Does Campaign Spending Work?: Field Experiments Provide Evidence and Suggest New Theory

American Behavioral Scientist

Volumn 47, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 541-574

  Gerber, Alan S ^a  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Campaign finance; Campaign spending; Campaigns; Elections; Experiment; Field experiment

Indexed keywords

EID: 0348233900     PISSN: 00027642     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0002764203260415     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (26)

1. Abramowitz, A. (1988). Explaining Senate election outcomes. American Political Science Review, 82(June), 385-403.
2. Adams, W., & Smith, D. (1980). Effects of telephone canvassing on turnout and preferences: A field experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44, 389-395.
3. Ansolabehere, S., & Snyder, J. M., Jr. (1996). Money, elections and candidate quality. Unpublished manuscript, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
4. Bartell, T., & Bouxsein, S. (1973). The Chelsea Project: Candidate preference, issue preference, and turnout effects of student canvassing. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37, 269-275.
5. Blydenburgh, J. C. (1971). A controlled experiment to measure the effects of personal contact campaigning. Midwest Journal of Political Science, 15(May), 365-381.
6. Bochel, J. M., & Denver, D. T. (1971). Canvassing, turnout, and party support: An experiment. British Journal of Political Science, 1, 257-269.
7. Canes-Wrone, B., Herron, M., & Shotts, K. (2001). Leadership and pandering: A theory of executive policy making. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 532-550.
8. Eldersveld, S. J. (1956). Experimental propaganda techniques and voting behavior. American Political Science Review, 50, 154-165.
9. Eldersveld, S. J., & Dodge, R. W. (1954). Personal contact or mail propaganda? An experiment in voting turnout and attitude change. In D. Katz, D. Cartwright, S. Eldersveld, & A. M. Lee (Eds.), Public opinion and propaganda. New York: Dryden.
10. Erikson, R. S., & Palfrey, T. R. (2000). Equilibria in campaign spending games: Theory and evidence. American Political Science Review, 94, 595-609.
11. Fenno, R. F. (1978). Home style: House members in their districts. Boston: Little, Brown.
12. Gerber, A. (1998). Estimating the effect of campaign spending on Senate election outcomes using instrumental variables. American Political Science Review, 92, 401-411.
13. Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2000). The effects of canvassing, telephone calls, and direct mail on voter turnout: A field experiment. American Political Science Review, 94, 653-663.
14. Gosnell, H. (1927). Getting out the vote: An experiment in the stimulation of voting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15. Green, D. P., & Krasno, J. S. (1988). Salvation for the spendthrift incumbent. American Journal of Political Science, 32, 884-907.
16. Jacobson, G. C. (1978). The effect of campaign spending in congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 72, 469-491.
17. Jacobson, G. C. (1985). Money and votes reconsidered: Congressional elections, 1972-1982. Public Choice, 47(1), 7-62.
18. Jacobson, G. C. (1990). The effects of campaign spending in House elections: New evidence for old arguments. American Journal of Political Science, 34(May), 334-362.
19. Jacobson, G. C. (2001). The politics of congressional elections (5th ed.). New York: Longman.
20. Levitt, S. (1994). Using repeat challengers to estimate the effect of campaign spending on election outcomes in the House. Journal of Political Economy, 102, 77-98.
21. Miller, R., & Robyn, D. (1975). A field experimental study of direct mailing congressional primary campaign: What lasts until election day? Experimental Study of Politics, 5, 1-37.
22. Moon, W. (2002). The paradox of less efficient incumbent spending: Theory and tests. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Political Science, University of California, Los Angeles.
23. Ornstein, N. J., Mann, J. E., & Malbin, M. J. (2002). Vital statistics on Congress, 2001-2002. Washington, D.C.: AEI Press.
24. Reback, G. L. (1971). The effects of precinct level voter contact activities on voter behavior. Experimental Study of Politics, 1, 65-97.
25. Squire, P. (1995). Candidates, money, and voters: Assessing the state of congressional elections research. Political Research Quarterly, 48(4), 891-917.
26. Wantchekon, L. (2002). Market for votes: Evidence from a field experment in Benin. Unpublished manuscript, Politics Department, New York University.