Following the Money: Super PACs and the 2012 Presidential Nomination

Presidential Studies Quarterly

Volumn 44, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 410-430

  Christenson, Dino P ^a   Smidt, Corwin D ^b  

^a BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84965128937     PISSN: 03604918     EISSN: 17415705     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/psq.12130     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Adkins, Randall E., and Andrew Dowdle. 2001. “How Important Are Iowa and New Hampshire to Winning Post-Reform Presidential Nominations?” Political Research Quarterly 54 (2): 431-444.
2. Adkins, Randall E., and Andrew J. Dowdle. 2005. “Do Early Birds Get the Worm? Improving Timeliness of Presidential Nomination Forecasts.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 35 (4): 646-660.
3. Aldrich, John. 2009. “The Invisible Primary and Its Effects on Democratic Choice.” PS: Political Science and Politics 42 (1): 33-38.
4. Biersack, Robert, Paul S. Herrnson, and Clyde Wilcox, eds. 1994. Risky Business?: PAC Decisionmaking in Congressional Elections. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
5. Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, Pub.L. No. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81 (March 27, 2002).
6. Butler, R. L. 2004. Claiming the Mantle: How Presidential Nominations Are Won and Lost before the Votes are Cast. Cambridge, MA: Westview Press.
7. Christenson, Dino P., and Corwin D. Smidt. 2012. “Still Part of the Conversation: Iowa and New Hampshire's Say within the Invisible Primary.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 42 (3): 597-621.
8. Christenson, Dino P., Corwin D. Smidt, and Costas Panagopoulos. 2014. “Deus ex Machina: Candidate Web Presence and the Presidential Nomination Campaign.” Political Research Quarterly 67 (1): 108-122.
9. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S.__ (2010).
10. Cohen, Marty, David Karol, Hans Noel, and John Zaller. 2008. Beating Reform: Political Parties and Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11. Confessore, Nicholas. 2011. “Lines Blur between Candidates and PACs with Unlimited Cash.” New York Times, August 27.
12. Confessore, Nicholas. 2014. “Huge ‘Super PAC’ Is Moving Early to Back Clinton.” New York Times, January 23.
13. Goff, Michael. 2004. The Money Primary. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
14. Green, John C. 2006. Financing the 2004 Election. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
15. Gurian, P. H., and A. A. Haynes. 1993. “Campaign Strategy in Presidential Primaries, 1976-88.” American Journal of Political Science 37 (1): 335-341.
16. Mayer, W. G. 2003. “Forecasting Presidential Nominations or, My Model Worked Just Fine, Thank You.” Political Science and Politics 36 (2): 153-157.
17. Mayer, William G. 1996. “Forecasting Presidential Nominations.” In In Pursuit of the White House: How We Choose Our Presidential Nominees, ed. William G. Mayer. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 44-71.
18. Mayer, William G., and Andrew E. Busch, eds. 2003. The Front-Loading Problem in Presidential Nominations. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
19. McIntire, Mike, and Michael Luo. 2012. “Fine Line Between ‘Super PACs’ and Campaigns.” New York Times, February 25.
20. Norrander, Barbara. 2006. “The Attrition Game: Initial Resources, Initial Contests and the Exit of Candidates during the US Presidential Primary Season.” British Journal of Political Science 36 (3): 487-507.
21. Panagopoulos, Costas. 2006. “Vested Interests: Interest Group Resource Allocation in Presidential Campaigns.” Journal of Political Marketing 5 (1-2): 59-78.
22. Panagopoulos, Costas, ed. 2011. Strategy, Money and Technology in the 2008 Presidential Election. London: Routledge.
23. Peters, Jeremy W. 2012. “‘Super PACs,’ Not Campaigns, Do Bulk of Ad Spending.” New York Times, March 2.
24. Ridout, Travis N., Brandon Rottinghaus, and Nathan Hosey. 2009. “Following the Rules? Candidate Strategy in Presidential Primaries.” Social Science Quarterly 90 (4): 777-795.
25. Rozell, Mark J. 1999. “WISH List: Pro-Choice Women in the Republican Congress.” In After the Revolution: PACs, Lobbies, and the Republican Congress, eds. Robert Biersack, Paul S. Herrnson, and Clyde Wilcox. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 184-191.
26. Smidt, Corwin D., and Dino P. Christenson. 2012. “More Bang for the Buck: Campaign Spending and Fundraising Success.” American Politics Research 40 (6): 949-975.
27. Steger, Wayne. 2000. “Do Primary Voters Draw from a Stacked Deck? Presidential Nominations in an Era of Candidate-Centered Campaigns.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 30 (4): 727-753.
28. Steger, Wayne P. 2007. “Who Wins Nominations and Why? An Updated Forecast of the Presidential Primary Vote.” Political Research Quarterly 60 (1): 91-99.
29. Steger, Wayne P., Andrew J. Dowdle, and Randall E. Adkins. 2004. “The New Hampshire Effect in Presidential Nominations.” Political Research Quarterly 57 (3): 375-390.
30. Speechnow.org v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-5223, slip op., United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, March 26, 2010. http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/speechnow_ac_opinion.pdf (accessed April 17, 2014).
31. Tumulty, Karen, and Debbi Wilgoren. 2012. “Santorum Wins in Mississippi, Alabama, but Romney's Lead in Delegates Grows by 6.” Washington Post, March 14.