Introduction James A. Thurber, American University |
| Elections are arguably the single most
important event in American democratic life, an opportunity for Americans
to both give their consent to be governed and to hold their representatives
accountable for past performance. Democratic elections are, or should be,
competitive events. While we expect vigorous campaigning focused on securing
victory, we also expect campaigns to conduct themselves in a manner befitting
the high offices the candidates pursue. Unfortunately, public attitudes
about campaign conduct are not positive and the quality of elections seems
to be deteriorating. Negative advertising is up and turnout is down. Soft
money and issue ads from outside sources have increased significantly in
1996 and 1998. The Democratic party committees collected 84 percent higher
receipts in soft money and the Republicans raised 144 percent more in soft
money over the 1994 election cycle. Millions of these dollars were directed
by the parties into issue ads and GOTV (get out the vote) drives in targeted
states. The total cost of the 1998 elections was about $1.3 billion. Almost
95 percent of House races were won by the top-spender and in the Senate
it was 94 percent. In almost two-thirds of all House races, incumbents
held the financial factor of ten to one or more or faced no opponent at
all. The reelection rate in 1998 inched higher up to 98.3 percent in the
House and 90 percent in the Senate.
Political consultants played a key role in developing the strategy, theme and message in the 1998 campaigns that helped candidates win. Campaign professionals have a major impact on campaigns and elections; however only recently have political scientists studied consultants influence. In order to more fully understand the dynamics of congressional campaigns it is essential to understand the strategic decisions that shape the contest's character; thus the interaction of the consultants with the candidate and the campaign staff. The following case studies of several competitive 1998 congressional races take an insider's view of campaign decision making that gives new insights into how campaigns are run. The case studies are part of a three-year study entitled, "Improving Campaign Conduct," supported by a grant from The Pew Charitable Trusts to the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies Campaign (CCPS) Management Institute at American University. They will published in longer versions, as chapters in a forthcoming Brookings Institution book. Two additional books supported by this grant on political advertising and the role of consultants in elections campaigns will also be published by Brookings. The purpose of the grant and these studies is to understand campaigns and campaign management from the perspective of the political consulting industry. In describing the dynamics of these 1998 races, we hope ultimately to improve the conduct of how elections campaigns are waged. Three one-hour television programs on the Kansas 3rd and California 22nd 1998 congressional races have also been co-produced with BBC-TV, Open University (of the United Kingdom) and CCPS in conjunction with these written case studies. The programs will be televised in the United Kingdom in late spring 1999 and available on video in June 1999 from CCPS. I wish to thank the participant investigators in providing these insiders' views of campaign decision making in the 1998 congressional elections. For those who would like to know more about the Pew Charitable Trusts supported "Improving Campaign Conduct" study, these case studies, and forthcoming research from the grant, please contact James A. Thurber, Director, Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies, American University, Washington, DC 20016. Telephone 202-885-6247. Email: thurber@american.edu. |