E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
In yesterday’s
post, we described how major functions once performed by official party
organizations are migrating instead to what we call shadow parties—groups
situated outside the official party apparatus, but clearly aligned with one
party or the other.The Koch brothers
are at the leading edge of the trend.Their
fundraising network and complicated array of “outside” groups are increasingly developing
the capabilities to provide most of the services one would previously have
expected the official party to provide to campaigns—from fundraising networks
to television ads.Now the Koch brothers
are even offering a voter database with a software interface that many campaigns
prefer to the RNC’s.
As we noted yesterday, some people describe this as a fight
between “the party” and “outside groups,” but that frame conceals a lot of the
real action.The Koch brothers are almost
as deeply intertwined with the Republican Party as the RNC itself is.But there are differences.The Koch brothers represent a faction within
the party, rather than the party as a whole.Their shadow party groups answer to the people who write the checks, not
the rest of the party.This fight is an
internal struggle for control of the party.And it’s starting to be clear who has the upper hand in that
struggle.The big winners are likely to
be those intra-party factions with the enormous resources necessary to rival
and sometimes beat the official party at its own game.
So, a skeptic might ask, isn’t this basically a case of what
Sam Issacharoff and Pam Karlan call the “hydraulics” of campaign finance
reform, where money blocked from one channel (the official parties) flows
through another (the shadow parties)?Yes
and no.Here, when the money flows
through a different channel, the party ends up with a different center of
gravity.It means some voices count more
inside the party than they did before—and other voices count less.
These shifts raise a fundamental question: who ought to be in control of the party,
anyway?In the paper we
just published, we imagine three models of who should control a party:
1. The equality model: On this model, each
party member should have equal influence over the direction of the party.If you think of the party as a democratic
arena, this model is analogous to one-person-one-vote.
2. The elite-driven model: On this model,
the parties are not democracies; they are more like firms, competing in the
broader democratic arena.In this
analogy, party elites are the executives; the donors are the shareholders; and ordinary
voters are like consumers who can accept or reject what the elites are
selling.This model has its roots in a Schumpeterian
conception of democracy.
Neither of these models, we think, is adequate—either
positively or normatively.We think
parties both are, and should be, both internally
democratic and actors in the broader
democratic arena, selling their policies to the general public.As we discuss in the paper, we think there
are good reasons to depart from the equality model, while not embracing the
elite-driven model either.So we propose
3. The pluralist model: This hybrid model
takes into account the party’s multi-layered role in our politics.On this model, the party stands in part for ordinary voters who make up
the base of the party, in part for the party elites who run it, and in part for the activists in
between—the party faithful, who knock on doors and show up at rallies and
caucuses and provide much of the party’s energy.
The party faithful are much more heavily involved in the
party than ordinary voters, but much less influential than the Koch
brothers.One major worry we have about
the shift from official parties to shadow parties is that the party faithful
may get squeezed out, leaving us with a politics that is more centralized and
broadcast-like.This kind of politics leaves
little room for the vibrant, unruly, participatory sort of democracy that is
driven by large numbers of people who feel strongly about their politics but
don’t have an extra few million dollars lying around.
For more see the paper.Cross-posted on the Election Law Blog.