Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T05:37:29.102Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Experimental Evidence on the Relationship Between Candidate Funding Sources and Voter Evaluations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2017

Conor M. Dowling  and
Michael G. Miller
Conor M. Dowling
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Mississippi, 235 Deupree Hall, University, MS 38677, USA; e-mail: [email protected]
Michael G. Miller
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Barnard College, Columbia University, 3009 Broadway, New York, NY 10027, USA; e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Money comes from a variety of sources in American elections. It is unclear however whether voters’ knowledge about a candidate's funding portfolio influences how that candidate is evaluated. We present the results of two survey experiments in which we randomly assigned the composition of donors from various categories to a hypothetical candidate. We find that on average a candidate described as having received a majority of his contributions from individuals is evaluated more highly than one who received a majority of his contributions from interest groups. We also find that when it comes to self-financing a campaign, using private sector money is more beneficial to candidates than using inherited money, but only when the candidate is a member of the same party as the voter. Our results have implications for campaign strategy, academic debates concerning the effect of money on elections, and policy debates concerning the effects of increased campaign finance disclosure.

Keywords

Campaign financedisclosurePACssurvey experiment
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Experimental Political Science , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , Winter 2016 , pp. 152 - 163
Copyright
Copyright © The Experimental Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abramowitz, Alan I. 1991. “Incumbency, Campaign Spending, and the Decline of Competition in U.S. House Elections.” Journal of Politics 53 (1): 34–56.Google Scholar
Alexander, Brad. 2005. “Good Money and Bad Money: Do Funding Sources Affect Electoral Outcomes?” Political Research Quarterly 58 (2): 353–58.Google Scholar
Bedard, Paul. 2011 (June 2). “Obama Sends First 2012 Small Dollar Fundraising Appeal.” U.S. News. (http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/06/02/obama-sends-first-2012-small-dollar-fundraising-appeal), accessed July 23, 2014.Google Scholar
Bowler, Shaun and Karp, Jeffrey. 2004. “Politicians, Scandals, and Trust in Government.” Political Behavior 26 (3): 271–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, Deborah Jordan and Murov, Michael. 2012. “Assessing Accountability in a Post-Citizens United Era: The Effects of Attack Ad Sponsorship by Unknown Independent Groups.” American Politics Research 40 (3): 383–418.Google Scholar
Brown, Adam R. 2013. “Does Money Buy Votes? The Case of Self-Financed Gubernatorial Candidates, 1998-2008.” Political Behavior 35 (1): 21–41.Google Scholar
Campaign Finance Institute. 2012. “Expenditures of House Incumbents and Challengers, by Election Outcome, 1974-2010.” (http://www.cfinst.org/data/pdf/VitalStats_t3.pdf), accessed August 15, 2013.Google Scholar
Cassie, William E. and Thompson, Joel A.. 1998. “Patterns of PAC Contributions to State Legislative Candidates.” In Campaign Finance in State Legislative Elections, eds. Thompson, Joel A. and Moncrief, Gray F.. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, pp. 158–84.Google Scholar
Dowling, Conor M. and Miller, Michael G.. 2014. Super PAC! Money, Elections, and Voters After Citizens United. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dowling, Conor M. and Wichowsky, Amber. 2013. “Does It Matter Who's Behind the Curtain? Anonymity in Political Advertising and the Effects of Campaign Finance Disclosure.” American Politics Research 41 (6): 965–96.Google Scholar
Dwyer, Devin. 2012. “Obama Trumps Romney With Small Donors.” ABCNews. (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/obama-trumps-romney-with-small-donors/), accessed July 20, 2014.Google Scholar
Gerber, Alan. 2004. “Does Campaign Spending Work? Field Experiments Provide Evidence and Suggest New Theory.” American Behavioral Scientist 47 (1): 541–74.Google Scholar
Gross, Donald A. and Goidel, Robert K.. 2003. The States of Campaign Finance Reform. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Herrnson, Paul S. 1992. “Campaign Professionalism and Fundraising in Congressional Elections.” Journal of Politics 54 (3): 859–70.Google Scholar
Herrnson, Paul S. and Curtis, Stephanie Perry. 2011. “Financing the 2008 Congressional Elections.” In Financing the 2008 Election, eds. Magleby, David B. and Corrado, Anthony. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 1990. “The Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections: New Evidence for Old Arguments.” American Journal of Political Science 34 (2): 334–62.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2006. “Campaign Spending Effects in U.S. Senate Elections: Evidence from the National Annenberg Election Survey.” Electoral Studies 25 (3): 195–226.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2009. The Politics of Congressional Elections. 7th ed. New York: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Kang, Michael S. 2010. “After Citizens United.” Indiana Law Review 44 (1): 243–54.Google Scholar
Krasno, Jonathan S. and Green, Donald Philip. 1988. “Preempting Quality Challengers in House Elections.” Journal of Politics 54 (4): 920–36.Google Scholar
Lott, John R. Jr. 2000. “A Simple Explanation For Why Campaign Expenditures Are Increasing: The Government Is Getting Bigger.” Journal of Law and Economics 43 (2): 359–93.Google Scholar
Lupia, Arthur. 1994. “Shortcuts versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections.” American Political Science Review 88 (1): 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur and McCubbins, Mathew D. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maestas, Cherie D. and Rugeley, Cynthia R. 2008. “Assessing the “Experience Bonus” Through Examining Strategic Entry, Candidate Quality, and Campaign Receipts in US House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 52 (2): 520–535.Google Scholar
Popkin, Samuel L. 1991. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Ridout, Travis N., Franz, Michael M., and Fowler, Erika Franklin. 2015. “Sponsorship, Disclosure and Donors: Limiting the Impact of Outside Group Ads.” Political Research Quarterly 68 (1): 154–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sances, Michael W. 2013. “Is Money in Politics Harming Trust in Government? Evidence from Two Survey Experiments.” Election Law Journal 12 (1): 53–73.Google Scholar
Sniderman, Paul M., Brody, Richard A., and Tetlock, Philip E.. 1991. Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Snyder, James M. 1990. “Campaign Contributions as Investments: The U.S. House of Representatives, 1980-1986.” Journal of Political Economy 98 (6): 1195–1227.Google Scholar
Stratmann, Thomas. 1992. “Are Contributors Rational? Untangling Strategies of Political Action Committees.” Journal of Political Economy 100 (3): 647–664.Google Scholar
Thielemann, Gregory S. and Dixon, Donald R.. 1994. “Explaining Contributions: Rational Contributors and the Elections for the 71st Texas House.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 19 (4): 495–506.Google Scholar
Thompson, Joel A., Cassie, William, and Jewell, Malcolm E.. 1994. “A Sacred Cow or Just a Lot of Bull? Party and PAC Money in State Legislative Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 47 (1): 223–237.Google Scholar
Vavreck, Lynn and Rivers, Douglas. 2008. “The 2006 Cooperative Congressional Election Study.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 18 (4): 355–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Christopher, Dunaway, Johanna, and Johnson, Tyler. 2012. “It's All in the Name: Source Cue Ambiguity and the Persuasive Appeal of Campaign Ads.” Political Behavior 34 (3): 561–584.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Dowling supplementary material

Dowling supplementary material

Download Dowling supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 69.1 KB