Limits, limits, limits, limits! candidate National party State district… Political committees individual $2400 30,400 10,000 5,000 National party $5000 No limit No limit 5,000 State, district Local party com. $5000 No limit No limit 5,000 PAC (multicandidate) $5000 15,000 5,000 5,000 PAC (one candidate) $2400 30,400 10,000 5,000 Authorized campaign committee $2000 No limit No limit 5,000
Money, money, money money! The federal Election Committee is in charge of regulating campaign finances. Candidates can acquire campaign money from independent contributors, corporations, and federal funds. Democratic and republican candidates are usually eligible for federal funding but they are subject to spending limits. A candidate can qualify for public funding by raising at least $5000 at least 20 states. Then the government will provide a dollar for dollar match for each individual contribution under $250. In 1992 each candidate qualified for 55.24 million in federal grants.
More money, money, money! General election 1992 Dollars in millions grants 55.24 Compliance fund 4.3 Coordinate party expenditure 10.2 Independent party expenditure 3.2 National soft money 36.2 Primary 1992 Dollars in millions Contributions from individuals… Under 500 5.3 500-749 2.6 750-1000 19.8 Matching funds 10.1
debates have played an important role in presidential campaigns. Debates can rarely change the momentum of a campaign, but they can help candidates exploit an opponent's weakness, help deflect attacks, and provide a national audience some new ideas.
Opening debate, first question (what do you believe tonight is the single most important separating issue of this campaign?) - “Well, I think one thing that distinguishes is experience. I think we've dramatically changed the world. I'll talk about that a little bit later, but the changes are mind-boggling for world peace. Kids go to bed at night without the same fear of nuclear war. And change for change sake isn't enough. We saw that message in the late 70s when heard a lot about change, and what happened, that misery index went right through the roof. But my economic program is the kind of change we want. And the way we're going to get it done is we're going to have a brand new Congress. A lot of them are thrown out because of all the scandals. I'll sit down with them, Democrats and Republicans alike, and work for my agenda for American renewal, which represents real change. But I'd say, if you had to separate out, I think it's experience at this level.”
Strategy- Part of President Bush's debate strategy was to question Bill Clinton's character. He cited, in particular, Clinton's anti-war protests in Europe during Vietnam. Another part was to emphasis his experience in foreign affairs. Overall Bush did not fair in the debates as well as he might have hoped.
Cnn poll results-
first debate- 47 percent rated Perot the winner, 30 percent voted Clinton and 16 percent voted Bush.
second debate- 58 percent calling Clinton the winner, 16 percent said Bush won and 15 percent said Perot.
third debate- 28 percent thought Clinton had done the best job, 28 percent Bush, and 37 percent said Perot.
Strategy- Bush campaigned mostly in 16 states including swing states. His plan was to play up his military experience and also hit the big issues, education, foreign affairs, health care, displaced workers and the economy. Because he was an incumbent he had a greater chance of winning, but many report that his 1992 campaign lacked the clarity of his sucessful1988 campaign. In the end his efforts were overshadowed by a wilting economy and the campaign of Ross Perot, another republican.
On November 3, Bill Clinton won the election to be the 42nd President of the United States by a wide margin in the U.S. Electoral College, receiving only 43 percent of the popular vote against Bush's 37 percent and Perot's 19%. It was the lowest percentage ever received by a winning candidate for the office of President of the united states.
Bush had the lowest republican vote percentage since 1936
Factors of his defeat were the economy, his conservative viewpoint, the end of the cold war which allowed a clash between conservative, and Ross Perot.