Campaign Finance Laws and Candidacy Decisions in State Legislative Elections

Abstract

This article examines the influence of campaign election laws on patterns of candidacy in state legislative elections. Previous studies demonstrate that restrictions on campaign contributions affect levels of campaign spending and competition, but do such legal conditions influence the likelihood that incumbents running for reelection are even challenged? How important is this effect relative to other factors, such as ballot access laws and district political variables, in influencing rates of contestation in primary and general elections? Analyses of state- and district-level features in 1994, 1996, and 1998 show that low contribution limits increase challenger emergence in general elections.

Politician preferences, law-abiding lobbyists and caps on political contributions

“…However the evidence is mixed on the question of who enjoys the benefit of a cap. Hamm and Hogan (2008) find that restrictions make the prospects of running against an incumbent more attractive to potential candidates. La Raja (2008) however reports that the financial gap widened in congressional races since the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.…”

State Campaign Finance Laws and the Equality of Political Representation

“…In fact, there is evidence that interest groups and wealthy individuals tend to engage in more independent expenditures in states with stricter regulations on campaign contributions (Hogan 2005). Given the belief that campaign finance regulations can alter the behavior of candidates, a growing literature has utilized this variation across the states to examine their impact, if any, on political campaigns. For instance, stricter contribution limits have been shown to lead to fewer uncontested state legislative races and more competitive elections (Stratmann and Aparicio-Castillo 2006;Hamm and Hogan 2008;Stratmann 2010). There is also evidence that public financing systems with spending limits lead to the emergence of more challengers and can help to lower the total costs of campaigns (Hogan 2000;Gross and Goidel 2001;Bardwell 2003;Eom and Gross 2006).…”

Intermediate Conditions of Democratic Accountability: A Response to Electoral Skepticism

“…The difficulty of challengers in gathering funds against an entrenched incumbent, for instance, has been identified as one of the principal causes of the decline in competitive elections for Congress (Abramowitz, Alexander, & Gunning, 2006b). The weakness of state-level campaign-funding regulations designed to reduce funding inequalities has been found to play a similarly anticompetitive role in sub-national elections (Hamm & Hogan, 2008;Hogan, 2004). If high levels of information and competition in election campaigns promote electoral accountability, institutions that permit or encourage funding inequalities presumably constitute a spoiler condition.…”