Elections and Campaigns
The Electoral College, Campaign Finance, and How Americans Choose Their Leaders
AP Exam Connection
Unit 5 — Political Participation (20–27% of AP exam)
Elections and campaign finance appear in MC questions, FRQ 1 (Concept Application), and FRQ 2 (Quantitative Analysis). You must understand the Electoral College mechanism, hard vs. soft money, PACs vs. Super PACs, and the impact of Citizens United v. FEC (2010).
Consider this: In 2000, George W. Bush won the presidency with 271 Electoral College votes while receiving 543,895 fewer popular votes than Al Gore. In 2016, Donald Trump won with 306 Electoral College votes while receiving nearly 2.9 million fewer popular votes than Hillary Clinton. Is the Electoral College a safeguard of the framers' design, or an undemocratic distortion of majority will?
Memory Tricks
"538 total — 270 to win." The Electoral College has 538 electors (435 House + 100 Senate + 3 for D.C. per the 23rd Amendment). A majority — 270 — is required to win. If no candidate reaches 270, the House selects the president.
"Hard money = to the candidate. Soft money = to the party." Hard money is regulated by the FEC with strict limits. Soft money (largely banned by BCRA in 2002) went to parties for "party-building." Super PACs emerged from Citizens United — unlimited independent expenditures, cannot coordinate with campaigns.
"Citizens United = money is speech, corporations are people." The 2010 ruling held that political spending is a form of protected speech under the 1st Amendment. Corporations and unions may make unlimited independent expenditures. This created the Super PAC era.
The Electoral College
The Electoral College is the mechanism by which the president is chosen. Each state receives electors equal to its total congressional representation (House seats + 2 senators). The District of Columbia receives 3 electors under the 23rd Amendment. Total: 538.
Winner-take-all
48 states and D.C. award all their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the state popular vote, regardless of margin. Maine and Nebraska use a congressional district method.
270 threshold
A candidate must reach 270 electoral votes — a majority — to win. If no candidate reaches 270, the election goes to the House of Representatives, with each state delegation casting one vote.
Swing state strategy
Because safe states are irrelevant under winner-take-all, campaigns concentrate resources on competitive swing states. This creates significant variation in campaign attention and spending by geography.
Faithless electors
Some electors have voted for candidates other than their state's winner. Most states now have laws binding electors to the popular vote winner; the Supreme Court upheld these laws in Chiafalo v. Washington (2020).
Campaign Finance
| Source | Hard Money | Soft Money | Super PAC |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contribution to candidate | Yes (FEC limits) | No | No (independent only) |
| Contribution to party | Yes (FEC limits) | Largely banned (BCRA) | No |
| Independent expenditure | Limited | Was unlimited | Unlimited (post-CU) |
| Disclosure required | Yes | Often no | Yes (federal law) |
| Corporate/union source | No | Was allowed | Yes (post-CU) |
Citizens United v. FEC (2010)
The Most Consequential Campaign Finance Ruling in Decades
Citizens United held that the government may not restrict independent political expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions. Political spending is protected speech under the First Amendment. This overruled portions of McConnell v. FEC (2003) and Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990).
AP Exam Connections
Required Case
Citizens United v. FEC (2010)
Independent expenditure = protected speech. Corporation and union spending cannot be limited. Created Super PACs.
Key Concept
Electoral College Mechanics
538 electors, 270 to win, winner-take-all in 48 states, House contingent election if no majority.
FRQ 2 Data
Campaign Spending Trends
Post-Citizens United spending has grown dramatically. AP quantitative questions use spending data to test interpretation skills.
Key Contrast
PAC vs. Super PAC
Traditional PACs give directly to candidates (with limits). Super PACs make unlimited independent expenditures only.
Key Concept
Incumbency Advantage
Incumbents raise more money, have name recognition, franking privilege, and constituency service. House reelection rate ~90%.
FRQ 1 Scenario
Open vs. Closed Primaries
Closed primaries limit participation to registered party members. Open primaries allow any registered voter. Affects who nominates candidates.
Writing Practice
AP-Style FRQ Prompt
In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), the Supreme Court held that the government may not restrict independent political expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions.
- Identify the constitutional clause at issue in Citizens United v. FEC.
- Explain how the Court's reasoning in Citizens United extended First Amendment protections to corporations.
- Describe one consequence of Citizens United for how political campaigns are financed, and explain whether this consequence strengthens or weakens democratic accountability.
Tip: Part A names the First Amendment (freedom of speech). Part B explains that the Court treated political spending as speech and corporations as having speech rights. Part C should pick one specific consequence — the rise of Super PACs — and make a clear evaluative argument about accountability, not just describe.
Key Takeaways
- The Electoral College has 538 electors; 270 are needed to win — if no candidate reaches 270, the House decides
- Winner-take-all in 48 states means campaigns focus on swing states, not safe states
- Hard money goes to candidates with FEC limits; soft money to parties; Super PACs make unlimited independent expenditures
- Citizens United v. FEC (2010) held that corporate and union independent political spending is protected First Amendment speech
- Super PACs may raise and spend unlimited funds but may NOT coordinate directly with a candidate's campaign
- Incumbency advantage in Congress: ~90% House reelection rate due to name recognition, fundraising, and constituency service