Does Campaign Spending Really Matter?

Abstract

THE 1972 presidential campaign much public concern has attended the subject of campaign spending (Alexander, 1962(Alexander, , 1966(Alexander, , 1971 Alexander, et al., 1976; Diamond, 1974; Nichols, 1974). Resulting regulation has provided for further limitation of private political contributions and federal financial support of compaigns. However, it has not been established whether campaign spending sways public opinion. Nor have the factors which motivate the consumer qua citizen to contribute to campaigns been identified. Finally, little effort has been expended to assess the partisan impact of compaign reform regulations.This article addresses these questions by analyzing consumer choice within electoral districts. In the context of bipartisan elections, two indicators of public sentiment are considered: financial support of candidates and voting behavior. After an analytical framework is introduced in the first section, multiple linear regression analysis is used to identify the economic and social phenomena which may have influenced these types of political participation in the 1972 congressional elections in California. The effect of campaign spending on preferences is given particular attention. Results are used to analyze recent legislation. Abstract It has long been considered axiomatic that public receptiveness toward products, ideas, and candidates can be altered by promotional campaigns. Consumers are often the sponsors as well as the targets of such campaigns in the political realm. This study identifies the factors which lead consumers to support political campaigns and estimates the degree to which their preferences can be influenced by campaign spending. The potential effects of proposed spending regulations are also analyzed.

Money and votes reconsidered: congressional elections, 1972?1982

“…On functional form. Proposed alternatives included linear functions (Shepard, 1977; Welch, 1974; Jacobson, 1976); semi-log (Welch, 1976); double-log (Welch 1974;Lott and Warner, 1974;Bental, Ben-Zion, and Moshel, 1977); and quadratic (Silberman and Yochum, 1978) for the money-votes relationship.2. On the measurement of relevant variables.…”

“…For example, most models attempt to control the "normal vote"--the distribution of partisans--in a state or district. This has been approximated by party registration figures (Shepard, 1977; Welch, 1981;Caldeira and Patterson, 1982); district-level presidential votes (Welch, 1974(Welch, , 1981Silberman and Yochum, 1978), and previous votes for the same office or candidate (Jacobson, 1976(Jacobson, , 1978.3. On how the effects of incumbency are to be assessed.…”

“…Incumbency is known to have a major impact on congressional election results and so, obviously, has to be taken into account. Most early models entered incumbency as a dummy variable (Welch, 1974; Jacobson, 1976;Shepard, 1977); others measured it as years in office, either logged (Giertz and Sullivan, 1977) or in quadratic form (Silberman and Yochum, 1978) to acknowledge diminishing returns.These early models generally overlooked the potential interaction between incumbency status and campaign-spending effects. But there was ample reason to expect that a given amount of spending would have different electoral effects for incumbents, challengers, and candidates for open seats.…”

“…Incumbency is known to have a major impact on congressional election results and so, obviously, has to be taken into account. Most early models entered incumbency as a dummy variable (Welch, 1974; Jacobson, 1976;Shepard, 1977); others measured it as years in office, either logged (Giertz and Sullivan, 1977) or in quadratic form (Silberman and Yochum, 1978) to acknowledge diminishing returns.…”

“Incumbency Advantagerdquo; and Incumbency Resources: Recent Articles1

“…Yet in 1962, Stokes and Miller had already observed that "by plying his campaigning and servicing arts over the years, the Congressman is able to develop electoral strength almost totally dissociated from" policy questions (546, 536-39, 543-46;see Jacobson, 1975: 792). Most work on incumbency has, in any case, taken for granted that voters' ideologies and policy views, as well as their socioeconomic characteristics and preferences, bear little relation to congressional voting (Shepard, 1977: 199, Payne, 1980Welch, 1981: 231;Jacobson, 1975: 779, 783-85).…”