Does It Matter Who’s Behind the Curtain? Anonymity in Political Advertising and the Effects of Campaign Finance Disclosure

Abstract

Despite the Supreme Court's acceptance of disclosure requirements, some donors have been able to remain anonymous through a combination of regulatory gaps, complicated financing schemes, and lags in when information is made public. As a first examination of the potential consequences of increased anonymity in political advertising we designed an experiment that varied the amount and format of information about the interests behind an attack ad sponsored by an "unknown" group. We find that participants were more supportive of the attacked candidate after viewing information disclosing donors, suggesting that voters may discount a group-sponsored ad when they have more information about the financial interests behind the message. We also find some evidence that the effect of disclosure depends on how campaign finance information is presented. Our study has implications for how (to this point, failed) congressional efforts to require greater disclosure of campaign finance donors may affect electoral politics.

Sponsorship, Disclosure, and Donors

“…The lack of a backlash is not altogether surprising, though, as in all but the candidate-sponsored condition, Zink is not even mentioned. Indeed, this is exactly the point suggested by both Brooks and Murov (2012) and Dowling and Wichowsky (2013). By not drawing attention to the preferred candidate, interest groups can shield him or her from negative judgments.…”

“…In an experiment, Dowling and Wichowsky (2013) find that disclosure of funding sources can limit-at least somewhat-the effectiveness of attack ads sponsored by interest groups. The greatest backlash against the sponsor occurred in a news article that talked about the anonymity of the sponsoring group's donors.…”

An Analysis of the Use of Money to Divert the Exercise of Government Power for the Wealthiest

“…Even very strongly entrenched views on issues can be changed over time through effective political marketing (Green, McGrath, and Aronow, 2013). Although public knowledge of large political expenditures for any candidate can negatively impact the popularity of that politician, a large amount of political spending is legally undisclosed (Dowling and Wichowsky, 2013).…”

The Paranoid Style Revisited: Pseudo‐Conservatism in the 21st Century

“…In particular, the growth of super PACs and 501(c)(4) shell corporations have made it possible to anonymously contribute millions of dollars on behalf of a candidate. The lack of transparency that is fostered by anonymous contributions allows donors and candidates to circumvent the public sphere and thus shield their policy positions from debate (Weber, Dunaway and Johnson 2012;Dowling and Wichowsky 2013). However, the need to conceal extremist positions is itself increasingly unnecessary, especially in primary contests.…”