This paper has two parts. Your paper must address both parts in content, although it need not be divided explicitly into two parts. A unified discussion may be preferable.
Part I: Pick a congressional (i.e., U.S. House) district in the 2002 election in which an incumbent ran for reelection. For three individuals and three PACs that contributed to the incumbent sometime during the two-year campaign period (2001-2002), explain what interests apparently motivated each individual and each PAC to contribute. Investigate the incumbent's committee memberships and roll call votes, special interest group ratings, federal expenditures in the district or other concrete facts to construct plausible arguments regarding the contributors' motivations. It may be very difficult to decide whether a contributor has benefitted from any particular federal expenditure, either before or after the election, so don't despair if you can't pin down such information--but also don't give up too easily. For individual contributors, the individual's employer (or occupation) as recorded in the Federal Election Commission (FEC) Itemized Contributions data files will almost certainly be good evidence regarding the material concerns the person is bringing to the campaign.
Part II: Use your findings from Part I, along with relevant material from course readings and other information as you see fit, to discuss how campaign money seems to be being used to enhance political influence. As much as possible, you should take into account soft money contributions involving your incumbent (or at least geographically proximate) and contributions your incumbent may have made to other candidates or to political parties. You should relate your discussion to the relevant essays in volumes edited by Magleby (2002) and Malbin (2003).
The paper should be no more than 15 double-spaced ``typed'' pages in length.
The paper is due in class on Tuesday, September 30. Use normal
citation formats for bibliographic references. Be sure to include the date of
access along with the URL for any citations to web pages. For a description
of formats used in political science journals see
http://macht.arts.cornell.edu/work/wrm1/gov317/APSRcitation.htm.
IMPORTANT: You must let me know as soon as possible which district and incumbent you plan to study. To choose a district you may find it helpful to consult the Election Returns web sites, just to get a sense of the range. Please email your selection to me (wrm1@cornell.edu), preferably by Tuesday, September 9. I will allow only one person to study each incumbent--first come, first served. If I haven't received your district choice and approved it before the paper is due, I may not accept your paper (especially if someone else got approval for the district you end up writing about). You may work together to gather information.
Some web sources with information that should be helpful for this assignment are listed on the syllabus. The opensecrets and FECInfo sites are probably essential for finding information about contributors. The Congressional Directory site has information about House Members' committee memberships during the 107th Congress. The Project Vote Smart site has extensive information about interest group ratings of House members, among other useful information. Thomas is a comprehensive portal to information about Congress, including information about which bills each House Member sponsored or cosponsored, and roll call votes. Of course you are free to consult any other sources you think may help your investigations.
In response to a recent (March 2002) resolution by the Faculty Senate, I'm obliged to remind you of the following university policy regarding academic integrity: ``Each student in this course is expected to abide by the Cornell University Code of Academic Integrity. Any work submitted by a student in this course for academic credit will be the student's own work.''
Walter Mebane