527 Committees, Formal Parties, and Party Adaptation

Abstract

Political parties are not static organizations; they continually adapt to changes to the political, electoral, and legal environments. In this paper we argue that so-called 527 committees are another form of party adaptation. We investigate questions about their role in elections, using a dataset consisting of the personnel backgrounds of the largest 527s in the 2004 and 2006 election cycles. We examine the staffing of these groups and their ties to the formal party structures. We find that 527 organizations with stronger personnel links to formal party organizations have more connections to other 527s. The results suggest that 527s are not independent actors disrupting the party system, but rather well-placed participants in the party networks that helped parties adapt to a changing electoral context.

Loose Cannons or Loyal Foot Soldiers? Toward a More Complex Theory of Interest Group Advertising Strategies

“…In short, groups like Priorities USA and Crossroads GPS are acting similarly to parties, partially matching their issue discussions to that of the candidates they support. This may be unsurprising given that many of these groups are essentially run by former party officials or by top politicians’ associates and is consistent with other examinations of 527 committees (Skinner, Masket, and Dulio ). Our evidence is the first that contextualizes the issue content of these groups’ participation in electoral politics.…”

Party Control of Party Primaries: Party Influence in Nominations for the US Senate

“…21. These results are also robust to primary spending by outside groups as measured by data available on OpenSecrets.org, most likely because outside groups are an intricate part of the party network (Koger et al 2009;Skinner et al 2013). Outside spending has no effect on the likelihood that a party-favored candidate wins the primary after controlling for candidate fund-raising and party support.…”

“…Unlike previous theories of parties that posit their formation as the result of enterprising politicians (Aldrich 1995), recent research has conceptualized parties as a loose network of individuals and groups (Bawn et al 2012;Koger, Masket, and Noel 2009). These individuals and groups coordinate together to achieve electoral and policy goals (Bawn et al 2012;Cohen et al 2008;Desmarais et al 2015;Herrnson 2009;Koger et al 2009;Masket et al 2012;Nyhan and Montgomery 2014;Skinner, Masket, and Dulio 2013) in part by sharing information and electoral tactics (Grossmann and Dominguez 2009;Koger et al 2009;Nyhan and Montgomery 2015;Skinner et al 2013). The theory of parties as an extended network of individuals and groups, however, rests on the ability of these networks to control the nomination process (Bawn et al 2012).…”

Sponsorship, Disclosure, and Donors

“…Thus, candidates may find it in their benefit to court outside groups, even to the point of skirting laws that ban coordination with outside groups. Indeed, many employees of super PACs are former associates of the candidates they promote (Skinner, Masket, and Dulio 2013).…”