Insights^

227 million Americans play video games.  That includes a grow number of US lawmakers, who are not only embracing video games as a hobby but incorporating them into their campaigns.

Video games come to Washington.  A Politico Magazine article published in 2018 profiled a few members of Congress and their interest in video games.  Reps. Scott Peters (D-CA) and Darrell Issa (R-CA) indicated video games provide a way for lawmakers of different parties to bond, while Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), now Governor of Colorado, said video games improve critical thinking skills.

• Polis isn’t wrong: Studies show moderate use of video games have cognitive benefits like enhancing mental agility and strategic thinking.

Politicians haven’t always liked video games, to say the least.  In 1993, then-Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) first suggested banning violent video games, while then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) introduced legislation to add more restrictions to violent and sexually explicit games in 2005.  Over the past 20-plus years, many politicians have at least partially blamed video games on mass shootings, including then-President Donald Trump with the 2018 Parkland High School shooting, and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (D-CA) with the 2019 shooting in El Paso.

Video Games on the Campaign Trail

However, lawmakers’ changing attitudes on video games has coincided with political campaigns’ increased use of video games.  In September 2020, the Biden-Harris campaign made available virtual yard signs that players of the game Animal Crossing could download and place in their virtual front yards.  The COVID-19 pandemic may have also inspired the Biden-Harris campaign to dive into the world of virtual organizing, as many Democratic campaigns had suspended in-person events and shifted online due to the virus. But, the Biden-Harris campaign wasn’t the first political campaign to use  video games – in 2008, the Obama-Biden campaign placed ads on virtual billboards in Madden NFL 09 and NBA Live 08.

Given the large number of Americans that play video games, it’s hard to deny the potential video games offer politically.  Campaigns can use video games to target specific demographics such as men aged 18-49, who are disproportionately more likely to participate in gaming.  And unlike print, radio, and television ads, video games offer an interactive format that can be potentially more persuasive than traditional forms of media.

That doesn’t mean video games are the new frontier for campaigns.  Instances of campaigns ads in video games appear to be the exception, not the rule, and it’s unclear to what extent politics will encroach on the world of gaming.  Most video game developers prefer to keep their products apolitical, largely to avoid pushback from their (mostly male) customers.  Additionally, many people turn to video games as a way to take a break from aspects of the real world – like politics.  While politicians may see video games as fertile ground for outreach, fear of backlash from developers and gamers could slow down the adoption of virtually campaigning as a major way to reach potential voters.

To run a campaign, candidates need money, and with the small exception of publicly financed campaigns, a sizeable portion of this money comes from political action committees (PACs).  By providing for a campaign’s war chest, PACs play a massive role in determining how candidates are elected, and in turn, which kinds of policies are enacted.

Overview

The Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) established the first PAC in 1943 after Congress prohibited unions from directly contributing to political candidates.  Corporations were initially barred from directly contributing to PACs under the Tillman Act of 1907, and the Smith-Connally Act extended this law to include unions in 1943.  Later, a series of campaign laws including the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971 allowed corporations and trade associations to form PACs.  The FECA also notably established the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which enforces PAC laws.

Businesses, organizations, and other entities form PACs as a way to pool resources together to support the candidates they like, and indirectly, oppose candidates they don’t like.  Overall, a PAC’s purpose is to raise money in support of a candidate, to get them elected, and to help defeat candidates they oppose.  Additionally, PACs aren’t limited to candidates for elected office – such as with state ballot measures.

Types of PACs

There are five types of PACs:

1. Separate Segregated Funds (SSF).  These are political committees established by labor unions, corporations, membership organizations, or trade associations.  They can only solicit contributions from an individual connected with the sponsoring organization, such as an employee or an association member.
2. Nonconnected committees. These entities are not established or sponsored by any particular organization, and unlike separate segregated funds, they can target the general public for solicitation.
3. Super PACs.  Created in 2010 after the US Supreme Court rulings for Citizens United v. FEC and SpeechNOW v. FEC , super PACs cannot make contributions to candidates or parties.  However, these PACs do make independent expenditures in federal campaigns, such as running advertisements or sending mail that either supports or opposes a candidate.  Unlike other PACs, there are no limits or restrictions on the sources of funds that can be used for expenditures.  Super PACs are still bound by the rules of other PACs in that they must file regular reports with the FEC.
4. Hybrid PACs.  Similar to super PACs, hybrid PACs can spend unlimited funds on activities outside a campaign.  What sets hybrid PACs apart, however, is their ability to contribute funds directly to a political party, campaign, or candidate, similar to SSFs and nonconnected committees.
5. Leadership PACs.  These are committees established by candidates or individuals currently holding federal office.  Both Representatives and Senators can establish leadership PACs to support candidates within their political party.

PAC Rules

PACs must follow numerous rules set out by the FECA and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.  For instance, a PAC has 10 days to register with the FEC after its formation.  The FEC also requires politicians and candidates who create a leadership PAC to be listed when submitting the required documentation.  Furthermore, current laws require PACs to meticulously keep records on how they spend their money, which includes salaries, advertisements, supplies, rent, day-to-day expenses, dinners, and more.

The following chart provides an overview of the limitations on how much different types of PACs can spend and receive.

PACs and Advocacy

By influencing elections, PACs indirectly play a pivotal role in lobbying and advocacy.  Different businesses, industries, and interests have PACs, and they work to get candidates elected who support those issues or host fundraisers for other candidates in the hopes of attracting them to their cause.  In turn, once those candidates are elected, advocates can target public officials who are more likely to be favorable to their cause.  Thus, by helping to get friendlier candidates elected to public office, PACs show they can play a massive role in moving organizations’ advocacy objectives forward.

The 2022 midterm election for the US Senate is a tale of two conflicting narratives.  On the one hand, the map favors Democrats, who only must defend 14 seats compared to Republicans’ 20 seats.  On the other hand, midterm elections typically do not bode well for the party that occupies the White House, giving Republicans an advantage.  Given the current 50-50 split in the Senate, the stakes for either party couldn’t be higher.

To illustrate the current lay of the land, the map below shows all the seats up for the 2022 election along with the party of the incumbent.

The 2022 Outlook

Below is a chart of all the states with a 2022 Senate election, their likely outcome according to the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter, and a comparison with 2020 presidential election results.

*not seeking reelection

Democrats May Have an Advantage…

Five Republican incumbent Senators, Shelby, Blunt, Burr, Portman, and Toomey, are not seeking reelection, and three of them represent states that are currently rated as “toss-up.”  This leaves the GOP without the advantage of an incumbent candidate on the ballot for three key races.  Furthermore, the number of “toss-up” states without an incumbent GOP Senator on the ballot could grow from three to four if Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) decides not to seek reelection.  In contrast, none of the 14 Democratic Senators in the mix for 2022 have announced retirement plans.

Democrats are also heading into the 2022 Senate races with an impressive war chest.  During the second quarter of 2021, several Democratic candidates in competitive states announced sizable fundraising totals, including Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA) with $7 million and Sen. Mike Kelly (D-AZ) with nearly $6 million.  The strong fundraising shown thus far is reminiscent of the 2018 and 2020 cycles, where Democrats translated money raised into electoral victories.

…Or Not

However, there are many other factors to consider, namely the popularity of President Joe Biden.  As mentioned before, midterm elections tend to not favor the party that controls the presidency, and an unpopular president has the potential to hurt Democrats even more.  Recent polling shows that President Biden’s approval rating has dipped below 50% as the Delta variant, inflation, and the evacuation of Afghanistan take a toll on Biden’s agenda.  If these trends persist into 2022, Democrats might find themselves in a tough position to win any “toss-up” seats.

Trump: the X Factor

A major unknown factor heading into the 2022 Senate races is the role of former President Donald Trump.  Since leaving office, Trump has continued to hold rallies with his supporters and endorsed candidates who he perceives as loyal to him.  In June, for instance, Trump endorsed Rep. Ted Budd (R-NC) in the GOP primary to succeed the retiring Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) in the race for North Carolina’s open Senate seat.  This endorsement conflicts with Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL), Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, who has expressed a desire for the former president to refrain from endorsing candidates until the primaries have wrapped up.

While it remains uncertain how much influence Trump will have over Senate races, the former president’s influence over recent House special elections offers clues.  In a July 27 special election for the 6^th Congressional District of Texas, Republican State Rep. Jake Ellzey defeated the Trump-backed candidate Susan Wright in a runoff race to succeed Wright’s late husband, Rep. Ron Wright (R-TX).  However, a Trump endorsement may have been helpful to Republican Mike Carey, who won the Republican primary for a special election on August 3 to fill a seat representing the 15^th Congressional District of Ohio.  The seat, which was vacated with the retirement of Rep. Steve Stivers (R-OH), leans Republican, meaning Carey is highly favored to win the general election on November 2, 2021.  Trump’s mixed record on special elections in 2021 further indicates the continued uncertainty on his sway over the Senate races next year.

Uncertain Impact of 2018 Midterm Elections

With the 2022 midterm elections on the horizon, it remains unclear whether the trends from the 2018 midterm elections will carry over into next year, especially for the Senate.  While the 2018 midterm elections saw the highest turnout in over half a century, the results were split between both parties.  While Democrats gained a total of 39 seats in the House, Republicans were able to gain two Senate seats, partially defying a trend that typically sees the party which occupies the White House lose seats in Congress.  However, the 2018 Senate map was historically bad for Democrats, and Republicans face a similar situation heading into 2022.  That said, with a new president and new issues currently dominating the public discourse, 2022 presents a different landscape from 2018, making it difficult to draw any hard conclusions from the previous midterm elections.

With each new decade comes a new Census, and with every new Census comes a redrawing of the map of congressional districts for the House of Representatives.   Known as redistricting, the stakes of this process couldn’t be higher, with Democrats clinging to a narrow majority in the House and the electorate bitterly divided among voters of either party.  However, thanks to the pandemic and controversies from the redistricting process 10 years ago, the process to determine congressional district boundaries ahead of the 2022 midterm elections will look more complicated than usual.

How States Determine Congressional Districts

The lines for congressional districts are redrawn at the state-level every 10 years.  Notably, each congressional district is required to be as equal to the population in all other congressional districts in a state as practicable.  Using new census data, states typically determine district boundaries through one of three ways:

1. State legislature.  The state legislature has ultimate authority to draft and implement maps for congressional districts.  While some states may have advisory commissions who assist with the redrawing process, state legislatures are not bound to follow the commissions’ recommendations.
2. Commission.  An independent commission is tasked with drawing the boundaries of congressional districts.  Some commissions bar individuals that hold elective office from serving on them, while others may include elected officials.
3. Hybrid.  Both a state legislature and a commission share redistricting authority.

Below is a map that shows each state’s redistricting process as of 2020.  Notably, states with only one member serving in the House of Representatives do not participate in the redistricting process.

Since most states have their respective legislatures draw congressional boundaries, some state lawmakers feel an incentive to engage in partisan gerrymandering, which is when districts are drawn in a way that benefits their own party.  Related to this is racial gerrymandering, which refers to when districts are drawn to reduce the electoral power of one racial group in favor of another.  Notably, racial gerrymandering is prohibited under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  While the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in June 2019 that federal courts cannot weigh in on partisan gerrymandering cases, several lawsuits on the state level have been successful in changing maps.  In 2019, a three-judge panel in North Carolina threw out the Tar Heel state’s new congressional map for unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering, prompting a redrawing of the map that gave Democrats an edge.  One year earlier, Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court declared the commonwealth’s 2011 congressional districting map to be in violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution, leading the way to a new map that also left Republicans disadvantaged.

Delayed Census Data, Delayed Maps

Normally, the US Census Bureau releases its apportionment data in December of the year it is collected, with more in-depth demographic data that states use to determine district boundaries released throughout February and March of the following year.   However, COVID-19 delayed the Census Bureau’s ability to gather and process data, and therefore the apportionment data wasn’t posted until April 26, 2021, and the more in-depth data states use to draw district boundaries won’t be available until August 12.  The apportionment data refers to the number of seats in the House of Representatives allotted for a state based on the state’s population, while the more in-depth data includes demographic information such as age, sex, and race as well as geographic boundaries like jurisdictional limits, school districts, property lines, roads, and other features that states will use to redraw maps.

Due to the delay in receiving census data, states are facing tight deadlines on drawing their 2022 congressional maps.  Currently, 12 states are required either constitutionally or statutorily to have their 2022 congressional district boundaries enacted before the end of 2021.  As a result, many states are expected to hold special legislative sessions this fall to focus on redistricting.  Other states are using non-census data to draw new district boundaries.  For example, the state legislatures of Illinois and Oklahoma are both using data from the American Community Survey (ACS) to come up with new maps.  However, some dispute that ACS data can serve as a stand-in for census data, and the Illinois Republican Party has already filed a lawsuit to challenge the forthcoming new map.  By summer 2022, at least half of states are expected to have their new congressional districts finalized.

What to Watch for in 2022

Apportionment data released in April saw a dozen states either gain or lose House seats based on changes in total population.  Below is an overview of the states that will see changes in their delegation, with the current number of seats in the 117^th Congress noted in parentheses.

• States that will lose one seat: California (53), Illinois (18), Michigan (14), New York (27), Ohio (16), Pennsylvania (18), West Virginia (3).
• States that will gain one seat: Colorado (7), Montana (1), North Carolina (1), Oregon (5).
• States that will gain two seats: Florida (27), Texas (36).

Going into the 2022 redistricting process, Republicans have the upper hand.  A major reason for this is Democrats currently have a slim five-seat majority in the House, which means Republicans only have to flip a few seats to retake the majority.  Heading into 2022, two factors give the GOP an advantage when it comes to winning new seats.

• Apportionment data.  Many of the states that are set to lose one seat are Democratic-leaning, while Republican-leaning Florida and Texas gain two seats apiece.  A minor shift in seats away from blue states toward red states could be especially impactful in the House.
• Control of state legislatures.  The Republican Party holds a supermajority in the legislatures of 30 state governments, meaning party members control both the upper chamber and the lower chamber of a state’s legislative branch.  In contrast, Democrats hold a supermajority in 18 states, while control is split between the parties in two states’ legislature.  This translates to Republicans having direct control over the boundaries of 187 districts, while Democrats only control 75.  Out of the remaining districts, independent commissions will decide 96, both parties will decide 71, and six seats represent at-large districts.  By holding supermajorities in most state legislatures, the GOP is better positioned to engage in gerrymandering and redraw congressional lines in their favor.  Notably, the Republican Party controls the state legislatures of Texas and Florida, both of which will be gaining two seats for 2022.

However, Democrats have a few tricks up their sleeve to counter Republicans’ advantage in redrawing the congressional map.

• Lawsuits. Litigation brought about changes in the congressional maps in Pennsylvania and North Carolina in recent years, and new legal challenges could open the door for more changes as redistricting for 2022 heats up.  The National Democratic Redistricting Committee, an advocacy organization founded by former US Attorney General Eric Holder, filed lawsuits in Louisiana, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania in April 2021, immediately following the release of the apportionment data.  As a worst-case-scenario for Republicans, some lawsuits could potentially overturn newly drawn maps, meaning some 2022 congressional races could be decided using the 2020 map.  It should be noted that Democrats are not the only party with a redistricting advocacy group, as the National Republican Redistricting Trust has pledged to challenge any maps that it sees as unfairly skewing to the left.
• Democratic supermajorities.  State legislatures with Democratic supermajorities may attempt to redraw their lines through gerrymandering to squeeze out Republican members of the state’s congressional delegation, potentially providing a cushion for Democrats in anticipation of any 2022 losses in the House.  States to watch include Illinois and Maryland, where Democratic state lawmakers may redraw lines to make reelection a tough prospect for Reps. Rodney Davis (R-IL) and Andy Harris (R-MD).

Redistricting has massive ramification for US politics and this year is no exception.  Between delayed census data, tight redistricting deadlines, strong Republican advantages, and the specter of Democratic lawsuits, intense fights over the 2022 congressional map could be on the horizon.