Talk:Political party committee

Proposed merge of Committeemen and committeewomen into Political party committee

I haven't been able to find any sources that would indicate that committeemen and committeewomen is a notable topic in its own right, or that that article could ever be more than a WP:dictionary definition. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

No objections, so I've gone ahead and done this. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Merger Discussion

Request received to merge articles: Hill Committee into Political party committee; dated: May 2024.

I believe merging the pages would allow for greater clarity and context to how political parties operate in the United States, as there is significant overlap in how they are regulated, how they function, and how they are studied.

The FEC and campaign finance law categorize the "Hill Committees" (DCCC, DSCC, NRCC, and NRSC) as "party committees" in the same category as the DNC, RNC, and state parties. All of the organizations are subject to the same contribution limits and regulations with regard to candidate support and independent expenditures, as well in how funds are raised. Furthermore, the groups are frequently combined for the purposes of academic studies of party committees.

Each individual committee has its own wikipedia page to outline more specific functions and history. The history of the four Hill committees as a group is not substantially different from the other political party committees so as to require its own page. Eventhisacronym (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Firstly, the membership of the committees is quite different. The Hill committees are led by sitting members of their respective chambers, and leadership of these committees directly affects the leadership ranking in the chambers. Sitting members of Congress each are expected to pay dues to a corresponding Hill committee. The DNC and RNC members consist of more nebulously defined party leaders, including some sitting elected officials, but many other individual campaign operatives.

Secondly, the Hill committees are not treated the same under FEC and campaign finance law, as you had suggested. The Hill committees run independent expenditures that are classified by the FEC as unique IEs that are too "coordinated" to be on the true IE side of the campaign firewall, but too independent to coordinate with the coordinated side of the firewall. It is true that the NRSC is subject to the same FEC contribution limits as the RNC, surely, but the permitted uses of those funds differ. FEC reporting shows dozens of independent expenditure reports by the Hill committees, unlike the party committees.

Thirdly, and crucially, the party committees (DNC/RNC) are seen as representing the parties nationally in addition to their campaign work on Presidential campaigns. They are the "party." The Hill committees have the sole purpose of gaining or expanding a governing majority in the corresponding chamber on the Hill. I recognize these two topics and types of committees are linked, but they are not functionally the same. Furthermore, while each Hill committee does have its own page with details, the specific functions and history of the bodies is substantively different than the party committees. LemonadeAndIcedTea (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

A few responses:

On membership, this is fair, but this is an overview page. The membership of each committee is clearly covered by each individual page for the committees. I believe the difference in membership is not enough to outweigh the benefits of including all of the committees on a single overview page.

On FEC and campaign finance law, "Hill committees" are not exclusively independent expenditure committees. They also do an incredible amount of coordinated expenditures, like national, state and local party committees. Furthermore, because there are unlimited transfers allowed between all of these types of committees, I believe it would be much easier to capture how intertwined the fundraising and use of funds is between all of these committees on a single page. Once again, their IE functions can be covered on their individual pages where applicable, but there is much more to be gained from explaining the overall landscape.

On what qualifies as party, I disagree. The leaders of the "Hill committees" are seen as leaders of their party broadly and shape the way the public sees and engages with the parties nationally. During midterm cycles, the "Hill committees" providing overwhelmingly more national messaging to the public about the party than the DNC/RNC. I would argue in any cycle "Hill committees" make much more impact on overall party image than state and local parties, which are contained on this page. The "Hill committees" make substantial contributions to the overall public representations of their parties, and relegating them to a separate page does a disservice to readers understanding of the overall landscape of American politics.

I agree that there are clear differences in all of the party committees, but they are all party committees. Eventhisacronym (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I think there are some great points here! If the pages merge, will "Hill committees" as a search term redirect to the Party committee page then? LemonadeAndIcedTea (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@LemonadeAndIcedTea: Yes; merges leave a redirect, so searches go to the correct term. This is most easily done by having a subheading withing this page specifically on "Hill committees".Klbrain (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)