Primaries & Campaign Finance

US Politics Fundamentals

Chapter 8 · Primaries & Campaign Finance

Chapter 7 established that political parties aren't in the Constitution at all — and neither, it turns out, is the process by which those parties actually choose their own nominees. This chapter covers how the modern primary system really got built, in a single, real, chaotic year, and then turns to campaign finance — where two real Supreme Court cases have shaped how much money can legally flow into US elections in a way that has no real equivalent in the UK's own tightly capped system.

Primaries: Another Real Gap the Constitution Never Filled

The Constitution has never specified how parties choose their own presidential nominees at all — that process, like the parties themselves, was built entirely by the parties over time. For most of US history it wasn't primaries that decided a nomination — it was party insiders at the national convention itself.

Wisconsin, 1905: an early real experiment Wisconsin's real 1905 direct open primary, championed by Robert La Follette, was the first to eliminate the party caucus and directly let voters choose national convention delegates — an early, real precursor to the system that would eventually dominate. Oregon followed in 1910 with the first genuine presidential preference primary. But for another six decades, most delegates nationally were still chosen by party leaders, not primary voters.
1968: the real crisis that changed everything At the 1968 Democratic National Convention, Vice President Hubert Humphrey secured the presidential nomination despite not winning a single primary under his own name — chosen instead by party insiders, while the convention itself descended into real, televised chaos and protest in the streets of Chicago. The backlash led the Democratic National Committee to commission the McGovern-Fraser Commission, which recommended reforms to assure genuinely wider public participation in choosing a nominee. Binding primaries — where the actual vote, not a party boss's choice, determines delegates — became the dominant nomination method across most states through the 1970s, and have remained so ever since.

Closed Primaries

Only voters already registered with a party may vote in that party's own primary.

Open Primaries

Any registered voter may vote in either party's primary, regardless of their own registration.

Iowa & New Hampshire

Iowa traditionally holds the first binding nominating event; New Hampshire's own state law requires its primary be held at least seven days before any comparable contest — giving both states real, outsized early influence over the entire field.

Campaign Finance: A Real Post-Watergate Rulebook

Money in US elections is governed by a rulebook that itself only dates to the 1970s. The Federal Election Campaign Act, significantly amended in 1974 in the direct wake of Watergate, created the Federal Election Commission and imposed contribution limits, disclosure requirements, and — originally — spending caps. Two real Supreme Court cases then reshaped that rulebook into what actually governs elections today.

CaseYearWhat it upheldWhat it struck down
Buckley v. Valeo1976Contribution limits — direct donations to a candidate — as a constitutional way to prevent quid-pro-quo corruptionSpending/expenditure limits — ruled that restricting how much can be spent on political speech violates the First Amendment, since political communication itself depends on real spending
Citizens United v. FEC2010Corporations' and unions' First Amendment right to make unlimited independent political expenditures — spending not coordinated with, or given directly to, any candidateThe federal ban on corporate/union-funded "electioneering communications," triggered by Citizens United's own attempt to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton ahead of the 2008 primaries
Finding: the real, lasting distinction is contributions vs. independent spending Together, these two rulings drew a real, durable line that still governs US campaign finance today: direct contributions to a candidate remain legally capped, but independent spending — money spent to support a cause or candidate without directly coordinating with their campaign — is treated as constitutionally protected political speech and cannot be capped at all. Citizens United's own 2010 ruling, combined with the same year's Speechnow.org v. FEC decision, is the direct legal basis for Super PACs — political committees that can raise and spend unlimited sums independently, so long as they don't coordinate directly with a candidate's own campaign.

A Hard National Cap the US Has No Equivalent Of

The UK takes essentially the opposite approach. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 created the Electoral Commission and imposed real, hard national spending limits on political parties during a regulated campaign period — a cap that, as of 2024, allows a party up to £54,010 per constituency it contests, working out to a real maximum of roughly £34.13 million if a single party contested all 632 seats in Great Britain. There is no equivalent hard national ceiling on total spending — by a party, let alone by outside groups — anywhere in the US system after Buckley and Citizens United.

The UK also bans paid political TV and radio advertising outright Under the Communications Act 2003 (continuing a practice that traces back through the Broadcasting Act 1990), paid political advertising on television and radio is simply prohibited in the UK. Parties instead receive free Party Political Broadcasts — short, unpaid slots allocated according to a formula set by Parliament rather than purchased with campaign funds. There is no US equivalent: political advertising on American television is both legal and, following Citizens United, effectively uncapped for independent spenders.

Two Opposite Free-Speech Doctrines

The sharpest real contrast isn't just the numbers — it's the legal reasoning underneath them. Buckley v. Valeo treats spending limits as a genuine restriction on protected political speech, since (in the Court's own words) political communication inherently depends on real spending — sending a telegram to a public official, the Court noted, itself costs money. A real 1998 UK case, Bowman v United Kingdom, reached the European Court of Human Rights on the opposite argument — a UK campaign-spending restriction was challenged as a free-expression violation — and was held to be fully compatible with Article 10's own free-expression protections, not a violation of them.

United StatesUnited Kingdom
Are independent spending caps allowed?No — struck down as unconstitutional (Buckley, Citizens United)Yes — real, hard national spending caps under PPERA, upheld against a free-expression challenge (Bowman)
Paid political broadcast advertisingLegal, and effectively uncapped for independent spenders post-Citizens UnitedBanned outright; free Party Political Broadcasts allocated by parliamentary formula instead
Underlying legal reasoningSpending caps restrict protected political speech (First Amendment)Spending caps are compatible with, not opposed to, free expression rights (Article 10, ECHR)
Finding: the same right, read to produce opposite rules Both countries genuinely protect free political expression as a real legal principle — the US First Amendment and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights aren't opposing values in the abstract. What differs is whether a spending cap is understood as an attack on that right (the US view, from Buckley onward) or as a legitimate, compatible way of levelling the playing field for that same right (the UK view, confirmed in Bowman). Two real courts, working from genuinely comparable free-expression principles, reached genuinely opposite conclusions about whether money itself counts as the speech being protected.

Hands-On Exercises

Exercise 1

Explain why the 1968 Democratic National Convention is the real turning point behind today's primary-dominated nomination system, rather than Wisconsin's earlier 1905 reform.

→ Solution
Exercise 2

A wealthy individual wants to spend $10 million supporting a candidate. Explain the real legal difference between giving that money directly to the campaign versus spending it independently through a Super PAC, and why current US law treats those two options so differently.

→ Solution
Exercise 3

Explain why Buckley v. Valeo and Bowman v United Kingdom can both genuinely be about protecting free political expression, and yet reach opposite real conclusions about whether a spending cap is legal.

→ Solution

Quick Reference

  • Primaries: never specified by the Constitution; Wisconsin (1905) was an early pioneer, but binding primaries became dominant only after the 1968 DNC crisis and the McGovern-Fraser reforms
  • Open vs. closed primaries: open = any registered voter; closed = only registered party members
  • Buckley v. Valeo (1976): upheld contribution limits; struck down spending limits as protected First Amendment speech
  • Citizens United v. FEC (2010): corporations/unions can make unlimited independent expenditures — the legal basis for Super PACs
  • Real UK cap: a party is limited to roughly £34.13 million nationally (2024 figure) under PPERA — no US equivalent
  • UK paid broadcast ads: banned outright since the Communications Act 2003 (and earlier); replaced by free Party Political Broadcasts
  • Core contrast: US law treats spending caps as a First Amendment violation (Buckley); UK/ECHR law treats them as compatible with free expression (Bowman v UK, 1998)