Show Menu

American Government Exam 1 Cheat Sheet by

This exam consists of chapters 1-4 in the webtext: The Texas Constitution, Federalism, Local Governments, and Interest Groups


activity through which people make, preserve and amend the general rules under which they live (per David Eaton values are important while Henry Laswell says resource allocation is important)
Political Science
social science which deals with systems of government and the analysis of political activi­ties, thoughts, and behaviors (the why behind politics)
instit­ution in society that can force people to do things and push people to do things, government make binding decisions that people must follow (maint­aining order and reconc­iling conflict and guides humanity to higher forms of civili­zation)
Altern­atives to Government
self interest
grants great benefits to people if done correctly but if done incorr­ectly it creates feuds and animosity
this only works for the in-group while the out-group is excluded
Necessity of Government
people suck so we need government to create unity and make people work toward the same things
property rights
authority on how resources are used (this is protected by the government to ensure resources used effect­ively for the max benefit)
government settles disputes
designed for times of conflict, scarce resources create conflict, plays a big role in community and fostering identities and protecting rights
Government Trust
citizen trust is needed for the government to function correctly, government trust between parties is higher when their party is in power (economy, social­-cu­ltural factors, incumb­ents, and instit­utions promote distrust)
Theories of Democracy
method of contro­lling scope of conflict involving indivi­dua­lism, free private enterp­rise, localism, and privacy
method of contro­lling scope of conflict involving equality, consis­tency, equal protec­tion, justice, liberty, freedom of movement, freedom of speech and associ­ation, and civil rights
compet­itive political system where competing leaders and organi­zations define the altern­atives of public policy in such a way that the public can partic­ipate in the decisi­on-­making process (majority rules)
majority and consti­tution rule while minority has a voice (elected officials supposed to exercise will of people

Pre-Co­nst­itu­tional Politics

demogr­aphics c. 1770s
2.75M people, 20% Africa­n-A­mer­ican, most were self employed (farmers or artisans), poor commun­ica­tions, travel arduous
social political mindset
John Locke (inali­enable rights), Thomas Paine (life, liberty, property), common political beliefs (heir to British tradition, but inalie­nable rights given by God), Americans thought they were adhering to British political thought better than the British, consent of governed gave leader power
Problem with the British
Britain made shitty decisions in the face of obvious evidence
British spent lot sof money and blood helping secure the colonies via French and Indian War (Americans didn't help well enough­—didn't pay enough and only helped when no crops ready)
Stamp Act and others (Britain trying to get money to repay the war and to exert more economic control over America)
Intole­rable Acts
close Boston port, those in violation people go to prison in Britain without trial
Contin­ental Congress (1774-­1781)
56 delegates, first national legisl­ature, big names attended (john and Sam Adams, Washin­gton, Patrick Henry, etc), initial acts=pass resolu­tions (boycott British goods, raise troops) but limited powers (state gov and and stat popula­tions not obligated to follow)
Declar­ation fo Indepe­ndence
written to help war effort, attract foreign support and to get support from the people; New England wants indepe­ndence, South doesn't, middle is neutral; Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson write it

The Articles of Confed­eration

- first written consti­tution of the U.S, drafted in 1777, ratified by all states in 1781, 5 pages with preamble, 13 articles, conclu­sion, and signatory section
- state sovere­ignty, unicameral legisl­ature, one vote per state
- central government can declare war conduct foreig­n/c­omm­ercial relations with other countries
- funded by state legisl­atures' payments
- federal court system suggested
- executive functions carried out by legisl­ative committees
- in 1781 John Hansen was the first president under the Articles (one year term)
- John Hancock president next in 1785
- government could coin money
no provisions for enforcing Congress decisions, no real federal courts system, congre­ssional authority over commerce and war required consent of 9/13 states, amendments required unanimity, no executive power, little implied power
Why Replace
commer­cia­l/e­conomic problems
revolu­tionary war debt, New England was fucked because they needed trade, the south was better off
fear of predatory powers
fear other countries would overtake them
public debt
both the people and the states had debt
growing radicalism
ex: Shay's rebelling 1786-1787
Principles Uniting the Framers
belief in rule of law (everybody subject to the law regardless of status), rights of all citizens (life, liberty, property)
Bill of Rights (people are naturally free, government must protect these freedoms), protection of property (unless via due process of law), Other provisions (comity clause­s—have all rights unless due process—, jury, limited govern­ment)
"­Maj­ority Rule/M­inority Rights­"
Congre­ssional repres­ent­ation (reps by population in the House, Senate based on state—­pro­tects minority rights by giving equal voice to all states), separation of powers, checks and balance, executive authority


establ­ishes basic rules of decisi­on-­making and power (basically who can do what and how)
establ­ishes govern­ments relati­onship with the people, framework of how government makes decisions (who makes decisions and over what), bargain, meant to endure (maint­ained only if makes sense to the governed and they believed in it and it will endure as long as people believe it's the better altern­ative or better than the work to take up a new altern­ative)
reflect who we are, what we want to be, control on government (check on government power), establish patterns of authority
Should they endure?
Jefferson say consti­tutions should be rewritten every 19 years
Reasons Consti­tutions Endure
large percentage of population included, people need to feel involved, represent lots of people
adapt to change with the times to add and include more groups
lots of detail means it covers lots of topics therefore more people will work to enforce it
Uniqueness of the US Consti­tution
has lasted 225+ years and most last ~20 years, the US Consti­tution is really the first Consti­tution and many others are modeled after the US one

Bill of Rights

1st Amendment
freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition
2nd Amendment
right to bear arms
3rd Amendment
no quartering of soldiers
4th Amendment
no unlawful search and seizures
5th Amendment
due process of a law, no double jeopardy, right to silence (to not self-i­ncr­imi­nate)
6th Amendment
rights of the accused (speedy and public trial)
7th Amendment
trial by jury in civil cases
8th Amendment
no excessive bail or cruel/­unusual punishment
9th Amendment
rights of people preserved
10th Amendment
powers reserved to the states

Issues Dividing the Consti­tut­ional Convention

People as basis of repres­ent­ation (Virginia Plan) versus states as basis of repres­ent­ation (New Jersey Plan) resulted in Connec­ticut Plan
Virginia Plan
bicameral legisl­ature, repres­ent­atives allocated by population
New Jersey Plan
unicameral legisl­ature, repres­ent­atives allocated by state
Connec­ticut Plan
bicameral legisl­atu­re—­lower house by popula­tion, upper house by state (2 reps per state in upper house, all tax bills must originate in the House of Repres­ent­ati­ves­—lower house—, lower house votes on impeac­hment articles while Senate does the trial to vote on conviction and removal)
elected by the people? elected by the congress? elected by state legisl­ature?
Electoral College (states cast votes based on total number of members of congress: reps plus senators
Limiting the Government
Separation of Powers
aka "­sharing of powers­", the power to pass laws rests with Congress while the president has the power to enforc­e/e­xecute the laws and the judicial branch interprets the laws
Checks and Balances
Congre­ssional legisl­ation must be signed by the president, presid­ential appoin­tments must be confirmed by the Congress (Senate), the Supreme Court adjudi­cates on the consti­tut­ion­ality of acts of Congress and the actions of the president
governing system that allows two or more entities to share control over the same geographic region. Power is split among federal, state, and local govern­ments. In the US, the power of the national government was substa­ntially less than that of the state government (Article 10 of Consti­tution)
Bill of Rights
Included at the insistence of advocates of states' rights. There was concern over the list of rights: is a right not included on the NOT a fundam­ental right?

State Consti­tutions

Traditions in State Consti­tution Making
Higher-law tradition
a consti­tution sets down an enduring body of principles and arrang­ement upon which government is founded (blueprint of core functions of govern­ment, not day to day detailing of activi­ties, not legal code, avoid discussion of narrow policy concerns, structure not detail)
John Marshall
most conseq­uential Chief Justice (NOT THE FIRST CHIEF JUSTICE)
Positive Law Tradition
Consti­tution makers incorp­orate practices into state's fundam­ental law which had been establish by statue. Insulates existing offices, powers, and jurisd­ictions from legisl­ative whim. This creates longer, detailed, and more rigid documents that blurred the line between what was approp­riate for inclusion in the fundam­ental charter and what was the proper subject of legisl­ative choice
State Consti­tut­ional Endurance
Consti­tut­ional Amendments
amendments show what we value and how that changes, we want documents to reflect will of people, hence why we have amendments
Reasons for Amendments
imperfect and educable human nature (helps adapt to changing circum­sta­nces), compensate for the limits of human unders­tanding and virtue, consti­tutions viewed as a means to make collective decisions in the most efficient way possible and make the best possible decisions in pursuit of a common good, distin­ction between normal legisl­ation and consti­tut­ional matters (const­itu­tional matters require a distin­ctive, highly deliberate process which is more difficult than for normal legisl­ature)
Which Consti­tutions are Amended?
longer consti­tutions amended more than shorter ones, the ones that are harder to amend are amended less, the more government functions are detailed the longer they meaning more amendments (also the further the amendment rate from mean the greater the probab­ility the whole thing will be replaced)
Amendment Rates
US consti­tution (between 1789-1991) = .13 times per year while state consti­tutions = 1.23 per year
State Consti­tutions as Protests
sometimes states put things they can't enforce or are illegal per US consti­tution in their consti­tution as a means of protest against federal government to assert their belief­s/i­dentity


shared powers between two or more levels of government (can help solve collective dilemm­as—­prevent states­/units from going to war with each other, protect states­/units from outside aggres­sion, set national standards for labor and enviro­nmental laws)
dilemmas of Federalism
autonomy can create incentives for regions to compete with each other econom­ica­lly­/po­lit­ically, autonomy can promote a struggle between regional government and the national government for resources and powers, autonomy may be used by regions to pursue policies that run counter to the values and interests of the majority within the nation as a whole, autonomy may be a stepping stone to complete indepe­ndence and secession
Federalism and Policy Labora­tories
Federalism allows states to learn from each other.
Policy Labora­tories
trying policies out
Policy Diffusion
when states learn from other states and apply that to their own decisions (i.e. that worked well let's do that)
How do states learn from each other?
horizontal policy diffusion
Emulation of Success Hypothesis
states having successful policies are more likely to be copied (high support)
Seeking Low-Cost Successes Hypthesis
states copy successful policies with the lowest cost (high support)
Admini­str­ators Emulating Successes Hypothesis
decisions by admini­str­ations agencies will rely heavily on evidence of success because they have access to more info (low support)
Legisl­ators Emulating Successes Hypothesis
legisl­ators rely on evidence of success to get reelected (high support)
Similar States Hypothesis
states that look like each other emulate each other (high support)
How do states learn from locali­ties?
vertical policy diffusion
snowball effect
idea gets bigger and gains more support (causes bottom up change)
pressure valve effect
stays at local level and does not cause bottom up change
Influences on whether you have snowball or pressure valve effect
Profes­sional vs Non-pr­ofe­ssional
Do legisl­ators have full time jobs? yes (profe­ssi­onal) = snowball, no (non-p­rof­ess­ional) = pressure valve
Strong vs Weak Policy Advocates
Are interest groups strong enough to influence state? yes (strong) = snowball, no (weak) = pressure valve
Neighb­oring States and Federal Govern­ments
Neighb­oring states (if they do it, we should) = snowball, Federal Govern­ments (if they do it, why would we add on) = pressure valve
US Government Powers
print money (bills and coins), declare war, establish army and navy, enter into treaties with foreign govern­ments, regulate commerce between states and intern­ational trade, establish post offices and issues
State Government Powers
establish local govern­ment, issue licenses, regulate intrastate commerce, conduct elections, ratify amendments to US consti­tut­ions, provide for public health and safety, public education, property laws, morals and ethics
Periods of Federalism
Dual Federalism (1819-­1936)
US Government establ­ished the right to some powers vis-à-vis the states (ex. McCulloch v Maryla­nd-1819 and Gibbons v Ogden-­1824)
Cooper­ative Federalism (1936-­pre­sent)
US government becomes partner, co-equal player with the states on many public policy matters (marble cake). FDR's New deal and Court Packing scheme helped usher this era into being and federal govenrment uses reward and punishment to influence policy­-making at the state-­level
Compet­itive Federalism
change policies to one up other states to draw in businesses and citizens
race to the top
states compete by increasing resources for infras­tru­cture and develo­pment to attract businesses (ideal)
race to the bottom
states compete by decreasing costs of production (e.g. wages, taxes, and regula­tions) to attract businesses (the fear)
Federalism and the enviro­nment
lower enviro­nmental costs draw in busine­sses, but manufa­ctures may be more likely to place the facilities on the border because those effected by the pollution will be in another state and will not have much influence on state legisl­ature (gulf dead zone)
State v State Conflicts
boundary disputes
Rhode Island v Massac­husetts (1838), The Common­wealth of Virginia v Tennessee (1893), New Jersey v New York (1998)
resource access
Kansas v Colorado (1907), The Arkansas River Compact of 1949, New Jersey v New York (1931, 1954), Texas v New Jersey (1965), Texas v New Mexico (2020), Florida v Georgia (2020)
enviro­nment and state conflict
Missouri v Illinois and Sanitary District of Chicago (1901), Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, and DC v EPA (2020), New York, Connec­ticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massac­hus­etts, Pennsy­lvania, Rhode island, and Vermont v EPA
Texas v the World
Tarrant Regional Water District v Herrmann, Rudolf J et al (2013), Texas v Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsy­lvania, Texas v California
Dillon's Rule
based on 1907 Hunter v City of Pittsb­urgh: if there is a reasonable doubt whether a power has been conferred to a local govern­ment, then the power has not been conferred
Home Rule
defined by each state's consti­tution, and it is the delegation of power from the state to its sub-units of government
Catego­rical grants
limited scope, strictly defined, little discretion (use the money for this)
Block grants
given on uneven basis to states­/lo­cal­ities that meet certain requir­ements, fair discretion
Flat grants
allocated to states­/lo­cal­ities across the board, substa­ntial discretion (use for whatever)
transfer of political power from federal to state level (2nd order=­power goes from state to local, 3rd order=­inc­reased role of non-pr­ofits and private groups)

Civil Liberties

Negative Rights
limitation on what government can do (civil liberties, emphasized by modern philos­ophers, and curtails sovere­ignal freedoms of the govern­ment)
Positive Rights
things government is obligated to provide
Jacobson v Massac­husetts (1905)
MA tried to force Jacobson to get a small pox vaccine, court ruled in favor of MA but said you need to have necessity, propor­tio­nality, reasonable means, and harm avoidance to mandate immuni­zations (answers the question: under what conditions can the government force immuni­zat­ion­s—only MS and WV have no exempt­ions)
Evolution of Free Speech
Bad Tendency
not protected if public welfare harmed (Shaffer v US, 1919 and Abrams v US, 1919)
Clear and Present Danger
not protected if it will create a clear and present danger (Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Schneck v US, 1919)
Fighting Words Doctrine
not protected if it will cause injury or immedi­ately breach peace (Chapl­inksi v New Hampshire, 1942)
Balancing Test
does this "­evi­l", if discounted by improb­abi­lity, justify invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger (Judge Learned Hand, ACA v Douds, 1950)
Incite­men­t/I­mminent Lawless Action
not protected if it will incite or produce imminent lawless action (Brand­enburg v Ohio, 1969)
Key Rights of the Accused
Right against unreas­onable Search and Seizure
US v Jacobson, 1984; consent to search, reasonable expect­ation of privacy, automobile exception (Reamey's Rule); probable cause, exigent circum­stances (plain view)
Right against Self-I­ncr­imi­nation
Miranda v Arizona (1966)
Right to Counsel
Powell v Alabama (1932) and Gideon v Wainwright
Affirm­ative Action (AA)
Philly Plan
Manning table (if city x% race, company should be x% race) shows workforce compos­ition estimate
Ethridge v Rhodes (the Ethridge Case) (1967)
plaintiffs sue because government denied them contract since their subcon­tra­ctors were discri­min­ating (RULED IN FAVOR OF AA)
Weimar v Cuyahoga College (1968)
plaintiffs sue because they lost government contract since they didn't provide a manning table (RULED IN FAVOR OF AA)
Bakke v UCRegents (1978)
plaintiff sue because rejected from med school since spots set aside for minorities (RULED AGAINST AA)
Hopwood v Texas (1996)
plaintiff claimed she was denied law school admittance based on her race (RULED AGAINST AA)
Fisher v UT-Austin (2016)
plaintiff says UT's use of race as a consid­eration in admissions was a no no, UT said they just wanted more diversity (RULED IN FAVOR OF AA)

Civil Rights

Definition of rights
Orlando Patter­son's 3 Freedoms
ability to do what you want without being coerced but you can't coerce anyone else
do whatever you want without regard for others (impose will on others)
adults can partic­ipate in government
Eric Foner's Natural Rights
civil rights
equality under law, essential
political rights
partic­ipate fully in governance of community (right to vote)
social rights
choose who to associate (perso­nally and in business) with
Richard King's Liberal Freedoms
freedom as autonomy
individual autonomy, self-d­ete­rmi­nation, pride, and self-r­espect
partic­ipatory freedom
fully partic­ipate in politics
collective delive­rance
liberation of group from external control
Rights and Race
Civil rights Amendments
no slavery (if Corwin­—some people like TX and Buchan tried to pass—would have passed it would have been the 13th and kept slavery)
citize­nship if born in US and everyone has equal protection of the laws
former slaves can vote
Race and the law
Alabama misceg­enation law
no interr­acial marriage (but they can't enforce it)
1932 Susie Phipps sued Louisiana
she was classified as "­col­ore­d" even though only 1/32 black, she lost, shows that states can regulate color status
Gender and the Law
Equal Rights Amendment
can't discri­minate by gender, failed
Gender and Workplace Discri­min­ation
Meritor Savings Bank v Vinson (1986)
sexual harassment would be considered illegal only if it caused psycho­logical damage to the victim
Ward's Cove Packaging v Antonio (1989)
burden of proof on accuser regarding race and gender discri­min­ation
Harris v Forklift Systems (1993)
gender discri­min­ation exists whenever it is more difficult for a person of one gender than another to perform well at a job
Oncale v Sundowner Offshore Services Inc. (1998)
Title VII covers same-sex sexual harassment
Title IX
Davis v Monroe County Board of Education (1999)
must report sexual harass­men­t/d­isc­rim­ination
Jackson v Birmingham Board of Education (2005)
if you are retaliated against for speaking up against sexual discri­min­ation you can sue
Sexuality and the Law
Roe v Wade- January 23, 1973
right to privacy includes abortion, overturn could hurt other cases based on it
Romer v Evans- May 20, 1996
Colorado saying homose­xuals and bisexuals not protected violates Equal Protection Clause as it isn't a legitimate state interest
Lawrence v Texas- June 26, 2003
states can't ban gay, lesbian, bisexual, transg­ender, and queer as they have a right to engage in private, consensual sexual conduct (overt­urned previous ruling on the same issue in the 1986 case Bowers v Hardwick that claimed the opposite)
Obergefell v Hodges- June 26, 2015
marriage equality and same sex marriage legal
Bostock v Clayton County, GA- June 12, 2020
Title IX covers discri­min­ation based on sexuality and gender identity
Civil Rights Strategies
Strategy 1: Legalism
using court system to attack segreg­ation and discri­min­ation
Plessy v Ferguson (1896)
allows segreg­ation as "­social distin­cti­on", "­sep­arate but equal", gave rise to Jim Crow Laws
Sweatt v Painter (1950)
the law schools are not equal, upholds "­sep­arate but equal" but says Sweatt was right in this case that the black law school was not up to standard
Brown v Board of Education
overturns "­sep­arate but equal"
expensive, increm­ental, slow, puts burden on victims, elite driven
Strategy 2: Non-vi­olent Direct Action (NVDA)
based on Gandhian notion of civil disobe­dience of unjust laws
Montgomery Bus Boycott (1955)
Rosa Parks, MLK, targets white power structure with economic pressure
applied in places like Selma, Atlanta, and Chicago
Why important?
rise of MLK as national leader, mobilize blacks, white northern suppor­ters, provoked counte­r-m­obi­liz­ation
people lost their lives, land, jobs, mized effect­ive­ness, especially outside the south, limited effect on political power structure
Strategy 3: Political Action
gaining control of ballot box
major players
Student Non-Vi­olent Coordi­nating Committee (SNCC) and Congress of Racial Equality (CORE)
Major actions
voter regist­ration projects (Freedom Summer and Freedom Vote) and March on Washingotn to demand Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act
limited initial increase in registered voters, few blacks elected until 1970s, splint­ering of the movement, public support dips with riots in Watts and Newark; main actors take stances on Vietnam
*Strategy 4: Black Power
provided services for community, taught self-r­eli­ance, prompted positive Black images
weak leadership and organi­zat­ional structure, paranoid and violent

Interest Groups

Interest Groups
collection of indivi­dua­ls/orgs working for the interests of their members, try to influence govern­ments, but no candidates running in the name of the group
Free Rider Problem
people can get benefits from group without contri­buting because many interest groups represent many people and the more free riders the less the group can do
Types of goods
my enjoyment affects your enjoyment
you have to pay for it
exclud­able, rivalrous
non-ex­clu­dable, rivalrous
exclud­able, non-ri­valrous
non-ex­clu­dable, non-ri­valrous
ignores, free rider problem, says groups will naturally form, success determined by ability to mobilize members, all groups have equal chance to win
non-cu­mul­ative inequa­lities (Robert Dahl)
about groups mobilizing and working to their strengths
Schatt­sch­nie­der's Response
only applies to those with lots of resources
Collective Action Problem
the goal we can achieve together when the whole group works together is greater than if some people don't contribute
material incentives
you are given money, products, services for partic­ipa­ting, causes people to join but creates disconnect between leaders and members
specific solidarity incentive
status increases because you are a member (every­thing they do is based on public opinion)
purposive incentives
you would feel bad about yourself if you didn't partic­ipate, hard to get members, but you get people with the strongest commitment
Theories of Power
Democracy (Arist­otle)
people dictate political outcomes and public policies, direct democracy or elections and repres­ent­ative government are the mechanisms of power, people are well-i­nformed interested and engaged
opport­unities for direct democracy are extremely rare, access points for public input through repres­ent­ative government are limited and contro­lled, people do not seem to be well-i­nformed or engaged when it comes to politics
Elite Theory (c. Wright Mills, Noam Chomsky)
elites rule and their goal is to maintain power, their is a circul­ation of the ruling elites, elites share a concensus about the norms of the social and political system, elites rule through instit­utions, the masses are ill-in­formed and passive
dichot­omous zero-sum approach (you either have power or not which is reduct­ive), conspi­rat­orial (can't test propos­ition of theory), assumption of common, homogenous interests of elites is not realistic, existence of elites does not equal elitism or elite theory
*Interest Groups Libera­lis­m/P­lur­ali­sm/­Pol­yarchy (Robert Dahl)
groups leader positions are open and group leaders are elected by their consti­tuents, these leaders engage in decision making, leaders compromise to make decisions, counte­r-v­eiling powers and different issues prevent the accumu­lation of power with any one interest
most important decisions are private, not public (two-faces of power), it is not true that all potential groups in a society have the potential to mobilize and get repres­ented (class nature), group leadership does not represent rank and file membership
why are they becoming more popular
cultural diversity, economic develo­pments, and government policy (maybe innovative leader­ship)

Social Movements as Interest Groups

social movement
large mass based collective action, protest behavior, they locate people with similar interest, form groups, coordinate actions, then become part of Washington
Pluralism and Social Movements
pluralists argue protest behavior is irrational and done by trouble makers; they claim that insider politics are the only rational and acceptable form of intera­cting with instit­utions
Classical Model from Piven, Frances Fox and Richard A. Cloward 1977
for margin­alized groups protest activity is the main resource they have to influence instit­utions (protest behavior shaped by instit­utional access) and the protest emerge with high levels of consci­ousness and distur­bances
Resource Model from Morris, Aldon D 1984
social movements are efforts geared toward social change (creat­ivity and innovation are import­ant), organizers and partic­ipants are ration, preexi­sting instit­ution, leaders, and organi­zations are critical
Doug McAdam's Critique
Critique on Pluralism
argues that social movements are irrational (if everyone is able to sit at the table, then there is no need for protests and outsider tactics
Critique on the Classical Model
treats social movements as an attempt to overcome psycho­logical strain (struc­tural strain -> disruptive psycho­logical state -> social movement)
Critique on resource model
"­tac­tical respon­se" so dependent upon existence of establ­ished organi­zation and a reliance on elites (elite activity may not lead to social movements but be a reaction to the emergence of a social movement)
McAdam's Political Protest Model
social movements are political not purely psycho­log­ical, they are born and die, and they are an ongoing product of the interplay of enviro­nmental and internal factors (expanding political opport­uni­ties, indigenous organi­zat­ional strength, cognitive libera­tion)
Does Protest Work
yes but it must include forms of salient political behavior
salient political behaviors are political activities that...
involves 100+ people, lasts more than 1 day, supported by political organi­zat­ions, results in property damage, draws a political presence, leads to an arrest, involves people carrying weapons, leads to injury, involves death (basically if you can get someone's attention then you can create change)

Interest Groups, Lobbying

Federal Election Campaign Act (1971, 1974)
Main Provisions
(1) Limits on individual contri­­bu­tions ($1000 per election per campaign) (2) limits on candidate expend­­itures (ruled uncons­­ti­t­u­tional in Buckley v Valeo, 1976 (3) Definition and regulation of Political Action Committees (PACs) (4) disclosure requir­­ements for candidates and parties in federal elections (5) establ­­is­hment of Federal Election Commission (FEC)
(1) Huge increase in number of interest groups (PACs) (2) huge increase in money in election campaigns (3) soft money funneled through political parties (can't be used to say who to vote or not vote for)
(1) soft money (2) indepe­ndent expend­itures (3) bundling
**Bipa­rtisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) (2002)
Main Provisions
(1) increase in individual contri­bution levels ($2000 per candidate per campaign, indexed for inflation $2700 in 2018) (2) outlaws soft money to national, state, and local parties (3) limits soft money spent by PACs and outside interest groups
(1) increase in money in politics (2) increase in 527 groups
527 Groups
tax-exempt organi­zations organized under Section 527 of the US Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C., 527). A 527 group is created primarily to influence the select­ions, nomina­tion, election, appoin­tment, or defeat of candidates to federal, state or local public office
Citizens United Decision (2009)
non-profit group spent money advert­ising money movie bashing Hilary Clinton in an apparent violation of BCRA. Supreme Court ruled against BCRA, saying the parts of it that limit groups form spending money in political campaigns violates the 1st Amendment
Groups can spend as much as they want on election campaigns limited by economic constr­aints and off-set by individual contri­butions and new ways of selecting contri­butions (online targeting)
We are seeing a rise of "­Super PACs", "­C4s­", and "Dark Money"
Super PACs
can't make contri­butions to candidates campaigns or parties, BUT can engage in unlimited political spending indepe­ndently of the campaigns and CAN raise money from indivi­duals, corpor­ations, union, and other groups with no legal limit on donation size
Section 501(c)(4) aka C4s
tax exempt "­social welfar­e" groups (operated exclus­ively for social welfare and net earnings go to charit­able, educat­ional, or recrea­tional purposes), no explicit prohib­ition on political activi­ties, can't directly advocate but can do any other lawful political activities as long as social welfare remains the primary focus
Dark Money
money given to nonprofits (C4s) that can receive unlimited donationd from corpor­ations, indivi­duals, and unions, they can spend money to influence elections and are NOT required to disclose donors


No comments yet. Add yours below!

Add a Comment

Your Comment

Please enter your name.

    Please enter your email address

      Please enter your Comment.

          Related Cheat Sheets

          Types of Governments Cheat Sheet

          More Cheat Sheets by db329

          American Government Exam 2 Cheat Sheet