Presidential elections are among the most iconic events in American politics. Particularly before the television era, campaigns for the presidency and vice presidency were relatively brief events, involving a small band of supporters and occupying only a few months of the election-year calendar. Today, presidential campaigns last months or years, involve thousands of professional employees and volunteers, and are the preeminent political event of a four-year cycle. Since the mid-19 th century, certain elements of the role of political parties, money, and nomination procedures have remained constant, but many have evolved with time. This report considers contemporary developments in presidential elections. It emphasizes three topics chosen for their recurring importance and notable recent developments: (1) nominating procedures; (2) campaign finance; and (3) the electoral college. The report highlights significant developments in these areas, particularly as they relate to the 2008 and 2012 elections. These topics have obvious political implications that affect the race for the presidency. They are also modern manifestations of the democratic process in the United States. Key issues include how the party nominees are selected, which are financially able to compete in elections and how, and whether electors or voters should ultimately be responsible for electing the nation's chief executive. All these concerns may be of interest to Congress as Members continue to follow and be involved in presidential campaigns, participate as delegates to the national conventions, and potentially consider their own presidential candidacies, but also as the House and Senate oversee federal elections and consider various reform proposals. The report proceeds by discussing the nomination process, which starts the presidential contest. It then considers campaign finance, the raising and spending of funds that are vital throughout the nomination and general election process. The final section addresses proposed changes affecting the electoral college, the final step in electing the President. A preview of major points appears below. The presidential primary season is often shaped by events in the previous election cycle. That was especially true for 2012. After years of negotiations, the national Democratic and Republican parties reached agreement on a plan to organize the schedule of primaries and caucuses and reduce front-loading. In recent election cycles, the Iowa and New Hampshire contests had been pushed from February into January, under pressure from other states that sought a place at the beginning of the process. Democratic Party rules usually kept these states from jumping ahead of Iowa and New Hampshire, but did not prevent a rush to schedule early events within the rules. Inter-party cooperation averted a similar result for 2012, which featured a significantly less front-loaded calendar. Another development that shaped the nominating contest was a change to the Republican rules for awarding delegates according to the presidential vote. The winner-take-all method that had been widely used was replaced with a proportional system for contests before April 1, although strict proportional allocation was not mandated. With an open race for the Republican nomination, the pace of primaries and caucuses and the new allocation rule had an important effect by extending the contest in comparison to past nominating seasons. Significant changes in campaign finance law are expected to shape campaign finance in the 2012 election cycle. Most prominently, this includes developments resulting from the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission . In that case, the Court invalidated long-standing prohibitions on corporations and unions using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures calling for election or defeat of specific candidates. (Direct contributions from corporate and union treasuries remain prohibited.) These changes apply to both presidential elections and other campaigns. In the aftermath of Citizens United , presidential candidates face additional pressure to raise funds to be able to compete against their opponents and outside groups, particularly new organizations called "super PACs." In addition to Citizens United , the future of the presidential public financing program is in doubt, as candidates increasingly opt instead for private funds. The electoral college method of presidential elections has long been the subject of discussion. To critics, it is archaic, anti-democratic, and has, on four occasions, elected Presidents who received fewer popular votes than their opponents. To defenders, it is a pillar of federalism, promoting inclusive candidacies and a moderate two-party system. Between 1948 and 1979, Congress considered numerous constitutional amendments to reform the system or replace it with direct election, but no single proposal ever gained the constitutionally required two-thirds majority of both chambers needed to submit an amendment for state ratification. After decades of inactivity, the issue is enjoying a revival, as various states consider reform on the sub-federal level. Moreover, a nongovernmental organization, the National Popular Vote (NPV) campaign, has proposed an interstate compact that would achieve direct election without a constitutional amendment. The compact would bind signatory states to award their electoral votes to the nationwide popular vote winner, notwithstanding results within the state, and would take effect after states controlling more than half (270) of electoral votes agree. By late 2011, eight states and the District of Columbia, possessing a total of 132 electoral votes, had joined the compact. To summarize, the three major areas discussed in this report—the nominating process, campaign finance, and the electoral college—have been central elements of presidential elections for over a century and a half. Each of those areas has experienced transition in recent decades, but each is also facing changes particularly relevant for the 2012 election cycle. Both Democrats and Republicans amended their nomination processes to reduce front-loading and bring more order to the nomination process. For the first time, the two parties agreed on a window during which primaries are permitted—from March to June—except for the exempt states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. Those contests were held in January, as was the Florida primary, in violation of the rules that had mandated a starting date of February 1 or after for the exempt states. Penalties were imposed by the national Republican Party on states that held January and February events, including Florida, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Arizona, and Michigan, but not on the caucus states of Iowa, Nevada, Colorado, Minnesota, and Maine where the results were non-binding. For the first time in modern history, corporations and unions are now free to make unlimited expenditures from their general treasuries calling for defeat of specific candidates. In addition to adapting to this new environment, presidential candidates and outside groups must consider the decline of the presidential public financing system. In 2008, Barack Obama became the first person elected President, since public funds were first offered in 1976, who declined to accept any public funds. It is possible that 2012 will make the first occasion in which neither major-party nominee will accept any public funds. Debate over the current relevance of the electoral college has been a recurring theme for decades—a topic that has reemerged ahead of the 2012 election cycle. Despite relative inactivity on the issue in recent years, several states have proposed moving to direct election of the President. The 2012 cycle and related developments may suggest renewed interest in reconsidering presidential selection in the future. Additional discussion appears throughout this report. For the first time in nearly 25 years, the primary and caucus calendar did not feature a crowded series of events in early February or March. As the result of a coordinated effort between Democrats and Republicans at the national level, both parties are expected to enforce a sanctioned "window" for delegate selection events. Democrats first adopted a window in 1980 (and effectively exempted Iowa and New Hampshire), but Republicans were unable to garner support for the concept until 2010. Previous attempts by Republicans to do so for the 2004 and 2008 elections were unsuccessful, partly because the party had to approve such changes at the quadrennial national convention, for the following election cycle. In both cases, the plans failed to receive the necessary support within the party to be referred to the national conventions. However, the 2008 national convention did approve a committee—the Temporary Delegate Selection Committee—to review delegate selection procedures and make recommendations to the Republican National Committee (RNC), a first for a party that had traditionally deferred to the state parties on most delegate selection matters. The Temporary Delegate Selection Committee made several recommendations, of which two were adopted as important amendments to party rules and which have been significant in shaping the 2012 primary cycle (see the section entitled " The Outlook for 2012 " for a longer discussion of these changes). The first concerned the calendar, and specifically the imposition of a "window" during which primary and caucus events may be held, such as the Democrats have had since 1980. Republicans had never before imposed a timing rule. The change stipulated that no delegate selection event could be held before the first Tuesday in March (March 6, 2012), with exceptions for Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada, which can begin the delegate selection process on or after February 1. The window would not apply if Democrats fail to adhere to similar timing. The second change, also unprecedented for Republicans, required states to use proportional allocation of national convention delegates for any contest held before April 1. Democrats have long mandated proportional allocation of delegates, based on primary and caucus results. The intent was for states that want to retain the preferred winner-take-all system to move the primary or caucus to a date after April 1 to comply, presumably resulting in a less front-loaded calendar as a result. That goal was largely achieved. The contest began on the same date as in 2008 (January 3), but the slower pace of primaries and caucuses and the use of proportional allocation affected the ability of any of the candidates to close out the race early. By the end of February in 2008, Republican events had already been held in 36 states and the race was announced over shortly thereafter on March 4. In 2012, only 10 such events had been held by the same date. Furthermore, the widespread use of the winner-take-all system for awarding delegates in the past helped the front-runner accumulate a majority of delegates and end the race early.