly occurs at specified intervals. For national elections, Con- gress has designated the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as election day. A special election is held under special circum- stances. For example, if an elected official dies or resigns from office during her or his term, a special election may be held before the next scheduled general election for the office. The free election of government leaders is a relatively recent practice. Until the eighteenth century, leaders gained political power through insurrection and birthright. Political thought GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION ELECTIONS 103 changed dramatically in eighteenth-century Europe, where industrial progress inspired the reconsideration of individual rights and gov- ernment. The notion that government leaders should be chosen by the governed was an important product of that movement. The United States held its first presidential election on February 4, 1789. In that election, GEORGE WASHINGTON was chosen U.S. president by a small, unanimous vote of electors. Since its infancy, the United States has held elections to decide who will assume public offices, such as the offices of the president and vice president, U.S. senators and representatives, and state and local legislators. Individual states have also held elec- tions for a wide range of other government officials, such as judges, attorneys general, district attorneys, public school officials, and police chiefs. Elections for public offices are governed by federal and state laws. Article I of the U.S. Constitution requires that a congressional election be held every two years and that senators be electe d every six years. Article II provides that a president and a vice president shall be electe d for a four-year term. In 1951, the states ratified the TWENTY-SECOND AMEND- MENT , which provides that no person may serve as president more than twice. For the federal oversight of national elec- tions for public office, Congress created the FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION (FEC) with 1974 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C.A. §§ 431 et seq.). The FEC provides for the public financing of presidential elections. It also tracks and reveals the amounts and sources of money used by candidates for national office and their political action com- mittees (PACs). The FEC enforces the limits on financial contributions to, and expenditures of, those candidates and committees. To receive FEC funding, PACs must register with the FEC. States regulate many aspects of government elections, including eligibility requirements for candidates, eligibility requirements for voters, and the date on which state and local elections are held. U.S. citizens have the right to form and operate political parties, but the state legislature may regulate that right. For example, a candi- date may not be placed on an election ballot unless he or she has registered with the state election board. Many states maintain stringent requirements for would-be candidates, such as sponsorship by a certain number of voters on a petition. A monetary deposit also might be required. Such a deposit may be forfeited if the candidate fails to garner a certain proportion of the vote in the election. In the early 1990s, 15 states passed legisla- tion that limited the tenure of U.S. senators and representatives. In 1995 these “term-limit” measures were declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. In United States Term Limits v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 115 S. Ct. 1842, 131 L. Ed. 2d 881 (1995), the state of Arkansas had amended its constitution to preclude persons who had served a certain number of terms in the U.S. Congress from placing their names in future congressional elections. Arkansas cited Article I, Section 4, Clause 1, of the U.S. Cons titution for support. This clause allows that “[t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.” Arkansas further argued that its amendment merely restricted ballot access and was not an outright disqualification of congressional incumbents. The Supreme Court disagreed with Arkan- sas. In a 5–4 opinion, the Court rejected the constitutionality of any term-limits legislation. According to the majority, the only qualifica- tions for U.S. congressional office were con- tained in two constitutional clauses. Article I, A voting machine used in the 2000 presidential election on display at the West Palm Beach County Government Center. AP IMAGES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION 104 ELECTIONS Section 2, Clause 2, of the U.S. Constitution provides that a representative shall be at least 25 years of age, a citizen of the United States for at least seven years, and a resident of the represented state at the time of the election. Article I, Section 3, Clause 3, states that a senator shall be at least 30 years of age, a citizen of the United States for at least nine years, and an inhabitant of the represented state when elected. These provisions, according to the Court, were designed to be the only qualifications fo r U.S. congressional office, and any additional qualifi- cations are unconstitutional. (Although the Constitution prohibits term limits for the U.S. Congress, it does not prevent states from setting term limits for their own legislatures.) Administration of Government Elections No state may abridge voting guarantees of the U.S. Constitution. Under the Constitution’s TWENTY-FOURTH AMENDMENT, for example, no state may make the payment of a POLL TAX or other tax a requirement for voting privileges. Under the FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT, states may not deny the right to vote based on “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” The NINETEENTH AMENDMENT prevents states from denying or abridging the right to vote based on sex. Voters register with a precinct, which is a local voting district. Registration must be accomplished in the manner prescribed by state statute. The polling place may be any structure authorized by the state to serve as such. All states allow ABSENTEE VOTING for persons who cannot be present in their precinct on election day. Voting is secret, whether by absentee ballot or at the polls. Election officials are charged with the supervision of voting. In some states, voters indicate their preferences by pulling a lever in a voting machine; in other states, they use a paper and pen. At the end of the voting day, election officials count, or canvass, the results and report them to city or county officials or to the state board of elections. The complete results are filed with the SECRETARY OF STATE or some other designated state-government official. The can- didate with the most votes is then declared the Voter Turnout in Presidential Elections, 1996 to 2008 0 50 100 150 200 250 193.6 127.7 105.0 1996 202.6 129.5 110.8 2000 215.7 142.1 125.7 2004 225.5 146.3 131.1 2008 Year Number of persons (in millions) SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, “Voting and Registration,” available online at http://www .census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voting.html (accessed on August 14, 2009). Voting-age population Voter registration Voter turnout ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION ELECTIONS 105 winner of the election. This process is called a “direct election” because the winner is deter- mined by a straight count of the popular vote. The election of a president and vice president usually occurs by indirect election. That is, the winner is usually determined not by a popular vote but by an electoral vote. Each state has a certain number of electors, is equal to the total number of senators and representatives to which the state is entitled in Congress. In theory, an elector may vote for whomever he or she wants, but in practice, electors vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state. Primaries and Conventions A political party is entitled to nominate candidates for public office, subject to regula- tion by Cong ress and state legislatures. The nominating process is accomplished through a system of primaries, caucuses, and nominating conventions. The process varies from state to state, but generally, primaries and caucuses produce delegates who later cast votes at a nominating convention held several weeks or months before Election Day. Political parties hold nominating conventions at the local, state, and national levels to choose candidates for public office in the upcoming elections. A primary is a preliminary election held by a political party before the actual election, to determine its candidates. A primary may be open or closed. An open primary is one in which all registered voters may participate. The number of delegates a candidate receives is then based on the candidate’s performance. In some states, the winner of the popular vote wins all the delegates available to the state at the nominating convention. In other states, candi- dates receive a portion of delegates based on their respective showings. In a closed primary, only voters who have declared their allegiance to the party may vote. Closed primaries may be indirect or direct. In an indirect, closed primary, party voters only elect delegates who later vote for the party’s candidates at a nominating convention. In a direct, closed primary, party voters actually decide who will be the party’scandidates,and then choose delegates only to communicate that decision at the nominating convention. In some states (e.g., Iowa), political parties use a caucus system, instead of a primary system, to determine which candidates to support. A caucus is a local meeting of registered party members. The manner in which delegates are chosen at these caucuses varie s widely from state to state. In some states, each party member who attends the caucus is entitled to one vote for each office. The caucus then produces an allotment of delegates based on the popular vote in the caucus, and these delegates later represent the caucus in the county, legislative district, state, and national conven- tions. In other states, those who attend the caucus vote for delegates who pledge their support for certain candidates. These delegates then represent the caucus at the party’s nominating conventions. At a convention, delegates vote to deter- mine who will emerge as the party’s candidate. Usually, if no candidate wins a majority of th e delegates on the first round, delegates are free to vote for a candidate other than the one whom they originally chose to support. More often than not, candidates have garnered sufficient delegates in the primaries and caucuses before the nominating convention to win the nomination. Where particular nomi- nations are assured prior to the convention, the convention becomes a perfunctory celebration of the party policies, and an advertising v ehicle for the nominated candidates. Conflicts over nomination procedures often arise within a political party. In 1991 the Freedom Republicans, a group representing minority members of the REPUBLICAN PARTY, launched an attack on the party’s allocation of delegates among the states. Since 1916 the Republican Party had employed a bonus- delegate system as a method of determining delegate representation at its national convention for nominating presidential candidates. Under that system, each state received a number of delegates equal to three times its ELECTORAL COLLEGE vote. States that elected Republican presidents, senators, representatives, and gover- nors then received an additional allotment of delegates. The bonus delegate system gave certain Republican-dominated states a greater say in choosing the party’s presidential candidate. According to the Freedom Republicans, the bonus-delegate system reduced the repre- sentation of minority interests within the party because minority members often came from Democrat-dominated states. The largely rural, Republican-dominated, western states con- tained small m inori ty po pulatio ns, so minori- ties were poorly represented in the Republican delegate system. The Free dom Republicans sued the FEC under Title VI of the CIVIL RIGHTS GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 106 ELECTIONS Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000d) in an attempt to stop FEC funding of the Republican National Convention. The U.S. district court for the District of Columbia ordered the FEC to create and enforce regulations governing the selection of delegates to the publicly funded national nominating conventions of political parties. On appeal by the FEC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the order. The appeals court held that the connection between the FEC funding and the Republican delegate scheme was insufficient to hold the FEC accountable for the delegate scheme. According to the court, it was also unlikely that the Republican party would change its delegate scheme i f funding were withheld (Freedom Republicans, Inc. v. Federal Election Commission, 13 F. 3d 412 [D.C. Cir. 1994]). The FIRST AMENDMENT protects against a state’s intrusion on the governance or structure of a political party. However, courts have held that states have the right to enact reasonable regulations of parties, elections, and campaign- related disorder. The U.S. Supreme Court in Timmons v. Twin Cities Area NEW PARTY, 520 U.S. 351, 117 S. Ct. 1364, 137 L. Ed. 2d 589 (1997) held that states may lawfully prohibit candidates from appearing on a ballot as the candidate of more than one political party. In 1994 Minnesota State Representative Andy Dawkins ran unopposed for office. Two different political parties, the Democratic- Farmer-Labor party and New Party, wanted him to run on their ballots, which he agreed to do. Local election officials, citing so-called “anti-fusion” laws, refused to place Dawkins on the ballot under the “fused” parties. The New Party, a minor political party, brought suit, alleging that the anti-fusion law violated its First Amendment associational rights. Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit agreed that the system was unconstitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed, finding that the state of Minnesota had “important regulatory interests” in forbid- ding a candidate from appearing on the same ballot. The Court, per Chief Justice WILLIAM REHNQUIST , noted that a party does not have the absolute right to have its nominee appear on the ballot as a candidate, and that the anti-fusion law did not impose a severe burden on the New Party. The Court also rejected the New Party’s contention that this law interfered with the ability of a minor party to take part in the election process. Initiatives and Referendums The voting results on important questions of public policy are commonly known as “refer- endums” or “propositions.” These results decide whether a policy becomes law or whether a state constitution will be revised or amended. An initiative is the bringing about of legislative or constitutional changes through the filing of formal petitions. If an initiative is supported by a certain percentage of the population, it may be included on an election ballot for public approval. Referendums and initiatives allow for the development of legislation independent of formal legislative processes. Not all state consti- tutions provide for referendums and initiatives. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Buckley v. American CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Foundation, Inc., 525 U.S. 182, 119 S. Ct. 636, 142 L. Ed. 2d 599 (1999), considered the constitutionality of a series of controls on the petition process for placing initiatives on the ballot in the state of Colorado. The controls included requirements that the individuals who circulated petitions were registered voters and that those who circulated petitions wear badges indicating whether they were volunteers or paid employees (and, if they were paid employees, the names and telephone numbers of their employers). Although states may place certain limitations on these ballots and initiatives, the Court held that the particular limitations in Colorado violated the First Amend- ment associational rights of the petitioners. In 2003 California voters engaged in a special election to recall governor Gray Davi s, who was serving the first year of his second term. However, Davis was buried in controversy and low approval ratings amid a staggering state deficit and questions about the propriety of his taxing and spending habits. The special election, held under California law that required a minimum number of signatures to petition the recall, resulted in Davis being ousted and replaced with Arnold Schwarzenegger. Campaigns A campaign is the time preceding an election that a candidate uses for promotion. Election campaigns for public offices in the United States have evolved into complex, expensive affairs. Candidates rely on a variety of support, from GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION ELECTIONS 107 financial contributions to marketing and cam- paign specialists. Elections for national office require large sums of money for advertising and travel. Local elections also favor candidates who are well financed. Historically, the money needed for successful campaigns has come from major political parties, such as the Republican and Democratic parties. After the 2008 national elections, it appeared clear that no future national campaign could survive without a strong INTERNET presence. During the months preceding those elections, the top national candidates had developed their strategies for persuading voters through the Internet. As the Democratic and Republican presidential primaries raged on in December and January, a survey showed that 24 percent of all adults regularly used the Internet to learn about the presidential race. This number was merely 9 percent in 2000 and 13 percent in 2004. In the same survey, respondents said that they used more traditional sources less frequently. For example, use of a daily newspaper as a main source of information for campaign news fell from 40 percent in 2000 to 31 percent in 2008. Likewise, only 40 percent of those responding said they relied on local television news for campaign news. In 2000 the number was 48 percent. Barack Obama’s successful campaign is credited in part to his campaign team’s creative use of the Internet. Campaign Financing Reform The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), 116 Stat.91 (also kno wn as the McCain-Feingold Act, named after its bipartisan sponsors) was ostensibly created to assuage the general public’s growing wariness and distrust of “special-interest groups” and the widely held perception of their influence and control over political election processes. Various provisions of the Act address these and related issues. The Act is enforced by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The well-intentioned Act has been the subject of several lawsuits regarding the scope of its restrictions. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 2007 opinion approaching 100 pages, affirmed a lower district court’s ruling that §203 of the Act was unconstitutional as applied to three televi- sion advertisements paid for and sponsored by the Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL in 2004. Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, No. 06-969, 551 U.S. 449 (2007). Section §203 of the Act prohibits corpora- tions and labor unions from using their corporate or general funds to pay for political “electioneering communications,” including certain paid political advertisements. Technically, Section 201 of the BCRA defines “electioneering communications” as any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that refers to a candidate for federal office and that is broadcast within 30 days of a federal primary election or 60 days of a federal general election in the jurisdiction in which that candidate is running for office. 2USC434(f)(3). WRTL did not dispute that the advertise- ments were covered by the BCRA’s definition of prohibited “electioneering communications,” which had previously withstood constitutional challenge in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93, (2003). Instead, the WRTL argued that the BCRA could not be applied to its advertisements because they constituted “grassroots lobbying advertisements” not related to electoral campaigning. The com- munications merely encouraged citizens to contact Congress to influence legislation, and not to influence the electoral process. The district court, on remand, agreed, and the Supreme Court affirmed. Some states have sought to place limitations on contributions received by individual political candidates. In Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Govern- ment PAC, 528 U.S. 327, 120 S. Ct. 897, 145 L. Ed. 2d 886 (2000), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld limitations that the state of Missouri had placed upon contributions to individual candi- dates for state office, against a challenge that the limitations violated the contributors’ and candidates’ First Amendment rights. (See also Election Campaign Financing.) Criminal Aspects The U.S. Congress and state legislatures prohib- it a wide variety of conduct in connection with elections. It is criminal conduct, for example, for a candidate to promise an appointment to public office in return for campaign contribu- tions (18 U.S.C.A. § 599). Numerous laws prohibit the coercion of voters, including the solicitation of votes in exchange for money, interference with voting rights by armed forces personnel and other government employees, and the intimidation of voters. The enforcement of criminal laws can face the odd challenge on election day. In State v. Stewart, 869 S.W.2d 86 (Mo. App. 1993), GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 108 ELECTIONS . Party. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 102 ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCING ELECTION OF REMEDIES The liberty of choosing (or the act of choosing) one out of several means afforded by law. the FEC under Title VI of the CIVIL RIGHTS GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 106 ELECTIONS Act of 19 64 (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000d) in an attempt to stop FEC funding of the Republican National Convention. The. IMAGES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION 1 04 ELECTIONS Section 2, Clause 2, of the U.S. Constitution provides that a representative shall be at least 25 years of age, a citizen of