Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T18:21:42.732Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Public Election Funding, Competition, and Candidate Gender

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2007

Timothy Werner  and
Kenneth R. Mayer
Timothy Werner
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Kenneth R. Mayer
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 2000, Arizona and Maine implemented full public funding for state legislative elections, and Connecticut will do so in 2008. Candidates who opt to accept public funding receive grants that pay for the entire cost of their campaigns. Advocates of these so-called clean elections argue that the programs reduce quid pro quo corruption, increase electoral competitiveness, and open up the process to candidates who lack access to traditional fundraising networks (Phelps 2004). Critics respond that the Maine and Arizona public funding programs have achieved nothing, save for imposing unjust burdens on candidates who refuse to participate (Basham and Zelder 2005).

Type
SYMPOSIUM
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 40 , Issue 4 , October 2007 , pp. 661 - 667
Copyright
© 2007 The American Political Science Association

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

Basham, Patrick, and Martin Zelder. 2005. “ Does Cleanliness Lead to Competitiveness? The Failure of Maine's Experiment.” In Welfare for Politicians? Taxpayer Financing of Campaigns, ed. John Samples. Washington, D.C.: CATO Institute.Google Scholar
Burrell, Barbara. 1998. “ Campaign Finance: Women's Experience in the Modern Era.” In Women and Elective Office: Past, Present, and Future, eds. Sue Thomas and Clyde Wilcox. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carsey, Thomas M., William D. Berry, and Walter Forrest. 2003. “‘If At First You Don't Succeed…’: Repeat Challengers in State Legislative Elections.” Presented at the Third Annual State Politics and Policy Conference, Tucson, AZ.Google Scholar
Center for American Women in Politics (CAWP). 2007. Women in State Legislatures 2007. Available at: www.cawp.rutgers.edu/Facts/Officeholders/stleg.pdf.Google Scholar
Dolan, Kathleen A. 2004. Voting for Women: How the Public Evaluates Women Candidates. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Duerst-Lahti, Georgia. 1998. “ The Bottleneck: Women Becoming Candidates.” In Women and Elective Office: Past, Present, and Future, eds. Sue Thomas and Clyde Wilcox. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, Richard L., and Jennifer L. Lawless. 2004. “Entering the Arena? Gender and the Decision to Run for Office.” American Journal of Political Science 48 (2): 264–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Richard L., and Jennifer L. Lawless. 2005. “To Run or Not to Run for Office: Explaining Nascent Political Ambition.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (3): 642–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, Wayne L. 1993. “House to Senate Career Movement in the U.S. States: The Significance of Selectivity.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 18 (3): 309–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, Wayne L., and Lawrence W. Kenny. 2000. Up the Political Ladder: Career Paths in U.S. Politics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Huber, Peter J. 1967. “The Behavior of Maximum Likelihood Estimates under Non-Standard Conditions.” In Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability. Vol. 1. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
King, James D. 2002. “Single-Member Districts and the Representation of Women in American State Legislatures: The Effects of Electoral System Change.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 2 (2): 161–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kousser, Thad. 2004. Term Limits and the Dismantling of State Legislative Professionalism. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mayer, Kenneth R., Timothy Werner, and Amanda Williams. 2006. “Do Public Funding Programs Enhance Electoral Competition?” In The Marketplace of Democracy: Electoral Competition and American Politics, eds. Michael P. McDonald and John Samples. Washington, D.C.: CATO Institute and Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Phelps, Douglas H. 2004. “Leveling the Playing Field.” National Civic Review 93 (2): 60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, Anita. 1992. “Changes in Electoral Structures and the Success of Women Candidates: The Case of Florida.” Social Science Quarterly 73 (1): 62–71.Google Scholar
Sapiro, Virginia, and Pamela Johnston Conover. 1997. “The Variable Gender Basis of Electoral Politics: Gender and Context in the 1992 U.S. Election.” British Journal of Political Science 27 (4): 497–523.Google Scholar
Sapiro, Virginia, and Katherine Cramer Walsh. 2002. “Doing Gender in Congressional Campaign Advertisements.” Prepared for the annual meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Berlin.Google Scholar
Squire, Peverill. 1992. “Legislative Professionalization and Membership Diversity in State Legislatures.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 17 (1): 69–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Joel A., Gary F. Moncrief, and Keith E. Hamm. 1998. “ Gender, Candidate Attributes, and Campaign Contributions.” In Campaign Finance in State Legislative Elections, eds. Joel A. Thompson and Gary F. Moncrief. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar