Campaign spending effects in U.S. Senate elections: Evidence from the National Annenberg Election Survey

Electoral Studies

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 195-226

  Jacobson, Gary C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ELECTION; ELECTORAL SYSTEM; PUBLIC SPENDING;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33748943485     PISSN: 02613794     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.electstud.2005.05.005     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Abramowitz A.I., and Segal J.A. Senate Elections (1992), University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor
2. Ansolabehere, S., Snyder Jr., J.M., 1996. Money, Elections, and Candidate Quality. MIT. Typescript.
3. Ansolabehere S., and Gerber A. The mismeasure of campaign spending: evidence from the 1990 House elections. J. Pol. 56 4 (1994) 1106-1118
4. Bartels L.M. Instrumental and "quasi-instrumental variables". Am. J. Polit. Sci. 35 3 (1991) 777-800
5. Box-Steffensmeier J.M. Analyzing the effect of the timing of campaign expenditures on electoral outcomes. Paper Delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. Chicago, April 9-11 (1992)
6. Coates, D., 1994. Interaction Effects in Campaign Spending - Vote Share Relations. University of North Carolina. Typescript.
7. Erikson R.S., and Palfrey T. Campaign spending and incumbency: an alternative simultaneous equations approach. J. Pol. 60 2 (1998) 355-373
8. Gerber A. Estimating the effect of campaign spending on Senate election outcomes using instrumental variables. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 92 2 (1998) 401-411
9. Glantz S.A., Abramowitz A.I., and Burkart M.P. Election outcomes: whose money matters?. J. Pol. 38 4 (1976) 1033-1038
10. Goidel R.K., and Gross D.A. A systems approach to campaign finance in U.S. House elections. Am. Pol. Q. 22 2 (1994) 125-153
11. Green D.P., and Krasno J.S. Salvation for the spendthrift incumbent. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 32 4 (1988) 884-907
12. Green D.P., and Krasno J.S. Rebuttal to Jacobson's "New evidence for old arguments". Am. J. Polit. Sci. 34 2 (1990) 363-372
13. Grier, K.B., 1991. Campaign Spending and Senate Elections: Identification and Impact. George Mason University. Typescript.
14. Goldstein K., and Freedman P. New evidence for new arguments: money and advertising in the 1996 Senate elections. J. Pol. 62 4 (2000) 1087-1108
15. Jacobson G.C. The effects of campaign spending in congressional elections. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 72 2 (1978) 469-491
16. Jacobson G.C. Money in Congressional Elections (1980), Yale University Press, New Haven
17. Jacobson G.C. Money and votes reconsidered: congressional elections, 1972-1982. Pub. Ch. 47 1 (1985) 7-62
18. Jacobson G.C. The effects of campaign spending in House elections: new evidence for old arguments. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 34 2 (1990) 334-362
19. Jacobson G.C. The Politics of Congressional Elections. sixth ed. (2004), Longman, New York
20. Jacobson G.C. Measuring campaign spending effects. In: Brady H., and Johnston R. (Eds). Capturing Campaign Effects (2006), Capturing Campaign Effects, Ann Arbor
21. Johnston J. Econometrics. second ed. (1972), McGraw-Hill, New York
22. Kenny C., and McBurnett M. Up close and personal: campaign contact and candidate spending in U.S. House elections. Pol. Res. Q. 50 1 (1997) 75-96
23. King G., Tomz M., and Wittenberg J. Making the most of statistical analyses: improving interpretation and presentation. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 44 2 (2000) 347-361
24. Levitt S. Using repeat challengers to estimate the effect of campaign spending on election outcomes in the U.S. House. J. Pol. Ec. 102 3 (1994) 777-798
25. Poole K.T., and Rosenthal H. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting (1997), Oxford University Press, New York
26. Romer D., Kenski K., Adaseiewicz C., and Jamieson J.H. Capturing Campaign Dynamics: The National Annenberg Survey (2004), Oxford University Press, New York
27. Tomz M., Wittenberg J., and King G. CLARIFY: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results. Version 2.1 (2003), Stanford University, University of Wisconsin, and Harvard University
28. Welch W.P. Money and votes: a simultaneous equation model. Pub. Ch. 36 2 (1981) 209-234
29. Westlye M.C. Senate Elections and Campaign Intensity (1991), Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore