Primaries, Nominations and Campaign Finance Reform, oh my

As explained in the text, the presidential nominee for each major party is determined during the primary season. This was not always the case, as in the past this anointing would usually occur at the respective party conventions. Candidates are now accumulating the required number of delegates necessary to ensure their parties nomination seemingly earlier and earlier each year, thereby reducing the party conventions to meaningless, media generated spectacles. There is certainly some party business to attend to, most notably the potentially intriguing vice presidential selections, but in reality the convention is more or less a formality.

The modern primary process has been altered by a phenomenon known as front loading. This unfolds when states, in an effort to have a significant impact on the election of a president, reschedule their primaries for an earlier date. This continuing trend has caused more primaries to take place in February and March, in turn causing more candidates to deplete their resources and drop out of the race as well as enabling more candidates to secure the nomination earlier in the process.

Over the years, there have been various attempts at reforming the campaign finance system. Of course, the most recent legislation would be the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002. On a side note, it is rather comical that it was Bush who was pressured into signing this bill into law, or any Republican for that matter, as they enjoyed distinct advantages using the previous fundraising mechanism. While this reform effort was genuine and completely necessary, as well as an encouraging example of bipartisan cooperation in government, it has proven to be not so infallible.

It is rather difficult to control and regulate campaign expenditures in our current environment. There appears to be more of a gray area in regard to the monitoring of individual and especially PAC contributions to a campaign, as opposed to the parties themselves. There is still access to soft money in the form of so-called 527 groups, who can use unlimited funds provided they maintain the illusion of impartiality and independence from a particular campaign. As the text suggests, this notion is absurd, as some of these groups are directly influencing the outcome of elections.