The effects of campaign finance spending bans on electoral outcomes: Evidence from the states about the potential impact of Citizens United v. FEC

Electoral Studies

Volumn 33, Issue , 2014, Pages 102-114

  La Raja, Raymond J ^a   Schaffner, Brian F ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

Author keywords

Campaign finance; Citizens United; Elections; Incumbency; Political spending restrictions

Indexed keywords

ELECTION; ELECTORAL GEOGRAPHY; MODELING; POLITICAL RELATIONS; POLITICAL SYSTEM; PUBLIC SPENDING; VOTING BEHAVIOR;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 84891931811     PISSN: 02613794     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.electstud.2013.08.002     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Abramowitz A.I. Incumbency, campaign spending, and the decline of competition in U.S. house elections. The Journal of Politics 1991, 53:34-56.
2. Achen C.H. Why lagged dependent variables can suppress the explanatory power of other independent variables. Prepared for the Annual Meeting of the Political Methodology Section of the American Political Science Association, UCLA, July 20-22, 2000 2000, (updated Nov 2, 2001).
3. Ansolabehere S., deFigueiredo J.M., Snyder J.M. Why is there so little money in U.S. politics?. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 2003, 17:105-130.
4. Beck N., Katz J.N. What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data. The American Political Science Review 1995, 89:634-647.
5. Brunell T.L. The relationship between political parties and interest groups: explaining patterns of PAC contributions to candidates for congress. Political Research Quarterly 2005, 58:681-688.
6. Dworkin R. The "devastating" decision. New York Review of Books 2010.
7. Editorial The court's blow to democracy 2010, New York Times, January22.
8. Erikson R.S., MacKuen M., Stimson J.A. The Macro Polity. Cambridge Studies in Political Psychology and Public Opinion 2002, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York.
9. Franz M.M. Choices and Changes Interest Groups in the Electoral Process 2008, Temple University Press, Philadelphia.
10. Gerber A. Estimating the effect of campaign spending on senate election outcomes using instrumental variables. The American Political Science Review 1998, 92:401-411.
11. Gray V., Lowery D. Reconceptualizing PAC formation. American Politics Research 1997, 25:319-346.
12. Hasen R.L. Money grubbers: the supreme court kills campaign finance reform. Slate 2010.
13. Heard A. The Costs of Democracy 1960, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
14. Hogan R.E. State campaign finance laws and interest group electioneering activities. The Journal of Politics 2005, 67:887-906.
15. Issacharoff S., Karlan P.S. Hydraulics of campaign finance reform. Texas Law Review 1998-1999, 77:1705-1738.
16. Jacobson G.C. The effects of campaign spending in congressional elections. The American Political Science Review 1978, 72:469-491.
17. Jacobson G.C. Money in Congressional Elections 1980, Yale University Press, New Haven.
18. Jacobson G.C. The effects of campaign spending in house elections: new evidence for old arguments. American Journal of Political Science 1990, 34:334-362.
19. Klarner C., Berry W., Carsey T.M., Jewell M., Niemi R., Powell L., Snyder J. State Legislative Election Returns (1967-2010) 2013, ICPSR34297-v1, Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], Ann Arbor, MI, 2013-01-11. 10.3886/ICPSR34297.v1.
20. Krasno J.S., Green D.P. Preempting quality challengers in house elections. The Journal of Politics 1988, 50:920.
21. Levitt S. Using repeat challengers to estimate the effect of campaign spending on election outcomes in the U.S. house. Journal of Political Economy 1994, 103:777.
22. Lowery D., Brasher H. Organized Interests and American Government 2004, McGraw-Hill, New York.
23. Magleby D.B., Corrado A. Financing the 2008 Election: Assessing Reform 2011, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
24. Magleby D.B., Monson J.Q., Patterson K.D. Dancing Without Partners: How Candidates, Parties, and Interest Groups Interact in the Presidential Campaign 2007, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham.
25. Malbin M.J., Gais T. The Day After Reform: Sobering Campaign Finance Lessons from the American States 1998, Rockefeller Institute Press, Albany.
26. Mann T.E. Linking knowledge and action: political science and campaign finance reform. Perspectives on Politics 2003, 1:69-83.
27. Masket S.E. No Middle Ground: How Informal Party Organizations Control Nominations and Polarize Legislatures 2009, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
28. Meirowitz A. Electoral contests, incumbency advantages, and campaign finance. The Journal of Politics 2008, 70:681-699.
29. Overacker L., West V.J. Money in Elections 1932, The Macmillan Company, New York,.
30. Primo D.M., Milyo J. Campaign finance laws and political efficacy: evidence from the states. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy 2006, 5:23-39.
31. Skinner R.M. More Than Money: Interest Group Action in Congressional Elections 2007, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD.
32. Stimson J.A. Regression in space and time: a statistical essay. American Journal of Political Science 1985, 29:914-947.
33. Stimson J.A. Public Opinion in America: Moods, Cycles, and Swings 1991, Westview Press, Boulder.
34. Stratmann T. Can special interests buy congressional votes: evidence from financial services legislation. Journal of Law and Economics October 2002, 45(2):345-373.
35. Walker J.L. Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions, and Social Movements 1991, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
36. West D.M. Air Wars: Television Advertising in Election Campaigns, 1952-2008 2010, CQ Press, Washington, D.C.
37. Wilson S.E., Butler D.M. A lot more to do: the sensitivity of time-series cross-section analyses to simple alternative specifications. Political Analysis 2007, 15:101-123.