Chapter 34 — Exercises

These exercises put the chapter's frameworks to work on real federal data. None of them require specialized software; all of them require careful reading and a willingness to write down what you actually find rather than what you expected to find. Be specific. Cite numbers. Cite filings. Disagree with yourself when the data does not match your priors.

Exercise 34.1 — Trace your own representative's campaign finance

Go to the Federal Election Commission's website (fec.gov) or to OpenSecrets (opensecrets.org) and locate the most recent two-year cycle of campaign-finance filings for your U.S. House representative. Answer, in writing:

  1. Total raised by the principal campaign committee.
  2. Top five industries by contribution (OpenSecrets categorizes contributors by employer industry).
  3. Top five individual donors.
  4. Percentage from small donors (contributions under $200).
  5. Percentage from PACs.
  6. Independent expenditures by outside groups in the district — total amount, top three spending entities, partisan direction.

Now write a one-page analytic memo. Where does your representative's money come from? How does it compare to a representative from a similar district in the other party (your instructor or you can pick a comparison case)? What pattern do you observe, and what does the pattern not tell you about whether the money is influencing your representative's vote?

Exercise 34.2 — Anatomy of a super PAC

Choose a major federal-election super PAC from the most recent cycle. Recommended starting points include Senate Majority PAC, Senate Leadership Fund, Congressional Leadership Fund, House Majority PAC, the leading presidential-aligned PACs (Make America Great Again Inc., Future Forward USA Action), or a single-issue super PAC. Pull its FEC filings.

  1. Top ten donors by total contribution. Are they individuals, (c)(4)s, corporations, or other entities?
  2. For each top-ten donor, identify (using OpenSecrets, news reporting, or the donor's own materials): industry, ideological lean, other political giving in the cycle.
  3. Where the donor is a (c)(4) or LLC, attempt to identify the underlying donors. Where you cannot, document that fact and write down what kind of disclosure rule (if any) would have made the information available.
  4. List the top five recipients of independent expenditures by this super PAC. What was the support/oppose breakdown? In which races?
  5. Pick one race the super PAC participated in and find at least one ad it ran. Watch it. Describe the ad's argument in plain English.

Conclude with a one-paragraph evaluation: based on what you saw, is this super PAC functionally an extension of a candidate or party committee, or is it operating independently? Cite your evidence.

Exercise 34.3 — Tracing a dark-money disclosure

Pick a 501(c)(4) that has been publicly identified as a major player in recent federal elections. Recommendations include One Nation, Majority Forward, the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action, Americans for Prosperity, the Sixteen Thirty Fund, the Marble Freedom Trust, or Heritage Action. Pull its most recent IRS Form 990 (available through the IRS Tax Exempt Organization Search or ProPublica's Nonprofit Explorer).

  1. Total revenue. Total political spending (the form distinguishes 990 line items for "lobbying" and "political activity").
  2. Top contractors and grantees. Trace any grants to other (c)(4)s, super PACs, or 527s.
  3. Compare the (c)(4)'s political spending in FEC filings (when it appeared as a contributor to disclosed entities) with what the 990 reports. Reconcile.
  4. Identify the (c)(4)'s major issue advocacy. What does it say it cares about? What does it actually spend on?
  5. Write down what you can confidently say, and what you cannot, about who funded this organization. Be specific about the limits of disclosure.

Exercise 34.4 — Steel-man both sides on Citizens United

Without using AI to do the work for you, write two memos, each 500–700 words.

Memo A: A persuasive argument that Citizens United v. FEC (2010) was correctly decided. Cite the majority opinion. Address the strongest counterargument from the Stevens dissent, and respond to it on the merits.

Memo B: A persuasive argument that Citizens United was wrongly decided. Cite the Stevens dissent. Address the strongest counterargument from the Kennedy majority, and respond to it on the merits.

Submit both. Your grade will depend in part on whether your reader can identify which side you actually hold from internal cues (better memos make this hard).

Exercise 34.5 — Democracy Audit: the financing of your district's most recent race

This is a major exercise. Plan on 4–6 hours.

For your U.S. House district, build a complete picture of the most recent general election:

  1. Both major-party candidates' principal campaign committee receipts and expenditures.
  2. Independent-expenditure spending in the race, by entity. What were the top five outside groups, and were they coordinated with either campaign?
  3. Total spending in the race, all sources combined. Per-vote-cast.
  4. Outcome and margin.
  5. The race's competitiveness rating from a non-partisan source (Cook Political Report, Sabato's Crystal Ball, Inside Elections).

Now answer:

  • Did the candidate who spent more win? What was the margin of advantage in spending? Of votes?
  • What share of the winning candidate's funds came from in-district donors versus out-of-district donors? Versus PACs versus individuals?
  • What share of the losing candidate's funds came from comparable categories?
  • How does this race's total spending compare to comparable races (similar PVI, similar incumbency status) in other states?

Conclude with a 500-word analytic essay. Avoid the phrase "money buys elections." Instead, address: in what specific ways did money matter in this race? In what specific ways did it not?

Exercise 34.6 — Mega-donor pairing

Choose one Republican-aligned mega-donor from the chapter and one Democratic-aligned mega-donor. For each, complete a profile:

  1. Sources of wealth.
  2. Political-giving total, last two cycles, all entities combined.
  3. Top three vehicles (super PACs, (c)(4)s, candidates) they funded.
  4. Stated reasons for political engagement (their own words from interviews, public statements, or organizational missions).
  5. One specific policy outcome (or attempted outcome) they have publicly tied to their political giving.

Compare. Where are the patterns similar? Where do they differ? What does this comparison tell you about the role of mega-donors in each party's coalition?

Exercise 34.7 — Public-financing thought experiment

Imagine your state were considering adopting a New York City–style 8-to-1 small-donor matching program for state legislative races, paid for from state general funds.

  1. Estimate the cost. (You can ballpark from total spending in recent cycles and assume modest participation rates.)
  2. What share of state-budget spending would the program represent?
  3. Identify three groups likely to support the proposal and three likely to oppose it. State each group's reasoning in its own terms (steel-manning).
  4. Identify three specific design choices that would matter (size of match, residency requirement, opt-in vs. mandatory, expenditure limit on participants).
  5. Write a 500-word recommendation, either supporting or opposing the proposal, with explicit acknowledgment of the strongest objections to your position.

Exercise 34.8 — Cross-national policy import

Choose one country whose campaign-finance regime is described in the chapter (UK, Germany, Canada, Australia, France) or research another peer democracy. Identify one element of that country's regime that some American reformers have proposed importing.

  1. Describe the policy in detail. Cite an authoritative source.
  2. Describe how it functions in its home country. Are there empirical evaluations?
  3. Identify the constitutional obstacles to importing it under current US doctrine.
  4. Identify one design adaptation that might make it constitutionally viable in the US.
  5. State whether you support importing the adapted version, and why or why not.

Exercise 34.9 — Ideologically self-aware journaling

In a half-page private reflection (not graded for content, only for completion):

  1. Before reading this chapter, where did you stand on Citizens United?
  2. After reading this chapter, where do you stand?
  3. What specific argument or piece of evidence in the chapter most caused you to update?
  4. What is the strongest counterargument to your current position?
  5. What evidence would change your mind?

This exercise is from the Practical Philosophy tradition. The point is not to determine your views; it is to make you aware of how they were formed and what could update them. That awareness is itself a form of civic competence.