Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T21:13:34.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Not All Money Is Equal: The Differential Effect of Spending by Incumbents and Challengers in Gubernatorial Primaries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

Kedron Bardwell
Kedron Bardwell*
Affiliation:
Grand Valley State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

What is the impact of campaign spending on the vote in gubernatorial primaries? Is spending by challengers and incumbents equally effective? Answering these questions could shed light on the effectiveness of incumbent spending in elections generally and on the impact of campaign finance reform. In a two-stage least squares analysis of primaries from 1980 to 2000, this study finds that spending by incumbent governors has no independent impact on their vote share. On the other hand, spending by challengers is effective in attracting votes, even after controlling for challenger quality and incumbent popularity. However, relatively few races are close enough for challenger spending to be decisive. This suggests that to improve gubernatorial primary competition, states would need to increase public campaign funding and spending limits substantially.

Type
Other
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , September 2003 , pp. 294 - 308
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association, 2003

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

Abramowitz, Alan I. 1988. “Explaining Senate Election Outcomes.” American Political Science Review 82:385–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abramowitz, Alan I. 1991. “Incumbency, Campaign Spending, and the Decline of Competition in U.S. House Elections.” Journal of Politics 53:34–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, Greg D., and Squire, Peverill. 1997. “Incumbent Vulnerability and Challenger Emergence in Senate Elections.” Political Behavior 19:97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardwell, Kedron. 2002. “Money and Challenger Emergence in Gubernatorial Primaries.” Political Research Quarterly 55:663–667.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1991. “Instrumental and ‘Quasi-Instrumental’ Variables.” American Journal of Political Science 35:777–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, and Katz, Jonathan N.. 1995. “What to Do (and Not to Do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data.” American Political Science Review 89:634–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyle, Thad L. 1996. “The Cost of Winning.” State Government News 39:10–14.Google Scholar
Beyle, Thad L., and Jensen, Jennifer. 2001. “Gubernatorial Campaign Expenditures Database.”http://www.unc.edu/~beyle/guber.html (February 20, 2001).Google Scholar
Beyle, Thad L., Niemi, Richard G., and Sigelman, Lee. 2002. “Gubernatorial, Senatorial, and State-level Presidential Job Approval: The U.S. Officials Job Approval Ratings (JAR) Collection.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 2:215–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breaux, David A., and Gierzynski, Anthony. 1991. “It's Money That Matters: Campaign Expenditures and State Legislative Primaries.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 16:429–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and Katz, Jonathan N.. 1996. “Why Did the Incumbency Advantage in U.S. House Elections Grow?” American Journal of Political Science 40:478–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, David, and Zemsky, Peter. 1995. “Money Talks: Deterring Quality Challengers in Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 89:295–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., and Palfrey, Thomas R.. 1998. “Campaign Spending and Incumbency: An Alternative Simultaneous Equations Approach.” Journal of Politics 60:355–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., and Palfrey, Thomas R.. 2000. “Equilibria in Campaign Spending Games: Theory and Data.” American Political Science Review 94:595–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friar, Monica E., Leonard, Herman B., and Walder, Jay H.. 1996. “The Federal Budget and the States.”http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/fisc99/FY1995/FY1995Complete.pdf (July 1, 2001).Google Scholar
Gerber, Alan. 1998. “Estimating the Effect of Campaign Spending on Senate Election Outcomes Using Instrumental Variables.” American Political Science Review 92:401–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Donald P., and Krasno, Jonathan S.. 1988. “Salvation for the Spendthrift Incumbent: Reestimating the Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 32:884–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Donald P., and Krasno, Jonathan S.. 1990. “Rebuttal to Jacobson's ‘New Evidence for Old Arguments’.” American Journal of Political Science 34:363–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, Donald A., and Goidel, Robert K.. 2001. “The Impact of State Campaign Finance Laws.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 1:180–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, Robert E. 1999. “Campaign Spending in State Legislative Primary Elections.” State and Local Government Review 31:214–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 1978. “The Effects of Campaign Spending in Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 72:469–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 1980. Money in Congressional Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University 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 34:334–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2000. The Politics of Congressional Elections. 5th ed. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Jewell, Malcolm E. 1984. Parties and Primaries: Nominating State Governors. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Jewell, Malcolm E., and Morehouse, Sarah M.. 2001. Political Parties and Elections in American States. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Kenny, Christopher, and McBurnett, Michael. 1992. “A Dynamic Model of the Effect of Campaign Spending on Congressional Vote Choice.” American Journal of Political Science 36:923–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenny, Christopher, and McBurnett, Michael. 1994. “An Individual-Level Multiequation Model of Expenditure Effects in Contested House Elections.” American Political Science Review 88:699–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malbin, Michael J., and Gais, Thomas L.. 1998. The Day After Reform: Sobering Campaign Finance Lessons from the States. Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute Press.Google Scholar
Mayer, Kenneth R., and Wood, John M.. 1995. “The Impact of Public Financing on Electoral Competitiveness: Evidence from Wisconsin, 1964-1990.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 20:69–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondak, Jeffery J. 1995. “Competence, Integrity, and the Electoral Success of Congressional Incumbents.” Journal of Politics 57:1043–1069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morehouse, Sarah M. 1990. “Money versus Party Effort: Nominating for Governor.” American Journal of Political Science 34:706–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partin, Randall W. 1999. “Assessing the Impact of Campaign Spending in Governors' Races.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
Patterson, Samuel C. 1982. “Campaign Spending in Contests for Governor.” Western Political Quarterly 35:457–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pindyck, Robert S., and Rubinfeld, Daniel L.. 1991. Econometric Models and Economic Forecasts. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Squire, Peverill. 1991. “Preemptive Fundraising and Challenger Profile in Senate Elections.” Journal of Politics 53:1150–1164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, Peverill. 1992. “Challenger Profile in Gubernatorial Elections.” Western Political Quarterly 45:125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, Peverill, and Fastnow, Christina. 1994. “Comparing Gubernatorial and Senatorial Elections.” Western Political Quarterly 47:705–720.Google Scholar