Campaign Fundraising in State Supreme Court Elections<sup>*</sup>

Bonneau, Chris W.

doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2007.00447.x

Cited by 33 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is important to note that the questions we pose also extend to campaign finance analyses in subfields beyond congressional elections. Recent studies of campaign finance in state legislative elections (Hogan 2007) and state Supreme Court elections (Bonneau 2007) find no disadvantage for women in campaign spending and fund-raising, respectively. 3.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 98%

If You Can’t Join ’Em, Beat ’Em: The Gender Gap in Individual Donations to Congressional Candidates

Crespin

Deitz

2009

Political Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors revisit the gender gap in campaign finance and find an advantage for women candidates in earning donations from individual donors due to the activities of female donor networks and the changing congressional donor pool. Women supported by these networks, especially Democratic women, receive a boost in campaign fundraising compared to their male counterparts, whereas women not supported by these networks receive significantly less. The ideological leanings of congressional donors also advantage Democratic women. Substantial partisan gender differences in this area of campaign finance persist, and this fund-raising gap may contribute to the growing partisan gender gap in Congress.

show abstract

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 98%

If You Can’t Join ’Em, Beat ’Em: The Gender Gap in Individual Donations to Congressional Candidates

Crespin

Deitz

2009

Political Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Research confirms that both voters (Bonneau 2005a;Hall 2007;Streb, Frederick, and LaFrance 2009) and contributors (Bonneau 2007) respond to candidate signals. Columns 4 and 5 of Table 3 establish that contributions received by incumbent candidates generally increased throughout the years of the study.…”

Section: Descriptive Patternsmentioning

confidence: 54%

Individual Contributions to State Supreme Court Campaigns: Context and the Impact of Institutional Design

Boyea

2017

State Politics Policy Q.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Building upon existing theories of political fundraising and citizen participation in elections, this study examines contributions from individuals as an essential form of political participation in state high court elections from 2000 through 2012. Specifically, I explore the degree to which candidate characteristics, state political environments, and the attributes of state institutions affect the size of individual contributions. The findings of this investigation indicate the participation of contributors in judicial elections closely resembles the activities of voters. Like voters, contributors respond to contextual forces that increase or decrease salience and the political information available to state citizens. Of particular importance are state decisions to use partisan or nonpartisan election designs. Decisions by states to use partisan elections have important consequences for the generosity of contributors with larger donations directed to candidates seeking office in the most professionalized elective state supreme courts.

show abstract

“…Another area found to have particular salience in these elections has been tort reform, which has been one of the primary issues that interest groups have organized around in funding candidates and running issue ads. Previous investigations (e.g., Bonneau 2007a) have used measures of a state or district's tort docket to measure the influence of this issue, but reliable measures do not exist for all the states and/or years under study here.…”

Section: Endnotesmentioning

confidence: 97%

Canons of Ethics and Accountability in State Supreme Court Elections

Peters

2009

State Politics Policy Q.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the influence of several canons within state codes of judicial ethics aimed at constraining the campaigning of candidates running for U.S. state judicial office. These canons have been much debated since 2002, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that one of them, the announce clause, unconstitutionally restricted the free speech rights of candidates. Based on their likely influence on the availability of information in judicial contests, I hypothesize that the primary effect of these canons is to make incumbents less accountable to the public. Looking at U.S. state supreme court contests from 1998 to 2006 where incumbents are seeking re-election, I find strong evidence that four of the five canons make it less likely for challengers to arise, and I also find evidence that restrictions on candidate solicitation of funds favor incumbents in the general election.

show abstract

Campaign Fundraising in State Supreme Court Elections^*

Cited by 33 publications

References 33 publications

If You Can’t Join ’Em, Beat ’Em: The Gender Gap in Individual Donations to Congressional Candidates

If You Can’t Join ’Em, Beat ’Em: The Gender Gap in Individual Donations to Congressional Candidates

Individual Contributions to State Supreme Court Campaigns: Context and the Impact of Institutional Design

Canons of Ethics and Accountability in State Supreme Court Elections

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Campaign Fundraising in State Supreme Court Elections*

Cited by 33 publications

References 33 publications

If You Can’t Join ’Em, Beat ’Em: The Gender Gap in Individual Donations to Congressional Candidates

If You Can’t Join ’Em, Beat ’Em: The Gender Gap in Individual Donations to Congressional Candidates

Individual Contributions to State Supreme Court Campaigns: Context and the Impact of Institutional Design

Canons of Ethics and Accountability in State Supreme Court Elections

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Campaign Fundraising in State Supreme Court Elections^*