2016
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2817705
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

How Money Drives US Congressional Elections

Abstract: This paper analyzes whether money influences election outcomes. Using a new and more comprehensive dataset built from government sources, the paper begins by showing that the relations between money and major party votes in all elections for the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives from 1980 to 2014 are well approximated by straight lines. It then considers

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…They had things wired, no matter which way the election went. The work of Ferguson, Jorgensen, and Chen (2016) gives some insight into the links between party positions and their sources of funds that are necessary to compete in modern elections.…”
Section: Goldman Sachs Rules the Worldmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They had things wired, no matter which way the election went. The work of Ferguson, Jorgensen, and Chen (2016) gives some insight into the links between party positions and their sources of funds that are necessary to compete in modern elections.…”
Section: Goldman Sachs Rules the Worldmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Spatial and temporal correlation Using spatial and time data requires paying careful attention to the possible correlations between observations that give rise to heteroscedasticity, which can bias the estimates of standard error coe cients. Electoral data, by their nature, are subject to such pitfalls since electoral districts are geographically defined, as demonstrated by Ferguson et al (2016). If serial correlation is well known and often corrected for, it is not the case for spatial correlation, which creates the same type of bias.…”
Section: Additional Results and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, others claim that the marginal e↵ects of incumbent and challenger spending are roughly equal (Green and Krasno, 1988;Gerber, 1998;Foucault and François, 2005). Finally, according to Levitt (1994), money does not influence election outcomes, while Ferguson et al (2016) find the relations between money and major party votes are well approximated by straight lines.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…No less importantly, state of the art techniques for estimating unobserved variables do not produce results consistent with strong claims for popularity. They produce, in fact, the reverse: It appears that the millions of Americans who think they live in a money-driven political system are right (Ferguson, Jorgensen, and Chen, 2016, but especially 2020) (Jorgensen, Jones, and Song 2018).…”
Section: Analyzing Money-driven Systems Of Party Competitionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The US has now run this experiment in real time; is there anyone who thinks that the 2016 election was improved over that of 2012? See our discussion in (Ferguson, Jorgensen, and Chen 2016). 36 For the voting, see https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2015/h28 Note that the exact numbers of representatives voting on these bills varied slightly.…”
Section: Better Estimates Of Congressional Voting and Political Moneymentioning
confidence: 99%