Does Money Buy Votes? The Case of Self-Financed Gubernatorial Candidates, 1998–2008

Brown, Adam R.

doi:10.1007/s11109-012-9193-1

Cited by 28 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The largest predictor of success among nonincumbent candidates in primary elections is candidate fund-raising (Jacobson 1980;Jewell and Morehouse 2001). Although candidates may spend a lot of their own money, it is candidate fundraising, not candidate spending, that is an indicator of candidate success (Brown 2013;Steen 2006). As such, even though quarterly polling numbers or media coverage are not readily available for each candidate as a means to measure primary viability, quarterly fund-raising totals provide the same indicator of success.…”

Section: Testing Party Support and Candidate Viabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Party Control of Party Primaries: Party Influence in Nominations for the US Senate

Hassell

2016

The Journal of Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholarship on primary election outcomes has largely ignored the ability of political parties to shape outcomes and influence the decisions of candidates to compete for the party's nomination. Only recently have theories of parties as networks of policy demanders suggested that parties influence the candidate nomination process. Previous attempts to document party control of primaries, however, have only tested these theories on small or unrepresentative samples of primary races or have looked at general election results after the party's nominee has already been selected. Using a simple and easily understood measure of party support, I show that candidates who are less connected to the party are less likely to win and also less likely to remain a candidate in the primary. I find that parties not only are effective in helping candidates win but also are influential in excluding certain electoral options from being presented to primary voters.What kind of third world politics does [the party chair] want to impose on the Republican Party? The delegates won't be elected for another year. The convention is 18 or 17 months away and he wants to have a single name on a slate. That's kingmaking. I thought the role of the party . . . was to encourage all good candidates to run.

show abstract

Section: Testing Party Support and Candidate Viabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Party Control of Party Primaries: Party Influence in Nominations for the US Senate

Hassell

2016

The Journal of Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We know a great deal about factors affecting voting in congressional races (e.g., Abramowitz, 1988;Tufte, 1974;Welch & Hibbing, 1997) and a good deal about the effects of money on outcomes in congressional contests (e.g., Gerber, 1998Gerber, , 2004Green & Krasno, 1988;Jacobson, 1978Jacobson, , 1990. Additional literature is expanding our understanding of actors who finance campaigns (e.g., Francia, Green, Herrnson, Powell, & Wilcox, 1983;La Raja, 2008;Magleby & Nelson, 1990), and about how different sources of money-outside expenditures, political action committee (PAC) funds, and self-financed campaignsmight correlate with candidate vote share (e.g., Alexander, 2005;Brown, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Campaign Money, Congress, and Perceptions of Corruption

Bowler

Donovan

2015

American Politics Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many Americans think campaign money has a corrupting influence on Congress. Yet how they think about money in politics is a relatively unexplored topic. This article investigates how the public reasons about campaign money and corruption. Our survey experiments demonstrate that attitudes about campaign money are structured by partisan interest and are also driven by information about sources of campaign money and the amount spent (particularly for large independent expenditures made possible by Citizens United), the method of delivery, and about what the money is spent on. Mass perceptions about corruption of Congress, furthermore, may reflect aversion to negative campaigns as well as attitudes about campaign financiers having undue influence over representatives. These findings not only provide a more nuanced picture of attitudes about campaign money but also have consequences for how we assess reform proposals relating to money and politics.

show abstract

“…Through campaign finance records, they developed ideal points for incumbent and challenger candidates, as well as judicial ideal points in the common ideological space. In addition, contribution data from the NIMSP have been used to investigate questions regarding the connections between campaign finance laws and the behavior of donors (La Raja and Schaffner 2015), self-financed campaigns and electoral results in gubernatorial elections (Brown 2013), and policy issues and group mobilization in direct democracy elections (Damore and Nicholson 2014). This research follows the example of those studies by utilizing campaign finance records to explore the incentives for individuals to contribute larger or smaller sums in state supreme court elections.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While describing a large body of literature is a difficult task, studies of state judicial elections provide several explanatory pathways. Citizen participation in judicial elections, such as decisions by individuals to vote, is known to be a function of contextual forces (Bonneau and Cann 2015;Hall 2007;Hall and Bonneau 2013;Streb, Frederick, and LaFrance 2009) and institutional arrangements (Bonneau and Cann 2015;Hall 2007;Hall and Bonneau 2008;2013;Streb and Frederick 2011;Streb, Frederick, and LaFrance 2009) that encourage information to be available to state citizens.…”

Section: Campaign Contributions In State Supreme Court Electionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Does Money Buy Votes? The Case of Self-Financed Gubernatorial Candidates, 1998–2008

Cited by 28 publications

References 30 publications

Party Control of Party Primaries: Party Influence in Nominations for the US Senate

Party Control of Party Primaries: Party Influence in Nominations for the US Senate

Campaign Money, Congress, and Perceptions of Corruption

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About