AP United States Government and Politics

## Learning Outcomes

- Explain what a **candidate-centered campaign** is and how it differs from a party-centered campaign
- Understand how **primary elections** shifted nomination power away from party leaders
- Identify how television, the internet, and social media let candidates appeal directly to voters
- Explain how candidate fundraising, outside spending, and **independent expenditures** reduce reliance on party organizations
- Evaluate why candidate-centered campaigns weaken parties without making parties disappear
- Apply this topic to AP multiple-choice and free-response questions using accurate political science language

## AP United States Government and Politics Syllabus

For the AP United States Government and Politics, you are expected to understand how candidate-centered campaigns changed party politics, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

- Know that a **candidate-centered campaign** focuses on the individual candidate’s image, message, and personal appeal more than on the party organization
- Identify the difference between **party-centered** and **candidate-centered** campaigns
- Explain how **primary elections** reduce party leaders’ control over nominations
- Understand how television, digital media, and social media let candidates communicate directly with voters
- Know the difference between a **candidate committee**, a **party committee**, and an **independent expenditure**
- Explain how **Buckley v. Valeo (1976)** and **Citizens United v. FEC (2010)** contributed to an election system with less party control over campaign money
- Understand why candidate-centered politics may weaken party loyalty and encourage **split-ticket voting**, while recognizing that strong partisanship can still limit that effect
- Explain why parties still matter as linkage institutions, ballot labels, and governing coalitions even when campaigns become more personalized

## Test Your Knowledge

_Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, look more closely at that area during your revision._

1. What is the difference between a candidate-centered campaign and a party-centered campaign?
2. How do primary elections weaken political parties?
3. How does modern media help candidates bypass party organizations?
4. What is the difference between a candidate committee and a party committee?
5. How did Citizens United v. FEC (2010) make candidate-centered politics more likely?

## Introduction

Modern U.S. campaigns are much more focused on individuals than they used to be. Students often picture political parties as powerful gatekeepers that choose candidates, fund campaigns, and control the message. Parties still do all of those things to some extent, but many campaigns now revolve around the candidate rather than the party.

That shift matters for AP Government because it helps explain why parties have changed over time. The rise of primaries, modern media, consultants, personal fundraising, and outside spending means that many candidates can build support without depending heavily on party leaders. The result is not the end of parties, but a clear weakening of party control over nominations, campaign strategy, and voter communication.

> **Key Term: candidate-centered campaign**
> A campaign focused mainly on the individual candidate’s image, message, biography, and personal appeal rather than on the party organization.

### Candidate-centered campaigns versus party-centered campaigns

A good starting point is the contrast between two campaign models.

In a **party-centered** campaign, the party label does much of the work. Voters choose between party teams. The party helps recruit candidates, shapes the message, raises large amounts of money, and mobilizes voters. The campaign message is close to “vote for the party.”

In a **candidate-centered** campaign, the individual becomes the main product. Voters are asked to support a person, not just a party organization. The campaign message becomes “vote for me.” Biography, personality, issue style, campaign branding, and media presence become central.

> **Key Term: party-centered campaign**
> A campaign in which the party organization plays the dominant role in funding, messaging, voter mobilization, and candidate support.

This distinction matters because parties are strongest when voters rely heavily on party labels. Parties are weaker when candidates can persuade voters to look past the party and judge the person separately. That is why candidate-centered politics is tied to a long-term decline in party control.

Older party politics depended more on party machines, party bosses, and local organizations. A candidate often needed party backing just to have a realistic chance of winning. In the modern system, candidates can sometimes create a personal brand strong enough to win a primary, dominate media attention, and build their own donor network.

That does not mean parties vanish. Party labels still help voters process information quickly, especially in congressional and state races. But the balance has shifted. A candidate can now succeed with less party discipline and more personal autonomy.

> **Test Tip:** If an AP question asks how candidate-centered campaigns weaken parties, focus on a shift in **control**. The best answers explain that power moves from party organizations to individual candidates.

### Primaries shifted nomination power away from party leaders

One of the biggest causes of candidate-centered politics is the modern primary system. In the past, party leaders had far more influence over who got nominated. Today, voters in primaries and caucuses play a much larger role.

That change matters because it altered whom candidates must persuade first. If party elites control nominations, candidates work upward through the party organization. If primary voters control nominations, candidates work outward toward the electorate. They need media attention, fundraising, and personal appeal more than quiet approval from party insiders.

> **Key Term: primary election**
> An election in which voters choose a political party’s nominee for the general election.

Primaries weaken parties in at least three ways.

First, they reduce party leaders’ direct control over nominations. Party officials cannot simply hand the nomination to their preferred candidate. A candidate who can energize voters may defeat the party establishment.

Second, primaries force candidates in the same party to compete against each other. That can divide party members, create ideological conflict, and drain party resources before the general election even begins. Instead of presenting one unified message, the party may spend months in internal conflict.

Third, candidates in primaries often have to build their own organizations because the party may not fully back one contender early in the race. That encourages personal fundraising, personal staff, and personal campaign strategy.

This is why many textbooks say primaries weaken parties. If the party does not control the nomination, it has less influence over the nominee. A winning candidate may owe more to donors, consultants, and primary voters than to party leaders.

A useful way to think about this is cause and effect:

- **Primaries expand voter influence**
- Party elites lose nomination control
- Candidates cultivate personal followings
- Candidates become more independent of the party
- Parties become weaker as organizations

This change also helps explain why party coalitions can become strained. A primary winner may represent only one energetic faction within the party, not the whole coalition. That can make party unity harder in the general election and later in governing.

### Media and technology let candidates bypass parties

The growth of television first, then the internet and social media, made candidate-centered campaigns much more practical. Candidates no longer needed to rely as heavily on party newspapers, local party organizations, or party machines to reach voters. They could go around them.

Television made image politics much more important. A candidate with strong media skills could speak directly to millions of voters. The party label still mattered, but visual presentation, debate performance, and campaign advertising made the individual candidate more visible than the party structure behind them.

Later, the internet and social media accelerated this trend. Candidates now communicate instantly with supporters, raise money online, release campaign videos, answer attacks, and shape the day’s message without waiting for party organizations to do it for them.

This creates a more personal style of politics. Voters often follow candidates on social media, not party committees. Campaigns become about authenticity, branding, speed, and direct emotional connection.

That is a major reason media-centered campaigns weaken parties. The party once acted as a key linkage institution between citizens and government. Now candidates themselves can serve as their own linkage mechanism.

Candidates also increasingly hire their own professionals: pollsters, ad makers, media strategists, and data analysts. These experts work for the candidate, not for the party as a whole. So even campaign knowledge and tactical skill have shifted away from the party organization.

A common mistake is to say media made parties irrelevant. That goes too far. Parties still provide endorsements, lists of likely voters, volunteer networks, and institutional support. But modern media reduced the party’s monopoly over communication.

> **Key Term: media-centered campaign**
> A campaign in which candidates rely heavily on television, internet platforms, and social media to reach voters directly.

This helps explain another trend sometimes linked with candidate-centered politics: **split-ticket voting**, where voters choose candidates from different parties in the same election. If voters focus on individual candidates, they may be more willing to say, “I like this Republican for one office but that Democrat for another.”

> **Key Term: split-ticket voting**
> Voting for candidates from different political parties in the same election.

There is an important qualification here. Strong polarization has reduced split-ticket voting in recent years. So you should not claim that candidate-centered politics automatically creates lots of split-ticket voting today. The better argument is that candidate-centered campaigning can make split-ticket voting more possible, even if modern partisanship often pushes voters back toward straight-party voting.

### Fundraising and outside spending reduced party dependence

Money is another key reason parties weakened. Candidates used to rely more heavily on party organizations for campaign resources. Today they often raise money through their own campaign structures and benefit from spending outside the party.

Start with the candidate’s own campaign organization.

> **Key Term: candidate committee**
> An authorized campaign committee legally tied to a candidate and used to raise and spend money for that candidate’s campaign.

A candidate committee belongs to the candidate. It is not the same thing as a party committee.

> **Key Term: party committee**
> A political committee established by a political party at the national, state, district, or local level.

This distinction matters because students often blur them. If a candidate raises money through an authorized campaign committee, that money is under the candidate’s control. If the money comes from a party committee, the party has more influence.

Modern campaigns often rely heavily on personal fundraising by the candidate. Candidates build donor lists, send emails and texts, use online donation platforms, and raise large sums on their own. That means they are less dependent on the party for survival.

Outside spending also changed the system. Some organizations spend money to support or oppose candidates without coordinating directly with those candidates or the party.

> **Key Term: independent expenditure**
> Spending that advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate and is not coordinated with the candidate or party.

That last phrase is essential: **not coordinated**. If the spending is coordinated, it is not an independent expenditure.

Two major Supreme Court cases help explain why this matters.

In **Buckley v. Valeo (1976)**, the Court treated expenditures as more strongly protected speech than direct contributions. That made it harder to limit certain types of campaign spending.

In **Citizens United v. FEC (2010)**, the Court protected unlimited independent political spending by corporations and unions. This greatly increased the role of outside spending in elections.

The AP connection is direct: more independent spending means less party control. If candidates and outside groups can spend huge sums without going through party committees, the party loses one of its traditional strengths.

Cause and effect again:

- Court decisions protect more political spending
- Outside groups gain power
- Candidates rely more on personal fundraising and external support
- Party committees become less central
- Party influence weakens
  > **Test Tip:** For a multiple-choice or FRQ response, remember this formula: **more independent spending = less reliance on party committees**.

### Why parties still matter despite candidate-centered campaigns

A strong AP answer must include complexity. Candidate-centered campaigns weaken parties, but they do not eliminate them.

Parties still matter in at least four major ways.

First, the party label still helps voters. Many citizens do not study every candidate in depth. Party identification remains a major voting shortcut.

Second, parties still recruit candidates and provide organizational support. Even if candidates are more independent than before, the party still helps with voter lists, conventions, turnout operations, and campaign staff networks.

Third, parties remain crucial in government. Congress is organized by party leadership, party caucuses, and party committee structures. Even a candidate who runs on a personal brand usually has to govern within a party team.

Fourth, the U.S. electoral system still strongly favors two major parties. Winner-take-all elections and ballot-access rules make it very difficult for third parties to replace Democrats and Republicans.

So the best conclusion is not “parties do not matter anymore.” The better conclusion is that campaigns have become more personalized and candidate-driven, which reduces party control over nominations, money, and messaging. But parties still remain powerful linkage institutions and governing coalitions.

A balanced AP argument might sound like this: candidate-centered campaigns weaken parties because candidates now depend more on primary voters, direct media outreach, and personal fundraising than on party organizations. However, parties still matter through ballot labels, voter mobilization, and congressional organization.

## Key Point Checklist

_This article has covered the following key knowledge points:_

- A candidate-centered campaign focuses on the individual candidate more than on the party organization
- A party-centered campaign relies more heavily on party labels, party messaging, and party structures
- Primary elections weaken parties by shifting nomination power from party elites to voters
- Primaries force candidates to build personal followings and campaign organizations
- Television, the internet, and social media let candidates appeal directly to voters
- Media-centered campaigns reduce the party’s control over political communication
- Candidate committees are different from party committees and give candidates more independent control over money
- Independent expenditures must be uncoordinated with the candidate or party
- Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and Citizens United v. FEC (2010) helped create a campaign system with less party control over spending
- Candidate-centered politics can make split-ticket voting more possible, though polarization can reduce that effect
- Candidate-centered campaigns weaken parties by reducing party control over nominations, funding, and messaging
- Political parties still matter as ballot labels, linkage institutions, and governing coalitions

## Key Terms and Concepts

- candidate-centered campaign
- party-centered campaign
- primary election
- media-centered campaign
- split-ticket voting
- candidate committee
- party committee
- independent expenditure


How and Why Political Parties Change and Adapt - Candidate-centered campaigns weaken parties