United States--2012 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report (Revised April 11, 2013)

2012 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit of
the American Presidential and Congressional
Electoral Systems
Electoral Fairness Audit Completed October 14, 2012
Revised April 11, 2013
Executive Summary
The American federal electoral system borders a failed state as determined by the
overall unsatisfactory audit score of 54.5 percent (out of 100 percent). The FDA
auditors measured
1) two failing scores for legislation pertaining to electoral finance (48.25 percent) and
media election coverage (42.5 percent);
2) one unsatisfactory score for legislation pertaining to candidates and parties
(57 percent);
3) one satisfactory score for legislation pertaining to voters (70.25 percent).
The FDA auditors factored in 52 independent variables and used matrices and financial
analysis in its calculations and determinations. Based on its measurements, the FDA
believes that the American federal election outcomes may not reflect the voice of
Americans from electoral districts. The significant legislated unfair competition
between American candidates and parties coupled with electoral finance legislation
favoring wealthy money interests and media legislation favoring large corporate media
and imbalanced election coverage creates a system tilted heavily to special and minority
interests, rather than the American people. The FDA believes that reforms are necessary
in electoral finance and election coverage in order to help realign the American federal
electoral process with Americans as a whole. The FDA recommends, for examples,
expenditure limits on congressional candidates and privately funded presidential
candidates, caps on independent third-party expenditure, caps on media ownership
concentration, and a voluntary media code of conduct during the 60-day campaign
period which supports broad and balanced campaign coverage.
The FDA recommends that the public get involved with the government legislative
process and implementation if they want to protect and advance their democratic voice,
and create a society of their choosing.
“If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in
democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in
government to the utmost.”
- Aristotle

Foundation for Democratic Advancement | 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of the U.S.A. Revised April 11, 2013 R1 Page 2 of 82
Prepared By
Mr. Stephen Garvey, Executive Director Foundation for Democratic Advancement, Bachelor of
Arts in Political Science, University of British Columbia and Master of Philosophy in
Environment and Development, University of Cambridge.
Peer Review By
Mr. Steve Finley, Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering, Purdue University, Master of
Business Administration, Indiana University, and Juris Doctor, Valparaiso University;
Ms. Anne Rupcich, Bachelor of Arts in Law and Society and English, University of Calgary;
Ms. Lindsay Tetlock, Bachelor of Arts in International Relations and Master of Arts in Historical
Studies, University of Calgary;
Purpose of the American Electoral Fairness Audit
The purpose of the Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA)‘s electoral fairness audit
(the ―Audit‖) is to determine a comprehensive grade for electoral fairness in the United States at
the executive and congressional levels of government. This Audit is an extension of the FDA‘s
global audit of electoral fairness involving all countries that hold political elections. The purpose
of the global audit is to quantify electoral fairness, establish benchmarks for electoral fairness,
identify areas of democratic advancement and progression, and encourage democracy reform
where needed.
The goal of the FDA's United States report is to give the people of America and other
stakeholders an informed, objective perspective of the American presidential and congressional
electoral systems and provide recommendations for reform.
The views in this electoral fairness audit are the views of the FDA only. The FDA‘s members
and volunteers are in no way affiliated with the Federal Election Commission or any of the
American registered/non-registered political parties. The Audit is an independent assessment
based on objectivity, transparency, and non-partisanship. The FDA assumes no responsibility or
liability for any errors in the measurement and calculation of its audit results or inaccuracies in
its research of relevant American legislation.
About the Foundation for Democratic Advancement
The Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA) is an international independent, non-
partisan democracy organization. The FDA‘s mission is
to measure, study, and communicate the impact of government processes on a free and
democratic society.

Overall, the FDA works
1. to ensure that people become more knowledgeable about the outcomes of
government processes and can then make decisions that are more informed;
2. to get people involved in monitoring government processes at all levels of
government and in providing sound, practical, and effective suggestions. (For more
information on the FDA visit: www.democracychange.org)
To ensure its objectivity and independence, the FDA does not conduct privately paid research.
However, if you or your organization has an important research idea or are aware of an important
issue on government processes, the FDA is available to listen to your idea or issue and possibly
help raise public awareness by initiating and leading change through report research and
analysis. Please contact the FDA at (403) 669-8132 or email us at info@democracychange.org
for more information.
An online version of this report can be found at: www.democracychange.org
For further information and/or comments on this report please contact Mr. Stephen Garvey at
stephen.garvey@democracychange.org

Table of Contents
Introduction 4
How to Read the Report 5
Chapter 1: Electoral Finance Audit Results 9
Analysis 21
Chapter 2: Media Election Coverage Audit Results 22
Analysis 29
Chapter 3: Candidates and Parties Audit Results 31
Analysis 48
Chapter 4: Voters Audit Results 49
Analysis 58
Chapter 5: Overall Audit Results 60
Chapter 6: Analysis 61
Chapter 7: Conclusion & Recommendations 65
References 71
Appendix: Research and Audit Methodology 77
FDA Research and Audit Teams and Observers 82

Introduction
The FDA based its audit of America‘s federal electoral legislation on non-partisanship and
objectivity.
The audit process entails three major components:
1) Research of America's federal electoral legislation and any related legislation and documents.
2) Audit of the legislation and research findings based on audit team consensus, and the FDA‘s
matrices, financial spreadsheets, and scoring scales.
3) Analysis of findings.
The FDA based the matrix scoring scales on the fundamental democratic principles of legislative
neutrality, political freedom, and political fairness. In addition, it based the scales on the
comparative impact of variables on democracy. For example, if there is no electoral finance
transparency then this result will affect other variables such as legislative process. Without
financial transparency, it is near impossible to enforce electoral finance laws, which prevent and
uncover electoral finance wrongdoing. Consequently, according to the FDA‘s matrices, zero
financial transparency will result in a zero score for legislative process as well.
The FDA‘s research component is objective as it is simply a compilation of the legislative
information and financial data for the American system and any related findings based in fact
and sound empirical research.
The FDA‘s audit component is both objective and subjective. It is objective when determining
yes and no facts, such as does country ―A‖ have caps on electoral contributions—yes or no? It is
subjective because of the predetermined scores for each audit section, and the scores determined
for each section. The FDA acknowledges that there is no absolute scoring system or
determination of scores.
The FDA minimizes subjectivity through non-partisanship and basing each score on facts,
research findings, financial calculations, and team audit consensus. It bases the scoring scales for
each section of the audit on consensus of the FDA auditors and survey results of relevant
persons. In addition, the application of core democratic concepts such as electoral legislative
neutrality, political freedom, and political fairness, and the comparative impact of variables on
democracy inform the scoring scales. Finally, the FDA requires a minimum quorum of five
experienced auditors during audit sessions. For further discussion of the FDA methodology,
please see the Appendix on page 77.
The FDA is a registered non-profit corporation, and therefore it cannot issue tax-deductible
receipts. In addition, the FDA is the sole funder of this report. As a policy to maintain its
independence and objectivity, the FDA does not conduct privately funded research projects. The
FDA relies on donations. If you value this report, please consider donating to the Foundation
for Democratic Advancement to help cover the costs of producing this report and communicating
its content to the stakeholders, and to continue its work in the United States.
“Democracy is not a spectator sport.”
- Marian Edelman

How to Read the Report
Chapters 1 to 4 focus on the four sections of the FDA‘s audit of the American federal electoral
system. These chapters are formatted in the following manner
1) Chapter summary and table of audit results for the section.
2) Audit questions, legislative research and audit findings on each audit subsection.
3) Analysis of audit measurements and findings for the section.
Chapter 6, ‗Overall Analysis‘, pertains to the measurements and findings from all four audit
sections.
Definition of Key Terms
The Foundation for Democratic Advancement characterized the following definitions
Candidates and parties (audit section three)
The opportunity and ability of candidates and parties to campaign in the public domain for
elected positions. This opportunity and ability occur before, during, and after an election period.
Candidates and parties may involve election content of media, electoral finance, and voters (as
defined below). In the terms of the FDA electoral fairness audit, which focuses on electoral
process, candidates and parties includes:
1) Registrations requirements for candidates and parties.
2) Laws on candidates‘ and parties‘ access to media and reasonable opportunity to take
advantage of the access.
3) Regulations on access to major debates.
4) Electoral complaints process for candidates and parties
In the FDA electoral fairness audit, candidates and parties only encompasses laws, regulations,
procedures etc. that affect the influence of candidates and parties. For example, candidates and
parties does not encompass laws on electoral complaints by voters nor does it encompass laws on
voter assistance at polling booths.
Electoral fairness
The impartiality and equality of election law before, during, and after an election period. In the
context of the audit, electoral fairness involves concepts relating to election content in the media,
candidates and parties, electoral finance, and voters. In particular, this includes evaluating
impartiality and balance of political content in the media, equitable opportunity and ability for
registered candidates and parties to influence voters and government, equitable electoral finance
laws, and equitable opportunity and ability for voters to voice political views and/or influence
the outcome of an election.
Electoral fairness does not allow bias through, for example, legislation that gives a distinct
electoral advantage to one registered party over another, or laws that allow equitable access to
media without facilitating equal opportunity to take advantage of this access. In contrast,

electoral fairness would include a broad, balanced diffusion of electoral propaganda by
registered political parties during the campaign period, equal campaign finances (beyond equal
expenditure limits) for all registered parties according to the number of candidates endorsed, and
the registration of parties based on reasonable popular support (rather than financial deposit or
unreasonable popular support).
Electoral fairness in any democratic process must include an equal playing field for registered
parties and candidates, distinguishable by voters according to a clear political platform, and a
broad and balanced political discourse in where information about electoral choices are clear and
available to the voting public.
Electoral finance (audit section one)
Electoral finance laws applied to registered candidates and parties before, during, and after an
election period. Electoral finance also encompasses campaign finance which is restricted to the
campaign period.
In the context of the FDA electoral fairness audit, electoral finance includes:
1) Caps on electoral contributions (or the lack of).
2) Caps on candidate and party electoral expenditures (or the lack of).
3) Procedures for financial disclosure and reporting of candidate and party electoral finance.
4) Procedures for the handling of electoral contributions by registered candidates and parties.
Electoral finance does not include non-financial laws, regulations, procedures etc. such as those
relating to candidate and party access to media, civil rights laws such as freedom of speech and
assembly, rules on right of reply in the media, laws on the election content of media, and laws on
voter assistance.
Special interest-based democracy
A system in where either individual or corporate interests dictate government action and factions
with the most economic and political power in society influence policies and legislation. The
electoral system is set up to allow special and minority interests to impact election outcomes
primarily through electoral finance and media access and exposure.
People-based democracy
A system where power is invested in the people and the population as a whole influence
government policies and legislation. The electoral system is set up in a fair and equitable manner
so that all citizens, within reason, have an opportunity to influence the election outcome to the
same degree.
Media election coverage (audit section two)
The political content of radio and television broadcasters, the printed press, and online news
media such as news sites before, during, and after an election period. This content may include
news stories, editorials, articles, programs, and group analysis and discussion. It does not include
electoral advertisements by candidates, parties, and third parties. Electoral advertisements by

candidates and parties are included in candidates and parties, and electoral advertisements by
third parties are included in voters and electoral finance.
In the context of FDA electoral fairness audit, election content of media includes:
1) Registration requirements for television and radio broadcast companies and press companies.
2) Laws on the ownership concentration of media (or the lack of).
3) Laws on the election content of media before, during, and after a campaign period.
4) Laws on freedom of the press and broadcasters.
The FDA defines ―balance‖ in the media as having equal political content of all registered
political parties presented during the election period. Voters should receive balanced information
on all registered candidates and parties in order for election outcomes to reflect the will of the
majority. The FDA does not support the idea that incumbent or previously successful parties
should be favoured in media coverage in a current election as this could create bias based merely
on past results, and potentially weaken the process of capturing the will of the people in the
present. In addition, the FDA does not support unlimited freedom of broadcast and press media
and believes there is a misleading connection between this and democracy. The purpose of
democratic elections is to capture as accurately as possible the will of the people from districts.
Broad and balanced electoral discourse creates an informed electorate and supports the will of
the people. The FDA concedes that media ownership concentration laws aimed to produce
pluralistic ownership could cancel out any imbalance in political content and provide equitable
coverage of all registered political parties.
Voters (audit section four)
The citizens who are eligible to vote and their opportunity to express that vote and a political
voice through articles, letters to editors, blogs, advertisements, spoken word etc. in the public
domain. Voter influence applies to the period before, during, and after an election.
In the context of the FDA electoral fairness audit, which focuses on electoral process, voters
include:
1) Laws and regulations on freedom of speech and assembly.
2) Laws on the registration requirements for voters.
3) Laws on voter assistance at the polling booth.
4) Laws on the inclusion of minorities in the electoral process.
In the context of the FDA electoral fairness audit, voters may be impacted by the election content
of media, and candidates and parties and electoral finance law. For example, no cap on
contributions to candidates and parties will affect voters because no cap favors voters with more
financial wealth, and thereby the lack of cap creates electoral inequity and imbalance among
voters.

Chapter One: Electoral Finance
This chapter focuses on American electoral finance laws and the FDA's audit of them in terms of
electoral fairness. Based on the political concepts of egalitarianism and political liberalism, the
FDA team audits electoral finance laws according to their equity for registered candidates,
parties, and voters (see Appendix on page 76 for further explanation). The FDA team audits from
the standpoint of a people's representative democracy. Table 1 below shows the FDA‘s audit
variables, their corresponding audit weights, and results:
Table 1
Electoral Finance
Section Variables
% Subsection
Audit Weight
Numerical
Subsection Audit
Weight
Audit
Results
% Results
Electoral Finance
Transparency
20% 2.0 2.0 100%
Contributions to
Candidates & Parties
15% 1.5 1.5 100%
Caps on Contributions
to Candidates & Parties
20% 2.0 0.3 15%
Campaign Expenditure
Limits
22.5% 2.25 0.0016 0.071%
Caps on Third-party
Expenditures
12.5% 1.25 0.01 0.8%
Legislative Process 10% 1.0 1.0 100%
Variables from Other
Sections
n/a n/a n/a n/a
Total 100% 10 4.825 48.25%
The FDA chose these subsections because they represent core areas of electoral finance. The
audit of electoral finance includes examination of American electoral finance legislation and the
application of legislative research to the FDA matrices. Matrix scoring is based on an overall
score of 0 to 10 out of 10.
What follows are the audit questions, legislative research, and audit findings:
Electoral Finance Transparency
Audit Questions
1) Are candidate and party finances transparent to the public?
2) Are candidate and party finances transparent to candidates and parties only?
3) Are candidate and party finances transparent to the government only?

Legislative Research
In an election year, presidential candidates are required to report monthly when contributions
aggregate $100,000 or expenditures aggregate $100,000 or anticipate the aggregations during the
calendar year. In addition, the presidential candidates generally are required to submit pre-
election reports, post-election reports, and year end reports. The reports must contain
designations, record of contributors and disbursements, and statements (Federal Election
Campaign Act, Articles 434 2(A), 3 (A)).
In an election year, presidential candidates are required to disclose intent on using personal
funds, and expenditures from personal funds over $10,000 (Federal Election Campaign Act,
Article 434 (B)3).
In non-election years, political committees are required to submit quarterly financial reports.
These reports must contain all designations, statements, record of disbursements, and reports,
including the name and address of contributors donating in excess of $50 and identification of
any person who contributes in excess of $200 (Federal Election Campaign Act, Articles 432, 434
2(B)).
Campaign committees must disclose name banking institutions, safety deposit boxes and any
other depositories (Federal Election Campaign Act, Article 433).
Disbursements other than petty cash disbursements must be made using cheques from designated
depositories (Federal Election Campaign Act, Article 432 (h)(1)).
Campaign finance reports filed by registered political committees such as candidates' campaigns,
party committees, and PACs are available for public inspection and copying in the Federal
Election Commission's Public Records Office. Reports are made public within 48 hours of
submission (Guide to Researching Public Records, 2013).
The public may access the Federal Election Commission's database which contains indexes and
types of campaign activities such as large contributions and PAC contributions. The database is
also accessible from the Secretary of State's office in many state capitals (Guide to Researching
Public Records, 2013).
In addition, the Federal Election Commission makes available to the public statistical summaries
of reported campaign activities, FEC advisory opinions, personal financial statements filed by
Presidential candidates, audit reports etc. (Guide to Researching Public Records, 2013).
Copies of records and documents are available during normal business hours at the Public
Records Office. FEC library staff members are present to assist visitors in finding documents and
using computers. Document requests can be made by telephone and email, and some documents
are available via the FEC's automated Faxline system (Guide to Researching Public Records,
2013).
Reports and statements pertaining to Presidential candidates shall be kept by the Federal Election
Commission for 10 years (Federal Election Campaign Act, Article 438 (5)).

The Federal Election Commission shall maintain a website containing election related reports
and information which is accessible by the public (Federal Election Commission Act, Article
438a).
The Federal Election Commission has the authority to conduct audits and field investigations of
political committee required to file a report (Federal Election Campaign Act, Article 438 9(b)).
Audit Findings
The finances of candidates and parties are transparent to the public.
Contributions to Candidates and Parties
Audit Questions
1) Are contributions restricted to citizens?
2) Are contributions disallowed by foreigners, public institutions, and charities?
3) Are anonymous contributions set at a reasonable level?
Research Finding
In 2013 the United States has an estimated $33,050 per capita disposable income (IBISWorld
Business Environment Report, 2013).
The state disallows contributions from national banks, corporations, and labor organizations
(Federal Election Campaign Act, Article 441b(a)).
The state disallows contributions from registered holding companies and subsidiary companies
(Federal Election Campaign Act, Article, 441b(h)).
The state disallows contributions from any person who enters into contract with the U.S.
government, including any department or agency (Federal Election Campaign Act, 441c).
The state disallows contributions from foreign nationals (which include foreign governments,
foreign political parties, and any citizen who is not a U.S. citizen, national, and legally admitted
into the country (Federal Election Campaign Act, Article 441e).
The state disallows contributions from U.S. citizens in the name of another person (Federal
Election Campaign Act, Article 441f).
The state disallows contributions from individuals who are 17 years of age or younger (Federal
Election Campaign Act, Article 441k).
The state disallows contributions from incorporated charities and public institutions (federally
chartered corporations) (Federal Election Campaign Act, Article 441b(a) and Code of Federal
Regulations, Title 11 – Federal Elections, Article 114.2).

Corporations, trade unions, and other organizations may create PACs which are allowed to
contribute to candidates. However, only individuals may contribute funds voluntarily to PACs
(Federal Election Campaign Act, Article 441c(2)(b)); Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission, 2010).
Cash contributions must not exceed $100 (Federal Election Campaign Law, Article 441g).
Anonymous contributions cannot exceed $50 (Federal Election Campaign Act, 110.4(c)(3)).
Audit Findings
The FDA auditors deem full marks for the three sections: contributions are restricted to citizens;
foreigners, public institutions and corporations are disallowed from making contributions;
maximum anonymous contribution is $50.00 which is well within 10 percent of U.S. per capita
disposable income level of $3,050.00 (the FDA‘s maximum reasonable amount of contributions)
(FDA Talking Points Series: 10 Percent Rule, 2013), and set low enough as to minimize the
effect of electoral finance wrongdoing.
Caps on Contributions to Candidates and Parties
Audit Questions
1) Are the caps on candidates' and parties' contributions reflective of per capita disposable
income level?
2) Are the caps on candidates own contributions reflective of per capita disposable income
level?
In Table 2 are the contribution limits per legal contributors:

Table 2
Contribution Limits 2011-12
To each
candidate
or
candidate
committee
per election
To
national
party
committee
per
calendar
year
To state,
district &
local party
committee
per
calendar
year
To any
other
political
committee
per
calendar
year1
Special Limits
Individual
may give
$2,500* $30,800*
$10,000
(combined
limit)
$5,000
$117,000* overall
biennial limit:
$46,200* to
all
candidates
$70,800* to
all PACs
and parties2
National Party
Committee
may give
$5,000 No limit No limit $5,000
$43,100* to Senate
candidate per
campaign3
State, District &
Local Party
Committee
may give
$5,000
(combined
limit)
No limit No limit $5,000 No limit
PAC
(multicandidate)4
may give
$5,000 $15,000
$5,000
(combined
limit)
$5,000 No limit
PAC
(not
multicandidate)
may give
$2,500* $30,800*
$10,000
(combined
limit)
$5,000 No limit
Authorized
Campaign
Committee
may give
$2,0005
No limit No limit $5,000 No limit
* These contribution limits are indexed for inflation.
1. A contribution earmarked for a candidate through a political committee counts against the
original contributor's limit for that candidate. In certain circumstances, the contribution may also
count against the contributor's limit to the PAC. 11 CFR 110.6. See also 11 CFR 110.1(h).
2. No more than $46,200 of this amount may be contributed to state and local party committees
and PACs.
3. This limit is shared by the national committee and the national Senate campaign committee.
4. A multicandidate committee is a political committee with more than 50 contributors which has

been registered for at least 6 months and, with the exception of state party committees, has made
contributions to 5 or more candidates for federal office. 11 CFR 100.5(e)(3).
5. A federal candidate's authorized committee(s) may contribute no more than $2,000 per
election to another federal candidate's authorized committee(s). 11 CFR 102.12(c)(2).
(Contribution Limits, 2012).
Publicly funded presidential candidates cannot exceed $50,000 in contributions from personal
funds which includes funds from immediate family (Public Funding of Presidential Election
Brochure, 2012).
Privately funded presidential candidates have no limit on contributions from personal funds.
Contributions from personal funds must be reported as per the Federal Election Campaign Act
(Federal Election Commission, Contribution Limits, 2012). [In an election year, presidential
candidates are required to disclose intent on using personal funds, and expenditures from
personal funds over $10,000 (Federal Election Campaign Act, Article 434 (B)3).]
Congressional candidates‘ contributions from personal funds, including loans and advances to
their own campaigns, are not subject to any limit (Federal Election Campaign Act, 110.10(a)).
Audit Findings
There caps on candidates‘ and parties‘ contributions; these caps, including a maximum
individual contribution of $46,200, are unreflective of U.S. per capita disposable income level;
there are caps on contributions by candidates to their own campaign; publicly funded presidential
candidates are the only federal candidates subject to a cap of $50,000 on their personal
contributions; the FDA auditors determine that the $50,000 is unreflective of 10 percent of U.S.
per capita disposable income, and the total number of publicly funded presidential candidates is
very small in comparison to privately funded presidential candidates and congressional
candidates.
Through FDA consensus and Desjardins‘ household budget calculator, the FDA determined that
10 percent of per capita disposable income is a reasonable maximum contribution amount
(Determine How Much to Allocate to Each Expense, 2013; FDA Talking Points Series: 10
Percent Rule, 2013). The 10 percent contribution amount takes into consideration other
expenditures such as housing, food, services like electricity and heat, clothing, and health.
The FDA deems that 0.2 percent of all federal candidates have caps on their personal
contributions. For example, in 2008 there were nine publicly funded presidential candidates, and
the FDA believes that there are about 4,280 congressional candidates in each full election cycle.
(4,280 is based on an average of eight candidates running in the 535 congressional member
elections.)

Table 3
Total Score Out Of: 0.5
Per Capita
Disposable
Income (in $)
10% of Per
Capita
Disposable
Income
Population with
Income
$33,050 $3,305 238,150,000
10% of Per Capita
Income $3,359
Caps on Donations (in
$) $50,000
Score Based on Data 0.0661 (Maximum score available is 1.0)
Based on 0.2% of
Candidates Having
Caps 0.0001 (Maximum score available is 0.5)
Score 0.0001
Campaign Expenditure Limits
Audit Questions
1) If there are campaign expenditure limits on candidates and parties, are they set high enough
and still reasonably attainable by all registered candidates and parties?
2) If there are public subsidies or other financial instruments, do they create an equal level of
campaign finances for candidates and parties?
Public subsidies of parties are based on the percentage of total votes received in previous
election (Public Funding of Presidential Election Brochure, 2012).
Publicly funded Presidential candidates are subject to campaign expenditure limits. Privately
funded Presidential candidates are not subject to expenditure limits (Federal Election
Commission, Public Funding of Presidential Election Brochure, 2012).
U.S. taxpayers have the option to decide whether or not to direct $3 of their tax to the
Presidential Election Campaign Fund on their tax returns (Presidential Election Fund, 2012).
Funds in the Presidential Election Campaign Fund are divided up in three ways:
1) Primary matching payments are based on the government matching individual contributions
to a candidate, and only the first $250 of a contribution is matchable. To be eligible for
matching, a candidate needs to raise more than $5,000 in each of 20 different states.
2) General election grants are for Republican and Democratic candidates who win their parties'
nomination. The candidates are eligible to receive $20 million, adjusted for cost-living-
adjustment to cover campaign expenses. In 2008, candidates could receive $84.1 million.
Third party candidates are eligible to receive a percentage of this grant if the candidates

receive at least 5 percent of the popular vote. (The 2008 expenditure limit in 2008 was
$88.45 million.)
3) Party convention grants are for major political parties for their national Presidential
nominating convention. The parties are eligible to receive $4 million, adjusted for inflation.
In 2008, the major parties received $16.82 million. Third parties are eligible for the grant if
they received at least 5 percent of vote in the previous Presidential election. The Federal
Election Commission defines a majority party as 25% or more of the total popular votes in
the previous election; minority party as between 5% or more and less than 25% of the total
popular vote in the previous election; new party as a party which did not participate in the
previous election (Presidential Election Fund, 2012).
The 2012 general campaign limit for publicly funded candidates is $91.2 million. The 2012
primary limit for publicly funded candidates is $45.6 million (Presidential Spending Limits for
2012).
Publicly funded candidates have a campaign national expenditure limit of $20,000,000 (subject
to cost of living adjustment) and a primary expenditure limit of $10,000,000 and in anyone State
shall not exceed either 16 cents times the number of voters in the State or $200,000, whichever is
greater (Presidential Election Fund, 2012).
The national committee of a political party shall not make any expenditure in connection with
the general election campaign of any Presidential candidate affiliated with the party in excess of
2 cents times the the total number of US voters (Any expenditures made on behalf on Vice
President candidates are deemed the same as expenditures for Presidential candidates) (Federal
Election Campaign Act, Article 441a).
The Federal Election Campaign identifies three types of political parties: major, minor, and new.
Major parties have 25% or more of popular vote in the previous election; major parties are
entitled to equal payments of public monies.
Minor parties have between 5% and 25% of the popular vote; minor parties receive public funds
based on popular vote in previous election in comparison to the popular vote major parties
received.
New parties receive public funds based on popular vote in comparison to the popular vote for
major parties.
New parties are neither major nor minor parties (Public Funding of Presidential Election
Brochure, 2012).
In the general election campaign, 20% of fund raising revenue for presidential candidates of
minor and new parties are exempt from the national primary and general election limit (Public
Funding of Presidential Election Brochure, 2012).
There are no expenditure limits on congressional candidates and committees (FEC Campaign
Guide: Congressional Candidates and Committees, 2011).

There are no public subsidies for congressional candidates and committees (FEC Campaign
Guide: Congressional Candidates and Committees, 2011).
Audit Findings
There are no campaign expenditure limits for candidates and parties with the exception of
publicly funded presidential candidates. Since publicly funded presidential candidates comprise
about 0.2 percent of federal candidates, the FDA auditors determine a score of 0.001.
The FDA auditors determine that the maximum expenditure limit of $91,200, 000 is unreflective
of per capita disposable income:
Table 4
Total Score Out Of: 1.0
Maximum
Expenditure
per Elector
Population
with
Income
$0.383 238,150,000
Maximum Campaign Expenditure Limit
(in $) $ 91,200,000
Per Capita Disposable Income (in $) $ 33,050
Percentage of Expenditure Limit per
Citizen 271550%
Score 0.0004 (Maximum score available is 1.0)
Public subsidies only apply to approximately 0.2 percent of federal candidates.
The FDA auditors use professional judgment on the score regarding public subsidies to parties
and whether these are equitable for all parties. The FDA has deemed that only 0.2 percent of all
candidates may receive subsidies of some sort and, thus, the FDA has obtained a score of 0.0005
based on 0.2 percent of candidates having the ability to receive subsidies of some sort. Therefore,
based on these results, the FDA has obtained a score of 0.001 times 0.0004 equals 0.0 for the
equality level for candidates and parties, as established through score two above.

Caps on Third-party Spending
Audit Questions
1) If there is third party spending, is it restricted to citizens only?
2) If there are caps on third party spending, are they high enough and reasonably attainable by
all adult citizens?
3) Are there public subsidies, or other financial instruments, that create an equitable level of
third party spending?
Individuals, corporations, and trade unions are allowed to spend electorally as third parties
(Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010).
There is no limit on expenditures by third parties (Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission, 2010).
Separate segregated funding (from political committees) by a corporation, labor organization, or
individual for political purposes are not considered contributions to political committees. There
is a $5,000 contribution limit for PACs (Quick Answers to General Questions, 2012).
A nonconnected committee becomes a political committee when its contributions or
expenditures are in excess of $1,000 in a calendar year (Federal Election Campaign Law, Article
100.5(a); Campaign Guide for Nonconnected Committees, 2012).
The FDA found no financial mechanisms, or otherwise, which help create an equal level of third
party spending.
Sources of contributions for Corporation PACs are limited to executives, shareholders and their
families; labor PACs are limited to labor members; nonconnected PACs may receive
contributions from the general public; the State bans corporations and labor organizations from
contributing from their treasuries to PACs; corporations and labor organization may cover the
administrative costs of their affiliated PACs; nonconnected PACs must cover administration
costs from the funds they raise (SSFs and Nonconnected PACs, 2012).
Super PACs, which do not contribute to candidates, political parties, or other PACs, can receive
unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, and labor organizations. Super PACs are
permitted to participate in political activity independent of candidates' and parties' campaigns
(Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010).
Audit Findings
There are no caps on independent, non-connected third-party spending; there is no ban on
corporations and labor unions from third-party spending; there are no public subsidies or other
financial instruments to create a level playing field of third-party spending.

Legislative Process
Audit Question
1) Is there an effective legislative process to enforce electoral finance laws?
The United States has a legislative process to enforce electoral finances laws. The legislative
process is comprised of transparency of candidate, party, and PAC contributions as well as
expenditures, and criminal penalties for illegal electoral finance acts (Federal Election Campaign
Act, Article 9012; Guide to Researching Public Records, 2013; Federal Election Campaign Act,
Articles 432, 433, 434, 438).
Any person, including any authorized committee or officer or member of such committee, who
violates the Presidential and Vice Presidential campaign expenses and nominating convention in
excess will be fined no more than $5,000 or imprisoned no more than 1 year, or both (Federal
Election Campaign Act, Article 9012(1) and 9012 (2)).
Any person, including any officer or member of a political committee, who violates the
campaign expenditure limits for publicly funded candidates shall be fined no more than $25,000
or imprisoned no more than 5 years, or both (Federal Election Campaign Act, Articles 9035 and
9042).
Any person who uses contributions other than to defray qualified campaign expenses, repay
loans or restore funds used for campaign expenses will be fined no more than $10,000 or
imprisoned no more than 5 years, or both (Federal Election Campaign Act, Article 9042 (2)).
Any person who makes false, fictitious, or fraudulent financial evidence, books, or information
to the Federal Election Commission shall be fined no more than $10,000, or imprisoned no more
than 5 years, or both (Federal Election Campaign Act, Article 9042 (C) False statements).
Any person who receives kickbacks and illegal payments for contributions shall be fined no
more than $10,000, or imprisoned for no more than 5 years, or both. In addition, any person who
receives a kickback or illegal payment in connection with any qualified election expense of a
candidate or his authorized committee shall pay to the Secretary of the Federal Election
Commission an amount equal to 125% of the kickback and payment received (Federal Election
Campaign Act, Article 9042, (D) Kickbacks and illegal payments).
The Federal Election Commission imposes fines for late financial reports. The fines are
determined under the Administrative Fine Program. Fines are calculated based on election
sensitivity, late file or not filed, level of financial activity on the relevant report, and number
previous violations. Each previous violation will increase the fine by 25%. Based on examples
provided, fines may range from $100 to $3,500 (How the Administrative Fine Program Works,
2012).
The Federal Election Commission has jurisdiction to impose civil fines for violations of the
Federal Election Campaign Act. The fines are determined through a conciliation process. Some
violations may result in imprisonment, and the Federal Election Commission may refer criminal

violations to the US Department of Justice. The US Sentencing Commission determines the
sentencing of civil fines. Civil fines vary based on the severity of the violation, including the
amount of excessive funds involved (Quick Answers to Compliance Questions, 2012). For
example, in the Treffinger case, Treffinger, his 2000 New Jersey U.S. Senatorial campaign
committee, and his treasurer Robert A. Mathers, agreed to pay a fine of $171,000 for excessive
contributions. In the Hynes case, the committee for Daniel Hynes‘ 2004 Illinois Democratic
Senate primary campaign, and its treasurer, Jeffrey C. Wagner, agreed to pay a civil penalty of
$76,500 for excessive contributions. In the Turnham case, Joe Turnham for Congress
Committee, and Pete Turnham (the candidate‘s father) have agreed to pay a $50,000 civil penalty
for excessive contributions (Hynes Campaign Pays $76,500 Penalty for Excessive Contributions,
2006; Treffinger and Others to Pay $171,000 Civil Penalty for Excessive Contributions, 2006).
Audit Findings
The FDA auditors use professional judgment on the score regarding reasonable legislative
processes to enforce electoral finance laws. The FDA auditors found comprehensive legislative
process to enforce electoral finance laws, including fines reflective of the severity of the offense
and prison time up to five years. Generally, the more money involved in an electoral finance
wrongdoing, the higher the fine will be.
Total score for the electoral fairness on electoral finance: 48.25 percent out of 100 percent.

Analysis
The FDA auditors measured a failing score of 48.25 percent for the American federal electoral
finance legislation. The FDA auditors identified a strong process for electoral finance
transparency and enforcement, and citizen only contributions to candidates and parties. However,
these aspects are offset by caps on contributions (to candidates and parties), which are
unreflective of per capita disposable income, create no expenditure limit on congressional and
privately funded presidential candidates, do not cap independent third-party expenditure, and
contain no cap on contributions to independent third-parties.
The FDA summaries its main findings on the American federal electoral finance laws
1) Electoral financial transparency is canceled out by laws favoring wealthy interests.
Transparency is a neutral element.
2) Citizen only contributions to candidates and parties is cancelled out by caps on contributions,
which are unreflective of per capita disposable income, do not create campaign expenditure
limits for congressional and privately funded presidential candidates, and do not cap
contributions by citizens and corporations to independent third-parties.
3) A sound legislative process to enforce electoral finance laws, like transparency, is
meaningless if the laws to be enforced favor minority and special interests over the interests
of the people.
Legislative process is only as effective as the laws it is enforcing.
There are significant gaps in the U.S. electoral finance legislation which favor special and
minority interests
1) No expenditure limit on congressional candidates and privately funded presidential
candidates: this provision favors candidates who are better fund raisers and encourages
influence by wealthy special and minority interests.
2) Contributions are unreflective of per capita disposable income: this provision favors wealthy
citizens who can afford, for example, the $46,200 limit on contributions to multiple
candidates.
3) No cap on contributions to independent third-parties: this provision favors wealthy
individuals, corporations, and labor unions, and provides a means for special and minority
interests to influence election discourse, and thus, election outcomes.
4) No cap on personal contributions by congressional candidates and privately funded
presidential candidates: this provision favors wealthy candidates.
5) Expenditure limit on publicly funded presidential candidates and cap on personal
contributions by publicly funded presidential candidates are unreflective of per capita
disposable income: this provision favors wealthy, publicly funded presidential candidates and
candidates who are better able to fund raise, and thereby, potentially allows for influence by
special and minority interests on these candidates.

Chapter Two: Media Election Coverage
This chapter focuses on American‘s media laws and the FDA's audit of them. Based on the
concepts of egalitarianism and political liberalism, the FDA audit team examined media laws
according to the standard of broad and balanced political coverage before, during and after a
campaign period (see Appendix for further explanation). Table 5 below shows the FDA‘s audit
variables, their corresponding audit weights, and results:
Table 5
Media Election
Coverage Section
Variables
% Subsection
Audit Weight
Numerical
Subsection Audit
Weight
Audit
Results
% Results
Broad and Balanced
Media Election Coverage
30% 3.0 0.0 0.0%
Media Ownership 15% 1.5 0.0 0.0%
Survey/Polls 5% 0.5 0.25 50%
Freedom of Media 40% 4.0 4.0 100%
Press Code of
Practice/Conduct
10% 1.0 0.0 0.0%
Sections
n/a n/a n/a n/a
Total 100% 10 4.25 42.50%
Broad and Balanced Media Election Coverage
Audit Questions
1) During the campaign period, is the media (private and public) required legally to
publish/broadcast broad/balanced coverage of registered candidates and parties?
2) Outside of the campaign period, is the media legally required to publish/broadcast
pluralistic/balanced coverage of registered parties?
3) If the media is legally required to publish/disseminate broad and balanced political coverage,
are there reasonable monitoring and penalty mechanisms in place?
Any cost incurred in a news story, commentary, or editorial by media (broadcaster, press, web
site, magazine, or other periodical) is not a political contribution if the media organization is not
owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidates (Code of Federal
Regulations, Section 100.29).
There is no legal requirement for equal opportunity for a newscast, interview, documentary (if
the appearance of a candidate is incidental to the documentary's subject matter), or news event,
including debates, political conventions and related incidental activities. Media has an obligation
to present news in the ―public interest‖ and ―afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of
conflicting views of issues of public importance‖ (Code of Federal Regulations, Section 100.29).

Communications by state or local candidates that do support or oppose a candidate are not
considered to be electioneering communications (Code of Federal Regulations, Section 100.29).
Electioneering communications are limited to paid programming and only apply to the 60 day
period prior to a general election or the 30 day period before a primary election for federal office,
including elections in which a candidate is unopposed (Code of Federal Regulations, Section
100.29).
Noncommercial educational broadcasting stations may support or oppose any candidate for
office. This broadcast restriction does not apply to editorializing in the public interest (U.S.
Code, Title 47: Telegraphs, Telephones, and Telegraphs, Section 399).
Media entities' online news content is not considered contributions or expenditures. The media
exemptions apply to all bloggers and others who communicate on the internet unless the facility
including website is owned or controlled by a political party, candidate or a political committee
(Internet Communications and Activity, 2012).
Any corporation or labor organization may donate funds to support a debate conducted by a
nonprofit organization. The debate must not support or oppose any candidate or party, be
sponsored by a broadcaster, newspaper, magazine, other circulation periodical publication, and
include at least two candidates who meet face to face, does not promote one candidate over the
other. In a primary election, organizations staging a debate may restrict candidates to those
seeking nomination of one party, and in a general election may not use nomination of a particular
party as the sole criterion for debate participants. Staging organizations must use preestablished
objective criteria to determine participants (Code of Federal Regulations, Section 114.4(f)).
Audit Findings
The FDA auditors found no legislation requiring the media to provide broad and balanced
political coverage during the 60 day campaign period or outside of the campaign period.
Media Ownership Concentration Laws
Audit Questions
1) If there are media concentration laws, are they effective in causing a plurality of political
discourse?
2) If there is no legal requirement of media plurality, impartiality, and balanced content or
media ownership concentration laws, are there any other laws that are effective in causing a
plurality of political discourse before and during an election period?

There are no U.S. media ownership concentration laws. The U.S. media concentration is
regulated by U.S. general antitrust laws. U.S. antitrust laws are rooted in the Sherman Antitrust
Act (1890), which provides remedy against monopoly or attempt to monopolize. The Act does
not necessarily ban monopolies; it bans monopolies, which stem from anti-competitive conduct
such as price fixing, bid rigging, or agreed market allocation by competitors (Statutory
Provisions and Guidelines of the Antitrust Division, 2012; Sherman Antitrust Act, 2012).
Audit Findings
The FDA auditors found no legislation limiting media ownership concentration. The U.S.
Antitrust Laws, which provide a remedy against monopoly and/or attempts to monopolize, have
no impact on media ownership concentration unless the concentration derives from anti-
competitive conduct.
Surveys/Polls
Audit Question
1) Are there reasonable public disclosure requirements on surveys and polls in terms of their
methodology, data, and funder?
The FDA researches could find no legislation on the public discloser of the methodology and
data sources of survey and polls. However, associations such as the National Council on Public
Polls (NCPP) and American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) advocate public
disclosure requirements for their members.
The NCPP is an association of polling organizations that sets professional standards for public
opinion pollsters. The association recommends three levels of disclosure. The first level calls for
one of its member associations to publicly release information, such as sponsorship, sampling
method used, population and size of sample, and survey methods. The second level of disclosure
pertains to specific written requests regarding any survey findings publicly released by NCCP
members. These requests can include the exact wording of an introduction, details of any
incentives given to survey participants, and any description of weighting procedures to
generalize data. Finally, the third level of disclosure encourages its members to release raw
datasets, and post complete survey questions used in their surveys (Principles of Disclosure,
2012).
The Standards of Disclosure in the AAPOR‘s Code of Professional Ethics & Practices states that
the final reports of members will include the sponsors, conductors, and all original funding
resources. The Code also requires the disclosure of exact wording of questions, descriptions of
sample sizes and design, as well as the method and dates of data collection. In the event further
information is requested concerning any given report, the members will have 30 days to provide
greater details concerning sample design, summaries of dispositions, any relevant stimuli, and
the procedures undertaken to verify data (Code of Professional Ethics & Practices, 2010).

Electioneering communications are limited to paid programming and only apply to the 60 period
prior to a general election or the 30 day period before a primary election for federal office,
including elections in which a candidate is unopposed (Code of Federal Regulations, Section
100.29).
Broadcast political advertisements must display photographic or similar images of the candidate,
a statement identifying the candidate, the candidate's approval for the advertisement, and the
candidate's authorized committee, which paid for the broadcast (The Public and Broadcasting:
How to Get the Most Service from Your Local Stations, 2008; U.S. Code, Title 47, Section 315).
Radio political advertisements must include a personal statement from the candidate, which
identifies the candidate as well as the office the candidate is seeking, and indicates that the
candidate approved of the broadcast (The Public and Broadcasting: How to Get the Most Service
from Your Local Stations, 2008; U.S. Code, Title 47, Section 315).
Paid political statements made through any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, outdoor
advertising facility, mailing, or any other type of general public political advertising must clearly
declare the authorized political committee or other persons who paid for communication as well
as who authorized the other persons, such as a candidate or authorized political committee. If
transmitted by television, the statements must include either an unobscured, full-screen views of
the candidate or agent of the candidate making the statement, a voice-over, or both, and shall
also appear in a readable manner with a reasonable degree of color contrast between the
background and the printed statement for a period of at least 4 seconds. If the political statement
is not authorized by a candidate or political committee, the communication must state the name
and permanent street address, telephone number or World Wide Web address, of the person who
paid for the message and must also state that it is not authorized by a candidate or political
committee (Code Federal Regulations, Section 441d).
Audit Findings
The FDA auditors found no legislation which required disclosure standards for survey and
polling organizations. Although there are private organizations which establish survey and poll
disclosure standards, these standards are voluntary and contingent upon membership in the
organizations. The score of 0.25 reflects the fact that disclosure standards exist and that some
polling and survey organizations likely adhere to them.

Freedom of the Media
Audit Question
1) Does constitutional or legislative law establish freedom of the media (including journalists)?
nonprofit organization. The debate must not support or oppose any candidate or party, must be
sponsored by a broadcaster, newspaper, magazine, and/or other circulation periodical
publication, must include at least two candidates who meet face to face, and does not promote
one candidate over the other. In a primary election, organization staging debate may restrict
candidates to those seeking nomination of one party, and in a general election may not use
nomination of particular party as the sole basis for criterion for debate participants. Staging
organization must use pre-established objective criteria to determine participants (Code of
Federal Regulations, Article 114.4(f)).
Broadcast stations must provide reasonable access to federal candidates, during all stations'
normal broadcast schedule, including television prime time and radio drive time. The only
exception to equal access is during bona fide news programming (The Public and Broadcasting:
How to Get the Most Service from Your Local Stations, 2008; U.S. Code, Title 47, Article 315).
Broadcast stations must provide equal airtime and equal opportunities to all registered federal
candidates. The only exception to equal airtime and equal opportunities is during bona fide news
programming, such as the appearance of a candidate on bona fide newscast, interview,
documentary, or on the spot news event (including debates, political conventions and related
incidental activities) (The Public and Broadcasting: How to Get the Most Service from Your
Local Stations, 2008; U.S. Code, Title 47, Article 315).
Any cost incurred in a news story, commentary, or editorial by media (broadcaster, press, web
site, magazine, or other periodical) is not a political contribution if the media organization is not
owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidates (Code of Federal
Regulations, Article 100.29).
There is no legal requirement for equal opportunity for a newscast, interview, documentary (if
the appearance of a candidate is incidental to the documentary's subject matter), or news event
including debates, political conventions and related incidental activities. Media has an obligation
to present news in the ―public interest‖ and ―afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of
conflicting views of issues of public importance‖ (Code of Federal Regulations, Article 100.29).
Noncommercial educational broadcasting stations may support or oppose any candidate for
office. This broadcast restriction does not apply to editorializing in the public interest (U.S.
Code, Title 47: Telegraphs, Telephones, and Telegraphs, Section 399).
Media entities' online news content is not considered contributions or expenditures. The media
exemptions apply to all bloggers and others who communicate on the internet unless the facility
including website is owned or controlled by a political party, candidate or a political committee
(Internet Communications and Activity, 2012).

The U.S. Congress has legislative power (U.S. Constitution, 2012, Article I, Section 1), and the
U.S. Congress must not make laws which prohibit or abridge freedom of speech, freedom of the
press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble (U.S. Constitution, 2012, First
Amendment).
Citizens of the United States cannot be denied life, liberty, or property without due process of
law, and equal protection of the laws (U.S. Constitution, 2012, Fourteenth Amendment, Section
1).
All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States (U.S.
Constitution, 2012, Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1).
Audit Findings
The FDA auditors found nothing in the U.S. Constitution and legislation that would
unreasonably limit the freedom of the press.
Press Code of Practice/Conduct
Audit Questions
1) Does a Code of Practice/Conduct that supports impartial, balanced electoral coverage guide
the press?
2) If a Code of Practice/Conduct that supports impartial, balanced electoral coverage guides the
press, is the Code of Practice/Conduct enforceable?
The American Press Association has a code of conduct for journalists and photographers. The
APA Code of Conduct does not cover elections, nor does it include impartial and balanced
election coverage. Members of the APA are expected to abide by the APA Code of Conduct
(Code of Conduct Journalists and Photographers, 2012).
The American Society of Newspaper Editors has a statement of principles. The Statement of
Principles includes impartiality in terms of distinguishing between fact and opinion. There are
principles that pertain to elections or require balanced coverage. Each newspaper within the
ASNE has its own code of ethics. The FDA counted 34 different codes of ethics. The New York
Times is committed to be as impartial as possible ―with fear or favor‖, but there is no
requirement that the newspaper have balanced election coverage. The FDA found no ethical
requirement on any of the newspapers in the ASNE to have broad and balance electoral coverage
(Code of Conduct, 2012).
The U.S. Congress has legislative power (U.S. Constitution, 2012, Article I, Section 1), and the
U.S. Congress must not make law which prohibits or abridges freedom of speech, or the press, or
right of the people peaceably to assemble (U.S. Constitution, 2012, First Amendment).

The freedom of the media cannot be regulated within extremes. A legislated press code of
conduct would be inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution, First Amendment (Citizens United v.
Federal Election Commission, 2010).
The FDA researchers found no legislated press code of conduct.
Audit Findings
The FDA auditors found no legislation requiring a press Code of Practice/Conduct for impartial,
balanced electoral coverage. Although private press organizations have a Code of
Conduct/Ethics, adherence is voluntary. The FDA researchers examined 34 Code of
Conducts/Ethics by members of the American Society of Newspaper Editors and found no
instance of Code of Conduct/Ethics requiring impartial and/or balanced electoral coverage.
Total score for the electoral fairness on media election coverage: 42.5 percent out of 100
percent.

Analysis
The FDA auditors measured a failing score of 42.50 percent for American federal legislation
pertaining to the media election coverage. The focus of this audit section is on media election
coverage itself before and during the 60 day campaign period. The media election coverage
section received the lowest score of the four audit sections.
Although the American media has freedom of expression, there are minimal checks on this
freedom. As a result, the American media operates in a Darwinian-like fashion, in which the
most powerful media corporations have the most influence over the public. This approach is
problematic during elections because it may encourage narrow and imbalanced election coverage
as illustrated by the FDA‘s media study of the 2012 U.S. Presidential election. The media study
focused on the last 32 days of the U.S Presidential election and factored in 7,921 data points
from the U.S. national television, radio, and newspaper sectors, including online content from the
sectors (FDA Media Study of the U.S. Presidential Election, 2012).
Ranking of American national media total coverage from the FDA Media Study
Table 6
Presidential Candidates Total Media Coverage
1. Barack Obama 54%
2. Mitt Romney 44.75%
3. Gary Johnson 0.62%
4. Jill Stein 0.30%
5. Virgil Goode 0.27%
6. All Other Candidates/Parties 0.09%
As a consequence of narrow and imbalanced coverage, those persons who control media
corporations can potentially influence the outcome of elections.
The FDA summaries its main findings on the American federal media laws
1) No legislative or even voluntary requirement for broad and balanced election coverage
during the 60 day campaign period.
2) No legislative caps on media ownership concentration.
3) Only private, voluntary standards for disclosure of public surveys and polls.
4) No legislative or even voluntary press code of conduct on broad and balanced coverage
during the 60 day campaign period.

Consequently, the American federal electoral system allows
1) Excessive media ownership concentration in the press, radio, and television sectors as long as
the ownership concentration is not the result of anti-competitive practices;
2) Narrow and imbalanced media coverage during elections;
3) No legislative disclosure standards on surveys and polls.

Chapter Three: Candidates and Parties
This chapter focuses on American laws pertaining to candidates and parties. The FDA audit team
examines election laws according to their equity for registered candidates and parties (see
Appendix for further explanation). Table 7 below shows the FDA‘s audit variables, their
corresponding audit weights, and results:
Table 7
Candidates & Parties
Section Variables
% Subsection
Audit Weight
Numerical
Subsection Audit
Weight
Audit Results % Results
Campaign Period 2% 0.2 0.2 100%
Methodology for Election
Winners
2% 0.2 0.0 0.0%
Electoral Boundaries 2% 0.2 0.0 0.0%
Process of Government 10% 1.0 1.0 100%
Registration of Candidates 2% 0.2 0.1 50%
Freedom of Expression
and Assembly
20% 2.0 2.0 100%
Registration of Parties 2% 0.2 0.1 50%
Electoral Complaints 3% 0.3 0.3 100%
Presentation of Ballots 1% 0.1 0.1 100%
Poll Watchers/Challengers 1% 0.1 0.1 100%
Candidate and Party
Campaign Advertisement
6% 0.6 0.35 58.33%
Sections
49% 4.9 1.55 31.63%
Total 100% 10 5.7 57%
Campaign Period
Audit Question
1) Does the length of the campaign period reasonably and fairly allow all registered candidates
and parties enough time to share their backgrounds and policies with the voting public?
The FDA could find no legal limit on the length of presidential campaigns. Regarding limitation
of awards during Presidential election year, the Presidential election period is defined as June 1
to January 20 in an election year (U.S. Code, Title 5, Section 4508).
Electioneering communications in television and radio format are distributed within 60 days
prior to a general election or 30 days prior to a primary, nominating convention or caucus (Code
of Federal Regulations, Article 100.29).

Audit Findings
The FDA auditors, using their professional judgment, determine that 60 days is adequate time for
candidates and parties to share their backgrounds and policies with the voting public. The
auditors factor in the freedom of speech candidates and parties have prior to the 60 day period of
electioneering communication.
Methodology for Determining Winners of Districts
Audit Questions
1) Is the determination of election winners based on first-past-the-post?
2) Is the determination of election winners based on proportional representation closed list?
3) Is the determination of election winners based on proportional representation open list?
Presidential
Federal Level
The U.S. President and Vice-President are not selected directly by vote of the people. They are
selected by appointed electors from each state as per directions of each legislator: the number of
electors from each state corresponds to the whole number of Senators and Representatives,
which each State is entitled to in Congress. No federal Senators and Representatives may appoint
electors. The electors vote by ballot for two presidential candidates and one of them must not be
an inhabitant of the same State as themselves. The person having the greater number of votes
will be the President, if such a number is a majority; if there are two majorities with equal
number of votes, then the House of Representatives will choose by ballot the President; if no
person has a majority, then from the five highest candidates on the list, the House of
Representatives will choose the President with the representation from the States having one
vote; quorum is two thirds of the States. After determining the President, the person having the
greatest number of votes shall be the Vice-President. If two or more candidates have equal votes,
then the Senate shall choose by ballot the Vice-President (U.S. Constitution, 2012, Article II,
Section 1).
The U.S. President and Vice-President are selected by the state electors based on first-past-the-
post. The presidential candidate with the most Electoral College votes wins the presidency. The
number of state electors each state has is proportional to the number of representatives each state
has in the U.S. congress (U.S. Constitution, 2012, Article II, Section 1).
The presidential and vice-presidential candidates having the most votes shall be President and
Vice-President, as long as the number of votes for each candidate is a majority of the whole
number of electors appointed. If no majority exists for the presidential candidates, then the
candidates with highest number of votes (not exceeding three) shall choose the President via
ballot and based on votes taken by states with each state having one vote. This vote requires a
quorum of two-thirds of the states and a majority of the states. If there is no vice-presidential
candidate with a majority of the vote, then from the two candidates with highest number of votes,

the Senate shall choose. This vote requires a quorum of two-thirds of the whole number of
Senators and a majority of the Senate (U.S. Constitution, 2012, 14th
Amendment).
State Level
The District of Colombia and 48 states have a winner-takes-all rule for the Electoral College. In
these States, whichever candidate receives a majority of the popular vote or a plurality of the
popular vote (less than 50 percent but more than any other candidate) receives all of the state‘s
Electoral votes (U.S. Electoral College, 2012).
Nebraska and Maine allow for a possible split of votes through their system of proportional
allocation of votes (based in Maine on Electoral districts and at-large Electoral votes). There is
no winner-takes-all rule (U.S. Electoral College, 2012).
Congressional
Congressional election winners are based on a single member plurality system (first-past-the-
post), except in the case of Georgia, Louisiana, California, and Washington where run-off is held
if no candidate receives an absolute majority (United States of American House of
Representatives, 2012; Two-Round system, 2012).
The election of congressional representatives is based on a single member plurality system
(single-member districts) (U.S. Code, Title 2, Chapter 1, 2c).
Audit Findings
Congressional candidates are elected based on first-past-the-post. Presidential and Vice-
Presidential candidates are elected by Electoral College electors based on first-past-the-post. The
thresholds for determining the U.S. President and Vice-President are 270 elector votes or first
past the 269 vote count.
The first-the-past-post system does not give other parties an opportunity at the next seat nor does
it base seats on proportion of votes cast.

For examples
Table 8
Candidates for Riding A Total Votes Seat Winner
Candidate A 65,000 Candidate A
Candidate B 64,500
Candidate C 15,000
Candidates for Riding B Total Votes Seat Winner
Candidate D 45,000 Candidate D
Candidate E 44,780
Candidate F 40,456
The FDA believes that proportional representation is a more effective system to capture the will
of the majority. In proportional representation, candidates win seats based on the proportion to
the number of votes cast for them and a formula of vote reduction for each time a party wins a
seat, which then allows other parties increased opportunity at winning the next seat. For
example, the Sainte-Laguë method, which is used on New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and
Germany, adheres to this calculation: the first round of seat allocation for all parties no
reduction; all other seat allocations have the following deduction (Sainte-Laguë method, 2013):
Total number of votes received .
2 x (number of seats allocated) + 1
For example
Table 9
Parties Total Votes Seat 1 Seat 2 Seat 3 Seat 4
Party A 50,000 Party A (wins)
(50,000)
Party B (wins)
(30,000)
Party C (wins)
(20,000)
Party A (wins)
(16,666)
Party B 30,000 Party B
(30,000)
Party C
(20,000)
Party A
(16,666)
Party B
(10,000)
Party C 20,000 Party C
(20,000)
Party A
(16,666)
Party B
(10,000)
Party C
(6,666)
Party D 5,0000 Party D
(5,000)
Party D
(5,000)
Party D
(5,0000)
Party D
(5,000)
Consequently, first-past-the-post is only reflective of the candidate with the most votes in each
district; whereas, proportional representation is reflective of the most of the votes cast in each
district. Therefore, the political representatives under proportional representation are more
reflective of the voice of the electorate than under first-past-the-post.

Electoral Boundaries
Audit Question
1) Is the process for determining electoral boundaries reasonable and fair for all registered
candidates and parties?
Determination of State electoral boundaries
The U.S. government conducts a census for the purpose of apportioning electoral seats. States
use this census to apportion State House and Senate seats (U.S. Constitution, 2012, Article 1,
Section 2).
Each state usually modifies congressional districts after the publication of the federal decennial
census (Hope, 2012).
Redistrict methodology is based on one person, one vote, which means congressional districts
must be drawn, as possible, so each person's vote is counted equally (Reynolds v. Sims, 1964).
The apportionment of districts is based on the federal decennial census (U.S. Constitution, 2012,
Article 1, Section 2). At the state level, state governments have latitude with variances between
rural, suburban, and urban areas, and preservation of county lines, as well as other political
subdivisions. However, the districts must remain significantly equal in terms of population. The
states' Justice Departments must approve redistricts (Hope, 2012).
Congressional representatives draw their district boundaries (Mundell, 2010).
The FDA found no legislation which prevents or deters partisan gerrymandering.
Determination of Congressional electoral boundaries
The U.S. government conducts a census for the purpose of apportioning electoral seats. States
use this census to apportion State House and Senate seats (U.S. Constitution, 2012, Article 1,
Section 2).
Each state usually redistricts congressional districts after the publication of the federal decennial
census (Hope, 2012).
Redistrict methodology is based on ‗one person, one vote,‘ which means congressional districts
must be drawn, as possible, so each person's vote is counted equally (Reynolds v. Sims, 1964).
The apportionment of districts is based on the federal decennial census (U.S. Constitution, 2012,
Article 1, Section 2).
Audit Findings
Federal electoral boundaries are determined by U.S. Census reports, in which each district must
have as similar a population as possible to ensure that each person‘s vote counts equally.
However, there are no federal laws which prevent gerrymandering, whether partisan or

bipartisan. Therefore, the FDA auditors determine that the federal electoral boundary process is
unfair to candidates from new and small parties by favoring candidates and parties already part
of the U.S. Congress. Viz., these incumbent candidates get to draw the electoral boundaries.
Process of Government
Audit Question
1) Within the structure of government do political representatives, individually and as
government bodies, have reasonable say in the formation of government policy, legislation
etc.?
The U.S. federal government is divided into three branches: legislative (comprised of Congress
and Senate), presidency (executive), and judiciary (U.S. Constitution, 2012, Article I, Sections 1,
2, 3; Article II, Section 2; Article III, Section 2).
The U.S. House of Representatives and Senate have legislative power; the President has the
executive power of government; the judiciary has power cases involving the U.S. Constitution,
laws, and treaties under its authority (U.S Constitution, 2012, Article I, Sections 1; Article II,
Section 2; Article III, Section 2).
The President has the power to veto bills from the Congress and Senate, and the House of
Representatives and Senate with two-thirds vote in each house have the power to overrule
presidential vetoes (U.S. Constitution, 2012, Article I, Section 7, Clause 2).
Every bill must pass in the U.S House of Representatives and Senate to become law (U.S.
Constitution, 2012, Article I, Section 7, Clause 2).
The President, Vice President and other civil officers can be impeached by the U.S. Congress
and Senate for convictions of treason, bribery, and other serious crimes and/or wrongdoing (U.S.
Constitution, 2012, Article II, Section 4).
The U.S. Constitution may be amended by a two-third vote of both the U.S. Congress and
Senate, or two-thirds of states which call for a convention on proposing amendments to the
Constitution, and the amendments are ratified if three-fourths of the state legislatures support the
amendments (U.S. Constitution, 2012, Article V).
Audit Findings
There are three branches of government, executive, bicameral congress, and judiciary, all with
political power over government policy and legislation, and checks and balances. For example,
the Congress‘s power over legislation is offset by the President‘s power to veto and propose
legislation, and the judiciaries‘ power to overrule legislation which violates the Constitution.

Registration of Candidates
Audit Question
1) Are the registration requirements of federal candidates reasonable and based on reasonable
popular support rather than finances?
Presidential
Presidential candidates must register with the Federal Election Commission once a candidates (or
person acting on his behalf) receives contributions or make expenditures in excess of $5,000.
Within 15 days of reaching the $5,000 threshold, presidential candidates must file a Statement of
Candidacy which authorizes a principal campaign committee to raise and spend funds on the
candidate‘s behalf. Within 10 days of the Statement of Candidacy, the principle campaign
organization must file a Statement of Organization (How do I register as a candidate for federal
office, 2012; U.S. Code, Title 2, 421 (2) – Definitions).
Presidential candidates must have contributions or expenditures in excess of $5,000 in order to
be a registered candidate (Candidate Registration, 2012; U.S. Code, Title 2, Section 421 (2) –
Definitions).
Congressional
Congressional candidates must register with the Federal Election Commission once a candidates
(or person acting on his behalf) receives contributions or make expenditures in excess of $5,000.
Congressional candidates must have contributions or expenditures in excess of $5,000 in order to
be a registered candidate (Candidate Registration, 2012; U.S. Code, Title 2, Section 421 (2) –
Definitions).
Audit Findings
Although the barrier to entry for federal candidates is based merely on raising or spending at
least $5,000, the registration is not based on popular support. For example, with no personal
contribution limits for congressional candidates, a candidate could merely contribute $5,000 to
his own campaign to meet the registration requirement for candidates, rather than meet the
registration through having, for example, at least 500 $100 contributions.

Registration of Parties
Audit Question
1) Are the registration requirements of parties reasonable and based on reasonable popular
support rather than finances?
To be registered as a national political party, the party‘s bylaws must state that the party is
responsible for the day-to-day operation of the party at the national level (U.S. Federal
Regulation, Article 100.13; U.S. Code, Title, Section 431 (14)).
The Federal Election Commission determines whether or not a political party is responsible for
the day-to-day operation of the party at the national level (U.S. Federal Regulation, Article
100.13; Party Registration Toolkit, 2012).
A political party refers to an association, committee, or organization that nominates or selects a
candidate for election to any Federal office, whose names appears on an election ballot as the
candidate of the association, committee, or organization (U.S. Federal Regulations, Article
100.15).
Presidential candidates must register with the Federal Election Commission once a candidate (or
person acting on his behalf) receives contributions or make expenditures in excess of $5,000.
Audit Findings
The registration of parties is indirectly connected to the registration of candidates. No candidates
means no party. Therefore, the $5,000 threshold for registration of candidates indirectly applies
to parties. Consequently, for 10 candidates, there is a registration fee of $50,000. Outside of this
registration requirement and basic disclosures, there are no other requirements. The FDA, using
professional judgment, marked down the score on grounds of no provisions for popular support,
such as having a minimum threshold of party members or supporters. As the U.S. legislation
stands, a small number of wealthy candidates and supporters can register as a party.

Electoral Complaints
Audit Questions
1) Do candidates and parties have mechanisms in which to file complaints for electoral
wrongdoing/fraud?
2) Are there reasonable mechanisms to enforce candidate and party electoral complaints?
Any person can file a complaint to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) about a perceived
violation of any statute or regulation which the FEC has jurisdiction. The person making the
election complaint must file a complaint in writing to the FEC, which includes the three copies
(if possible), full name and address of complainant, and contents of the complaint (which sworn
in front of notary and notarized). All statements are subject to statutes regarding perjury. The
statements must distinguish personal knowledge from information and belief, identify each
person or entity who is alleged to have committed violation; statements based on information and
belief should identify source of information/belief; statements should contain clear and concise
facts of the alleged violation; statements should include supporting documentation (U.S Federal
Regulations, Article 111.4 Complaints; U.S. Code, Title 2, 437g(a)(1)).
The Federal Election Commission has a comprehensive process for process election complaints:
initial review of complaint and contact complainant within 5 days; opportunity for respondent to
demonstrate that no action be taken within 15 days of receipt of complaint; General Counsel of
the FEC with advise the FEC on how to proceed; the FEC shall determine how to proceed based
on this advice, internally generated findings, and responses from the respondent; if the FEC
proceeds, it will conduct an investigation; the FEC may issue subpoenas and conduct field
investigations, audits and other information-gathering; witnesses subpoenaed will be
compensated as consistent with U.S. courts; any person subpoenaed may apply to quash or
modify it; upon completion of the investigation and its findings, the General Council shall advise
the FEC; the General Council shall attempt to reach a tentative conciliation agreement with the
respondent; if no conciliation agreement is attainable, the General Council may recommend civil
action; the FEC shall make public any findings that do not terminate its proceedings; respondent
may be represented by council in civil hearing; the FEC has a comprehensive list of civil
penalties; no penalty shall exceed $6,500 or an amount equal to any contribution or expenditure
involved in the violation; in the case of knowing and willful violation, the civil penalty shall not
exceed $11,000 or an amount equal to 200% of any contribution or expenditure in violation, or in
case of U.S.C. 441f, the penalty shall not be less than 300% of the amount of any contribution
involved in the violation, and shall not exceed $55,000 or 1,000% of the amount of the
contribution; the respondent has an opportunity to challenge any FEC penalties; if the respondent
is unsatisfied with the FEC response, the respondent can appeal the decision to the district court;
the decision of the district court is not reviewable by a higher court; calculation of penalties
factor in number of days late in submitting reports and previous violations (U.S. Federal
Regulations, Articles 111.5 to 112.1)

Audit Findings
There is an extension process for electoral complaints, including provisions for appeal and
mechanisms for civil penalties. However, there are no provisions to remove, for example,
unlawful electioneering communication prior to a determination of wrongdoing. The FDA
auditors did not deduct for this missing legislation as it is a slightly grey area, and it could be
used to unnecessarily suppress freedom of expression.
Presentation of Ballots
Audit Question
1) Are electoral lists presented on ballots in a fair, equitable way for all registered candidates
and parties?
Presidential
Each state elector shall name in their ballot who they vote for as President, and in another ballot,
who they vote for as Vice President. The ballots for states are processed according to the number
for each presidential candidate and each vice presidential candidate (U.S. Constitution, 2012,
14th
Amendment).
Congressional
The states regulate the time, place, and manner of federal elections, unless Congress legislates to
the contrary (U.S. Constitution, 2012, Article I, Section 4).
The states have their own ballot access laws, and these laws vary (Ballot Access, 2012).
The states determine their own ballot design for federal elections (Ballot Design Samples, 2012).
Audit Findings
The states determine the electoral lists and ballots subject to the U.S. Constitution, which
guarantees suffrage to U.S. citizens 18 years or older, and regardless of sex, gender, ethnicity etc.
The FDA researchers found no evidence to suggest that electoral lists and ballots are being used
to disenfranchise. The issue of photo identification applies to the section on Value of a Vote.

Poll Watcher and Challenger
Audit Question
1) Are candidates and parties allowed poll watchers and challengers at polling stations?
According to the U.S. Office of Federal Registry, electors may be required to vote for the
candidate of their party or according to State law or pledges. Electors who pledge to vote for
their party have done so 99 percent of the time in the Electoral College history. Electors from 24
U.S. States are not required to vote for specific candidate (i.e. candidate with the majority of the
popular vote). Electors from 6 U.S. States are bound to party pledges; electors from 25 States are
bound by state laws; electors from 4 States are bound by state pledges (U.S Electoral College,
2012).
Some U.S. states allow the public to view the voting of state electors at their state capitols (U.S
Electoral College, 2012).
U.S. states have authority under their laws to resolve controversies about Electoral College votes
and voting results (U.S. Code, Section 5; U.S Electoral College, 2012).
Electoral votes can be contested in the Senate and House of Representatives. Objections must be
signed by at least one Senator and one member of the House Representative. The Senate and the
House of Representatives debate the objections separately and within 2 hours. Both the Senate
and the House of Representatives must agree to reject the votes (U.S Electoral College, 2012).
Audit Findings
There are provisions for poll watchers and challengers at polling stations. In some states, the
Electoral College vote is open to public viewing. Although more transparency of the Electoral
College vote would create a more accountable system, the FDA auditors did not deduct from the
score due to the numbers of state laws regulating the Electoral College vote, and the vote does
not include a polling station and members of the public who vote.
Candidate and Party Advertisement
Audit Questions
1) During the campaign period, do candidates and parties have equal access to radio, television,
and print media for political advertisement, and equal cost of political advertisement?
2) During the campaign period, do candidates' and parties' political advertisements in media
include a public subsidy component to ensure an equality of political advertisement in the
media?
3) Outside of the campaign period, do candidates and parties have equal to radio, television, and
print media for political advertisement, and equal cost of political advertisement?

The Federal Election Commission may revoke any broadcast station license or construction
permit for willful and repeated failure to allow reasonable access or to permit purchase of
reasonable amounts of time by a registered federal candidate or committee on behalf of his
candidacy (Communications Act, Section 312(a)(7) and Code of Federal Regulations, Section
73.1944(a)).
Broadcasters shall make its facilities available to federal advertisers on the weekend before an
election, if the broadcasters provided similar access to commercial advertisers during the
relevant election period. Also, broadcasters shall not discriminate between candidates for
weekend access (Code of Federal Regulations, Section 73. 1944(b)).
Electioneering communications are limited to paid programming and only apply to 60 days prior
to a general election or 30 days before a primary election for federal office including elections in
which a candidate is unopposed (Code of Federal Regulations, Section 100.29).
Expenditures of political committees which are otherwise reported to the Federal Election
Commission are not considered electioneering communication. [This provision prevents double
accounting of expenditures.] (Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 100.29; 104.20(b)).
Corporations and labor organizations are required to make electioneering communication within
their restricted class and may not provide funds to any person for the purpose of electioneering
communication (Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 114.2(b)(2)(iii); 114.14(a)).
Qualified nonprofit corporations may make electioneering communications. Communications in
excess of $10,000 in a calendar year must be reported. Qualified nonprofit corporations cannot
accept funds from corporations or labor organizations or make contributions to federal political
committees (Code of Federal Regulations, Section 114.10).
Unincorporated, unregistered "527" tax-exempt organizations, individuals, and partnerships may
make electioneering communication as long as funds are not from corporations and labor
organizations, and can be satisfactorily subject to reasonable accounting procedures (Code of
Federal Regulations, Section 114.14).
Federal political committees are required to be put a disclaimer on their public web sites and in
emails sent in excess of 500 similar times (Code of Federal Regulations, Section 110.11).
Corporations must provide commercial services equally to all federal candidates and political
committees and for their usual and normal fees (Internet Communications and Activity, 2012).
Corporations and labor organizations may send political endorsement emails only to the
designated audience within their restricted class. In addition, corporations and labor
organizations may have endorsements and solicitations on their websites as long as the contents
are only accessible by designated audience for their restricted class (Code of Federal
Regulations, Section 114.3; Internet Communications and Activity, 2012).
nonprofit organization. The debate must not support or oppose any candidate or party, be

United States--2012 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report (Revised April 11, 2013)

United States--2012 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report (Revised April 11, 2013)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to United States--2012 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report (Revised April 11, 2013)

Similar to United States--2012 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report (Revised April 11, 2013) (16)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

United States--2012 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report (Revised April 11, 2013)