<< Chapter < Page Chapter >> Page >
A table titled “Contribution Limits for 2015-2016 Federal Elections”. The rows are labeled “Donors” and the columns are labeled “Recipients”. Under the column “Candidate Committee” are the values “Individual: $2,700* per election”, “Candidate Committee: $2,000 per election”, “PAC-multicandidate: $5,000 per election”, “PAC-Nonmulticandidate: $2,700 per election, “State/District/Local Party Committee: $5,000 per election”, and “National Party Committee: $5,000 per election (3)”. Under the column “PAC (1) (SSF and Nonconnected)” are the values “Individual: $5,000 per year”, “Candidate Committee: $5,000 per year”, “PAC-multicandidate: $5,000 per year”, “PAC-Nonmulticandidate: $5,000 per year”, “State/District/Local Party Committee: $5,000 per year”, and “National Party Committee: $10,000 per year”. Under the column “State/District/Local Party Committee” are the values “Individual: $10,000 per year (combined)”, “Candidate Committee: Unlimited Transfers”, “PAC-multicandidate: $5,000 per year (combined)”, “PAC-Nonmulticandidate: $10,000 per year (combined)”, “State/District/Local Party Committee: Unlimited Transfers”, and “National Party Committee: Unlimited Transfers”. Under the column “National Party Committee” are the values “Individual: $33,400* per year”, “Candidate Committee: Unlimited Transfers”, “PAC-multicandidate: $15,000 per year”, “PAC-Nonmulticandidate: $33,400* per year”, “State/District/Local Party Committee: Unlimited Transfers”, and “National Party Committee: Unlimited Transfers”. Under the column “Additional National party Committee Accounts (2)” are the values “Individual: $100,200* per account, per year”, “PAC-Multicandidate: $45,000 per account, per year”, and “PAC-Nonmulticandidate: $100,200* per account per year”. At the bottom of the table the following footnotes are listed: *Indexed for inflation in odd-numbered years. (1) “PAC” here refers to a committee that makes contributions to other federal political committees. Independent-expenditure-only political committees (sometimes called “super PACs”) may accept unlimited contributions, including from corporations and labor organizations. (2) The limits in this column apply to a national party committee’s accounts for: (i) the presidential nominating convention; (ii) election recounts and contests and other legal proceedings; and (iii) national party headquarters buildings. A party’s national committee, Senate campaign committee and House campaign committee are each considered separate national party committees with separate limits. Only a national party committee, not the parties’ national congressional campaign committees, may have an account for the presidential nominating convention. (3) Additionally, a national party committee and its Senatorial campaign committee may contribute up to $46,800 combined per campaign to each Senate candidate. At the bottom of the table, a source is listed: “Federal Election Commission. “Contribution Limits for 2015-2016 Federal Elections.” June 25, 2015”.
The Federal Election Commission has strict federal election guidelines on who can contribute, to whom, and how much.

Incumbency effects

Not surprisingly, the jungle of campaign financing regulations and loopholes is more easily navigated by incumbents in Congress than by newcomers. Incumbents are elected officials who currently hold an office. The amount of money they raise against their challengers demonstrates their advantage. In 2014, for example, the average Senate incumbent raised $12,144,933, whereas the average challenger raised only $1,223,566.

“Incumbent Advantage,” http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/incumbs.php?cycle=2014 (May 15, 2016).
This is one of the many reasons incumbent    s win a large majority of congressional races each electoral cycle. Incumbents attract more money because people want to give to a winner. In the House, the percentage of incumbents winning reelection has hovered between 85 and 100 percent for the last half century. In the Senate, there is only slightly more variation, given the statewide nature of the race, but it is still a very high majority of incumbents who win reelection ( [link] ). As these rates show, even in the worst political environments, incumbents are very difficult to defeat.

A chart titled “U.S. House and Senate Reelection Rates, 1964-2014”. The X axis is labeled “Election Cycle” and spans from 1964 to 2014. The Y Axis shows percentage reelection rate, and spans from 0% to 100%. Each year contains two bars; one for the House and one for the Senate. In 1964, the House is approximately 90%, and the Senate is approximately 85%. In 1966, the House and the Senate are both at approximately 90%. In 1968, the House is approximately at 95% and the Senate is at approximately 70%. In 1970, The House is approximately at 85%, and the Senate at approximately 75%. In 1972, the House is at approximately 92% and the Senate is at approximately 72%. In 1974, the House is at approximately 90% and the Senate is at approximately 85%. In 1976, the House is at approximately 95% and the Senate is at 62%. In 1978, The House is at approximately 92% and the Senate at approximately 60%. In 1980, the House is at approximately 90%, and the Senate at approximately 55%. In 1982, the House is at approximately 90% and the Senate at approximately 92%. In 1984, the House is at approximately 95%, and the Senate at approximately 90%. In 1986, the House is at approximately 98% and the Senate at approximately 75%. In 1988, the House is at approximately 98% and the Senate at approximately 85%. In 1990, the House and the Senate are both approximately 95%. In 1992, the House is at approximately 85% and the Senate at approximately 82%. In 1994, the House is at approximately 90%, and the Senate at 92%. In 1996, the House is at approximately 95%, and the Senate at approximately 90%. In 1998, the House is at approximately 98% and the Senate at approximately 90%. In 2000, the House is at approximately 97%, and the Senate at approximately 80%. In 2002, the House is at approximately 95%, and the Senate at approximately 85%. In 2004, the House is at approximately 98%, and the Senate at approximately 95%. In 2006, the House is at approximately 95%, and the Senate at approximately 80%. In 2008, the House is at approximately 95%, and the Senate at approximately 82%. In 2010, the House is at approximately 85%, and the Senate at approximately 82%. In 2012, the House is at approximately 90%, and the Senate at approximately 92%. In 2014, the House is at approximately 95%, and the Senate at approximately 80%. At the bottom of the chart, a source is cited: “Opensecrets.org Center for Responsive Politics. ‘Reelection Rates over the Years.’”
Historically, incumbents in both the House and the Senate enjoy high rates of reelection.

The historical difficulty of unseating an incumbent in the House or Senate is often referred to as the incumbent advantage or the incumbency effect . The advantage in financing is a huge part of this effect, but it is not the only important part. Incumbents often have a much higher level of name recognition. All things being equal, voters are far more likely to select the name of the person they recall seeing on television and hearing on the radio for the last few years than the name of a person they hardly know. And donors are more likely to want to give to a proven winner.

But more important is the way the party system itself privileges incumbents. A large percentage of congressional districts across the country are “safe seats” in uncompetitive districts, meaning candidates from a particular party are highly likely to consistently win the seat. This means the functional decision in these elections occurs during the primary, not in the general election. Political parties in general prefer to support incumbents in elections, because the general consensus is that incumbents are better candidates, and their record of success lends support to this conclusion. That said, while the political parties themselves to a degree control and regulate the primaries, popular individual candidates and challengers sometimes rule the day. This has especially been the case in recent years as conservative incumbents have been “primaried” by challengers more conservative than they.

Questions & Answers

what does the ideal gas law states
Joy Reply
Three charges q_{1}=+3\mu C, q_{2}=+6\mu C and q_{3}=+8\mu C are located at (2,0)m (0,0)m and (0,3) coordinates respectively. Find the magnitude and direction acted upon q_{2} by the two other charges.Draw the correct graphical illustration of the problem above showing the direction of all forces.
Kate Reply
To solve this problem, we need to first find the net force acting on charge q_{2}. The magnitude of the force exerted by q_{1} on q_{2} is given by F=\frac{kq_{1}q_{2}}{r^{2}} where k is the Coulomb constant, q_{1} and q_{2} are the charges of the particles, and r is the distance between them.
Muhammed
What is the direction and net electric force on q_{1}= 5µC located at (0,4)r due to charges q_{2}=7mu located at (0,0)m and q_{3}=3\mu C located at (4,0)m?
Kate Reply
what is the change in momentum of a body?
Eunice Reply
what is a capacitor?
Raymond Reply
Capacitor is a separation of opposite charges using an insulator of very small dimension between them. Capacitor is used for allowing an AC (alternating current) to pass while a DC (direct current) is blocked.
Gautam
A motor travelling at 72km/m on sighting a stop sign applying the breaks such that under constant deaccelerate in the meters of 50 metres what is the magnitude of the accelerate
Maria Reply
please solve
Sharon
8m/s²
Aishat
What is Thermodynamics
Muordit
velocity can be 72 km/h in question. 72 km/h=20 m/s, v^2=2.a.x , 20^2=2.a.50, a=4 m/s^2.
Mehmet
A boat travels due east at a speed of 40meter per seconds across a river flowing due south at 30meter per seconds. what is the resultant speed of the boat
Saheed Reply
50 m/s due south east
Someone
which has a higher temperature, 1cup of boiling water or 1teapot of boiling water which can transfer more heat 1cup of boiling water or 1 teapot of boiling water explain your . answer
Ramon Reply
I believe temperature being an intensive property does not change for any amount of boiling water whereas heat being an extensive property changes with amount/size of the system.
Someone
Scratch that
Someone
temperature for any amount of water to boil at ntp is 100⁰C (it is a state function and and intensive property) and it depends both will give same amount of heat because the surface available for heat transfer is greater in case of the kettle as well as the heat stored in it but if you talk.....
Someone
about the amount of heat stored in the system then in that case since the mass of water in the kettle is greater so more energy is required to raise the temperature b/c more molecules of water are present in the kettle
Someone
definitely of physics
Haryormhidey Reply
how many start and codon
Esrael Reply
what is field
Felix Reply
physics, biology and chemistry this is my Field
ALIYU
field is a region of space under the influence of some physical properties
Collete
what is ogarnic chemistry
WISDOM Reply
determine the slope giving that 3y+ 2x-14=0
WISDOM
Another formula for Acceleration
Belty Reply
a=v/t. a=f/m a
IHUMA
innocent
Adah
pratica A on solution of hydro chloric acid,B is a solution containing 0.5000 mole ofsodium chlorid per dm³,put A in the burret and titrate 20.00 or 25.00cm³ portion of B using melting orange as the indicator. record the deside of your burret tabulate the burret reading and calculate the average volume of acid used?
Nassze Reply
how do lnternal energy measures
Esrael
Two bodies attract each other electrically. Do they both have to be charged? Answer the same question if the bodies repel one another.
JALLAH Reply
No. According to Isac Newtons law. this two bodies maybe you and the wall beside you. Attracting depends on the mass och each body and distance between them.
Dlovan
Are you really asking if two bodies have to be charged to be influenced by Coulombs Law?
Robert
like charges repel while unlike charges atttact
Raymond
Got questions? Join the online conversation and get instant answers!
Jobilize.com Reply

Get Jobilize Job Search Mobile App in your pocket Now!

Get it on Google Play Download on the App Store Now




Source:  OpenStax, American government. OpenStax CNX. Dec 05, 2016 Download for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11995/1.15
Google Play and the Google Play logo are trademarks of Google Inc.

Notification Switch

Would you like to follow the 'American government' conversation and receive update notifications?

Ask