Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T10:37:13.737Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Impact of Public Financing on Electoral Competition: Evidence from Arizona and Maine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

Neil Malhotra
Neil Malhotra*
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Does complete public financing of campaigns enhance electoral competition? Arizona and Maine implemented similar clean elections programs for state-level races in 2000, providing an opportunity to examine the consequences of public financing. Employing two measures of competitiveness, I find that clean elections programs in both states significantly increased competition in districts where challengers accepted public funding. These findings suggest that public monies do not simply attract low-quality challengers and that access to campaign funds is an important determinant of competitiveness. As a result, while public financing programs are not panaceas for uncompetitive elections, such programs can enhance competition in races where money is accepted.

Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , Fall 2008 , pp. 263 - 281
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

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

Adelman, M.A. 1969. “Comment on the ‘H’ Concentration Measure as a Numbers-Equivalent.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 51:99–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arizona Secretary of State. 2006. “Returns from Previous Elections.” www.azsos.gov/election/PreviousYears.htm (March 28, 2008).Google Scholar
Alford, John R., and Hibbing, John R.. 1981. “Increased Incumbency Advantage in the House.” The Journal of Politics 43:1042–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, David P. 1994. “Electoral Competition with Informed and Uninformed Voters.” American Political Science Review 88:33–47CrossRefGoogle 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 89:634–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breusch, T.S., and Pagan, A.R.. 1979. “A Simple Test for Heteroskedasticity and Random Coefficient Variation.” Econometrica 47:1287–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cain, Bruce E., Ferejohn, John A., and Fiorina, Morris P.. 1987. The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, John M., Niemi, Richard G., and Powell, Lynda W.. 2000. “Incumbency and the Probability of Reelection in State Legislative Elections.” The Journal of Politics 62:671–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Center for Governmental Studies. 2003. “Investing in Democracy: Creating Public Financing of Elections in Your Community.” www.publiccampaign.org/publications/trtce/investingindemocracy.pdf (March 28, 2008).Google Scholar
Chow, Gregory C. 1960. “Tests of Equality Between Sets of Coefficients in Two Linear Regressions.” Econometrica 28:591–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citizens Clean Elections Commission. 2007. “2000 Election Information.” www.ccec.state.az.us/ccecweb/ccecays/home.asp (March 28, 2008).Google Scholar
Cohen, Ayala. 1983. “Comparing Regression Coefficients Across Subsamples: A Study of the Statistical Test.” Sociological Methods and Research 12:77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and Morgenstern, Scott. 1993. “The Increasing Advantage of Incumbency in the U.S. States.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 18:495–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and Morgenstern, Scott. 1995. “The Incumbency Advantage in Multi-Member Districts: Evidence from the U.S. States.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 20:329–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniel, E. 2001. “Public Financing: Making it Work.” League of Women Voters. June/July:8–13. (www.lwv.org/elibrary/nv/2001.voter0601.html).Google Scholar
Donnay, Patrick D., and Ramsden, Graham P.. 1995. “Public Financing of Legislative Elections: Lessons from Minnesota.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 20:351–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, John. 1997. Applied Regression Analysis, Linear Models, and Related Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Francia, Peter L., and Herrnson, Paul S.. 2003. “The Impact of Public Finance Laws on Fundraising in State Legislative Elections.” American Politics Research 31:520–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and King, Gary. 1990. “Estimating Incumbency Advantage without Bias.” American Journal of Political Science 34:1142–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Sanford C., Huber, Gregory A., and Landa, Dimitri. 2007. “Challenger Entry and Voter Learning.” American Political Science Review 101:303–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Government Accountability Office. 2003. “Campaign Finance Reform: Early Experiences of Two States that Offer Full Public Funding for Political Candidates.” GAO-03–435. Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office.Google 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
Gross, Donald A., Goidel, Robert K., and Shields, Todd G.. 2002. “State Campaign Finance Regulations and Electoral Competition.” American Politics Research 30:143–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, J.A. 1978. “Specification Tests in Econometrics.” Econometrica 46:1251–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, Robert E. 2004. “Challenger Emergence, Incumbent Success, and Electoral Accountability in State Legislative Elections.” The Journal of Politics 66:1283–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holbrook, Thomas M., and Tidmarch, Charles M.. 1991. “Sophomore Surge in State Legislative Elections, 1968–1986.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 16:49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Institute on Money in State Politics. 2006a. “Arizona: Overview.” www.followthemoney.org/database/search.phtml?searchbox=arizona (March 28, 2008).Google Scholar
Institute on Money in State Politics. 2006b. “Maine: Overview.” www.followthemoney.org/database/search.phtml?searchbox=maine (March 28, 2008).Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 1978. “The Effects of Campaign Spending in Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 72:469–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 1990. “The Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections: New Evidence for Old Arguments.” American Journal of Political Science 34:334–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C, and Kernell, Samuel. 1983. Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
King, Gary. 1991. “Constituency Service and Incumbency Advantage.” British Journal of Political Science 21:119–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary, and Gelman, Andrew. 1991. “Systematic Consequences of Incumbency Advantage in U.S. House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 35:110–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krasno, Jonathan S., and Green, Donald P.. 1988. “Preempting Quality Challengers in House Elections.” The Journal of Politics 50:920–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, Steven D. 1994. “Using Repeat Challengers to Estimate the Effect of Campaign Spending On Election Outcomes in the U.S. House.” Journal of Political Economy 102:777–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, Steven D., and Snyder, James M.. 1997. “The Impact of Federal Spending on House Election Outcomes.” Journal of Political Economy 105:30–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maine Commission on Government Ethics and Election Practices. 2007. “Candidate List.” http://mainecampaignfinance.com/public (March 28, 2008).Google Scholar
Maine Department of the Secretary of State. 2006. “Returns from Previous Elections.” www.maine.gov/sos (March 28, 2008).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
Mayer, Kenneth R., Werner, Timothy, and Williams, Amanda. 2006. “Do Public Funding Programs Enhance Electoral Competition?” In The Marketplace of Democracy: Electoral Competition and American Politics, eds. McDonald, Michael P. and Samples, John. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
National Conference of State Legislatures. 2003. http://ncsl.org/programs/legman/03Table-legcomp.htm (March 28, 2008) and http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/about/staffcount2003.htm (March 28, 2008).Google Scholar
Persson, Torsten. 2004. “Consequences of Constitutions.” Journal of the European Economic Association 2:139–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanchez, S. 2001. “First Returns on a Campaign Finance Reform Experiment: Maine, Arizona, and Full Public Funding.” The National Institute on Money in State Politics. www.followthemoney.org (March 28, 2008).Google Scholar
Taagepera, Rein, and Shugart, Matthew S.. 1989. Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Wand, Jonathan, and Mebane, Walter. 1999. “The Dynamics of Campaign Contributions in U.S. House Elections.” Paper presented at the 1999 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
White, Halbert. 1980. “A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity.” Econometrica 48:817–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wooldridge, Jeffrey M. 2002. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar