Chapter 13

1)
The authors are claiming that the need for fundraising and working around the legal system has
resulted in politicians spending more time campaigning than governing.

In the context of the scenario, the authors support their claim by pointing out the sums of
money spent by candidates and interest groups in campaigns.

In the context of the scenario, the increased spending from Super PACs and individual
candidates has weakened the power of political parties as they become less relevant to the
conversation as a whole.

2)
2010 was the first year where non-party actors’ combined spending exceeded that of party
actors.

The spending of non-party actors increased steadily between 2006 and 2014 in all 3 categories
with large leaps in 2010 and 2012. This increase can be linked to the Citizens United ruling in
2010 which gave corporations the ability to establish super PACs.

The Judiciary ruled on Congress’s laws and overturned certain guidelines to create the current
system. Citizens United and McCutcheon set precedents that now work with Congress’s laws to
govern campaign finance.

3)
In Smith v. Allwright and Shaw v. Reno, the constitutional provision at issue was the 15th
Amendment’s extension of suffrage which could not be abridged on account of race.

In Shaw, the question was centered around a congressional map which included a district
drawn to create a majority-minority district, and they ruled this district unconstitutional
because of the fact that it was based solely on race. In Smith, the Court was deciding on the
exclusion of Black citizens from the primary, and they decided that all citizens should be able to
vote in the primary. The difference stems from the fact that the 15 th Amendment protects the
right to vote based on race, so the White Primary was disenfranchising Black voters, and the
majority-minority district in Shaw was disenfranchising White voters in exchange for elevating
Black ones.

The ruling in Smith v. Allwright illustrates how entangled parties have become in our politics as
the right to vote in their primaries is deemed essential to the right to vote. The Court decided
that these parties are no longer separate institutions, they are now part of the bedrock of our
democracy as they guide decision making at each step of the process.
 Chapter 13

4) Do political parties strengthen or weaken American democracy?

Although some may argue that the financial assistance of parties helps upstart
candidates succeed, political parties weaken American democracy as they divide the nation by
geography and ideology.

Before the Constitution was ratified, many anti-federalists raised concerns about the
existence of a republic for such a vast nation. They observe that the various environments and
economies around the country would have to compete for power and could often result in
strong disagreements. Parties have long exasperated this problem by dividing Americans over
issues such as slavery, gun ownership, religion, and science by appealing to and riling up their
base in the North or the South or the East or the West.

This was also a fear among the framers themselves. In Federalist 10, Publius writes
about his concerns that partisan fractions would split the country and cause it to breakdown
unto itself. Again, this has been a constant issue in American history as parties have taken
advantage of issues to push their candidates and ideas further to the right and the left.

Still, many argue that the financial resources available from parties help new, upstart
candidates succeed regardless of background. While there is some truth to this idea, it is not
entirely accurate, and it does not outweigh the negatives. Most money from parties goes to
negative attack ads and a few contentious races for Senate, Representatives, or President; very
little actually goes to support the candidates with less attention. As such, parties offer little to
support American democracy and instead work to divide the nation in order to gain power and
hold onto it.