Convention at Staples Center

We all remember the 2000 Democratic National Convention vaguely, as a mess of big fancy people in front of microphones, flashing cameras, and Al Gore rising amid roars to accept his nomination as his party's presidential candidate. What happened, though? What happened in the Staples Center in August of 2000?

Party conventions, typically, are meetings of a party's delegates with the intent of voting on matters of policy and, sometimes, to select party candidates for public office. It is in this manner that presidential candidates are chosen. In preparation for the voting day in November, the Democratic party gathered in Los Angeles, CA from August 14 till August 17, pitting the then-Vice President Al Gore against former Senator Bill Bradley for the nomination as presidential candidate. Overall, Gore took the gold in the convention, his opponent having formally withdrawn his own campaign in March of the same year. On the 13th of August - the day before the convention started - Senator Bradley released his own delegates and directed them to support Gore in the nomination.

The DNC of that year was filled with speakers of note, the main being Harold Ford's speech supporting Gore's platform. Being the youngest member of Congress at the time, he directed his speech towards younger voters, saying "I also stand here representing a new generation, a generation committed to those ideals and inspired by an unshakeable confidence in our future."

Speakers of note, in addition to Ford: Senator Bill Fradley, Gore's opponent for the nomination, First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, Senators Christopher Dodd (Connecticut) and Ted Kennedy (Massachusetts), and Reverend Jesse Jackson.

Perhaps the most important speech, Gore's own aside, was Clinton's endorsement of Gore in light of the closing of his run in the White House. In this speech, he noted his administration's accomplishments, stating in regards to the Vice President: "You gave me that chance to turn those ideas and values into action, after I made one of the best decisions of my life: asking All Gore to be my partner."

Though the President spoke powerfully, though, Gore's speech contained only one mention of his former political partner, focusing instead on the future and the issues. "We're entering a new time, we're electing a new president, and I stand here tonight as my own man. I want you to know me for who I truly am." In these words, it seems he was attempting to distance himself from his part in Clinton's accomplishments (and failures), wishing to portray himself as his own candidate, rather than a continuance of the former administration.

In a turn around from his platform in his 1988 run for president, Gore shifted his platform further left.

- promised to appoint pro-choice judges with more liberal leanings. Gore appointees were more likely to support gay rights and maintain a separation between religion and government

- vowed to maintain a firm distinction between Church and State, and didn't focus on religion as a major issue. However, Gore promoted government partnerships with faith-based groups. His running mate was an observant Jew and often talked about increasing the role of religion in public life

- wanted to lift the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military, which was supported by President Clinton. Gore also promised to work toward expanding gay rights, and supported legislation such as the Hate Crime Prevention Act that would broaden the definition of hate crimes to include crimes committed against gay people.

Overall, his new platform served to get him farther than his earlier had, being more supportive of the issues of the day, more open to change. As this is an example, party platforms tend to make or break a candidate, aiding voters in deciding who to vote for in which cases.

Really, it all came down to Gore's running mate: Senator Joe Lieberman. Chosen in August of 2000, Lieberman was the first man of the Jewish faith to run for Vice President, and though he had spent a deal of time aiding in the public bashing of Clinton for his various infidelities, he seemed to be the right choice for Gore's campaign. In a big way, the choice of Lieberman for his running mate was another attempt to distance himself from his time at President Clinton's side.

Money

The primary source of campaign funds for federal level elections comes from individuals, followed by political action committees (PACs). Individuals feel the need to contribute based on a variety of reasons. Some reasons include ideology, party identifications, and support and self-interest. Contributions from both types of donors are limited, and corporations and labor unions are not aloud to contribute to presidential campaigns.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC), an independent federal agency established in 1975 because of amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), sets standards for presidential campaigns, as well as keeps the different parties in check. FECA requires all sources of campaign funds to be disclosed. Qualifying candidates for President have access to public financing during the primaries and general election. The money for federal subsidies comes from income taxes; citizens have the option to check a box and donate $3.00 to federal campaigns when they fill out their taxes each year. Candidates that do qualify for government funding are often subject to spending limits.

Chart of spending limits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States#Table_of_Federal_Donation_Limits

In the Supreme Court ruling of FECA, it was ruled that individuals and groups have the right to spend as much money as they wish on presidential campaigns. The only limitation of this ruling is that the money cannot come from corporate or union treasury money. One example of an enormous independent expenditure in the 2000 election was Stephen Adams, the owner of an outdoor advertising firm, who gave $2,000,000 to support Bush.

Corporate Friends of Gore for 2000 Presidential Campaign

Gore's top donors for the presidential campaign (donation in parenthesis)

ERNST & YOUNG ($130,625): One of the nation's largest accounting agencies, Ernst & Young has almost matched the $140,000 it gave to Clinton/Gore in 1996. Its clients are mostly high-tech and the firm has fought Internet taxation. Other clients include R.J. Reynolds and Anheuser-Busch.

CITIGROUP ($99,500): Gave $648,547 to democrats in 1990s. Sought and received a relaxation of financial service regulations.

VIACOM ($94,675): Sought approval for its merger with CBS. Gave $356,900 in soft money to Democrats in the 1990s.

GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO. ($86,750): Pushed hard for normalized trading relations with China. Gave $1.4 million in soft money to Democrats in 1990s.

TIME/WARNER ($73,525): Keeping the Internet free of taxation and regulators out of the cable industry are Time/Warner's chief goals. No longer gives soft money.

BELLSOUTH ($71,750): Baby bell. When Gore and Reed Hundt drew up idea for a $2.3 billion-a-year tax on phone calls to pay for Internet service in schools, BellSouth successfully lobbied to pass the tax on to consumers. Then made millions providing new telephone lines to schools. Gave $614,379 in soft money to Democrats over the 1990s.

PATTON BOGGS ($40,750): One of Washington's most powerful lobbying firms, Patton Boggs led the push for permanent most-favorable trade status for China. Charging clients $9.3 million for their services last year, Patton Boggs is the second largest lobbying firm in Washington.

ANHEUSER-BUSCH ($37,000): Alcohol kills 100,000 people every year. Over 12 million Americans are addicted to it. Yet the Administration has done almost nothing to raise awareness of the dangers of alcohol abuse. Maybe that's because alcohol industry PACs are among the biggest spenders in Washington, giving out $2.3 million in 1997-1998 alone, more than the gun lobby.

Campaign finance has become a controversial issue because of debates about free speech, and corruption when considering those who favor existing, fewer, and further restrictions.

http://www.fec.gov/press/press2005/20050203pressum/presbigpic.pdf

~Gray

Party Nomination

Primary elections are the method in which each political party chooses its presidential candidate. Closed primary elections only allow citizens to vote for a possible candidate in the political party with which they’re registered. Open primary elections allow citizens to vote for any possible candidate. In addition, citizens either directly vote for a presidential candidate, or they vote for a delegate who is either “pledged” or “unpledged” to vote for a certain candidate at the national political parties’ respective conventions. All of these factors vary from state to state.

States can also hold caucuses. Caucuses are meetings in which voters convene to vote for the delegate that they wish to represent them and go to the national party convention. Each political party has a different caucus, and different procedures for running the caucus. Especially notable are Iowa’s caucuses; there are ninety-nine held, and they receive copious attention from the media. In the Democratic Party Iowa caucuses, the voters seat themselves on the side of the room that represents the delegate they wish to vote for; the undecided voters are in a separate section. Then, the people who have decided who they will vote for make speeches and try to convince the undecided voters to join their side. In the Republican Party Iowa caucuses, there’s no separation made between the people who prefer the different delegates. At the end of the meeting, the vote is taken, and the delegates are decided.

In the 2000 election, Vice President Al Gore and former Senator Bill Bradley were the two possible Democratic candidates. In 2000, Bradley’s campaign was based on the statement that he wished to restore public confidence and trust in the federal government, especially after the Lewinsky scandal. Gore responded by distancing himself from Clinton through several interviews, statements, and even switching his headquarters from Washington to Tennessee. Bradley also took on a more liberal platform than Gore, which was much more extreme and did not appeal to a wide range of voters. Gore and Bradley held several debates in which Gore boosted his position in the polls by going on the offensive against Bradley. Consequently, Gore ended up winning every single statewide primary or caucus, often obtaining a large majority of the vote. Bill Bradley withdrew from the race on March 9^th, having not won a single state, long before the primaries had been completed.

-Becca