Campaigning for the Bench: The Corrosive Effects of Campaign Speech?

Gibson, James L.

doi:10.2139/ssrn.1079362

Cited by 10 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…People no doubt vary in where they "draw the line" in terms of the appropriateness of campaign activity (see Gibson 2008a). As Gibson and Caldeira (forthcoming) have reported based on a national sample, not all Americans subscribe to a "myth of legality" that sees judges as mechanical jurisprudes doing little more than operating syllogisms to decide cases (also see Gibson 2009a).…”

Section: Discussion and Concluding Commentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Judicial Campaign Activity on the Legitimacy of Courts

Gibson

Gottfried

Carpini

et al. 2010

Political Research Quarterly

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this article is to investigate the consequences of judicial campaign activity for the perceived legitimacy of the Pennsylvania judiciary. The authors find that politicized campaign ads do detract from court support, although they find practically no difference between traditional campaign ads (e.g., presenting endorsements from groups) and strong attack ads. But this finding must be understood within the context of the 2007 Pennsylvania election increasing court support for all respondents, even those exposed to the most politicized ad content. Being exposed to politicized ads seems to retard the benefits of elections but does not eliminate them.

show abstract

Section: Discussion and Concluding Commentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Judicial Campaign Activity on the Legitimacy of Courts

Gibson

Gottfried

Carpini

et al. 2010

Political Research Quarterly

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The findings largely coincide with the literature concerning the effect of campaigning on perceived legitimacy. That literature concentrates on examining the effect of specific types of campaign activity like politicized television advertisements (Gibson 2008a;Gibson et al 2011) or accepting campaign contributions (Gibson 2008b(Gibson , 2009). The current study did not examine specific types of campaign activity but instead attempted to assess the overall amount of campaign activity through indicators of election activity.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Two Opposing Effects of Judicial Elections on Legitimacy Perceptions

Woodson

2017

State Politics Policy Q.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Judicial elections have two opposing effects on legitimacy perceptions for state supreme courts. Elections not only provide a boost to legitimacy through the chance to hold officials accountable but also involve campaign activity that decreases legitimacy perceptions. This article examines these two opposing effects using a nationally representative survey that includes items assessing diffuse support for state supreme courts. It uses multiple indicators to differentiate between states with highly active election systems involving large amounts of campaign activity and states with less active elections systems that involve little campaign activity. The results from the survey show that the legitimacy of elected courts is higher than appointed courts but only in states with little election activity. In states with high amounts of election activity, the legitimacy of elected courts is lower than appointed courts.

show abstract

“…6 Although scholars typically recognize the importance of state courts as makers of public policy, few studies of the legitimacy of these courts exists. See, for examples, Wenzel, Bowler, and Lanoue (2003), Overby et al (2004), Benesh (2006), Cann and Yates (2008), Gibson (2008aGibson ( , 2008b, and Gibson et al (2011). 7 As we have said, we find no shortage of scholars or interest groups complaining about the ubiquity of campaign contributions.…”

Section: Theory: Individual Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3 Campaign contributions are not a small issue. Although the literature is certainly limited and fragmentary, a handful of recent studies has demonstrated the quite negative consequences of campaign contributions for the institutional legitimacy of courts (e.g., Gibson 2008aGibson , 2008bGibson , and 2009a. The American people seem not to be bothered by statements of policy positions and policy promises by judicial candidates, or even by the use of advertisements attacking opponents.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%