Money and Votes in State Legislative Elections

Gierzynski, Anthony; Breaux, David A.

doi:10.2307/439978

Cited by 83 publications

(98 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…State fixed effects capture differences across states that may influence the competitiveness of state elections such as the professionalism of legislatures and legislator salaries. State indicators also capture the fact that their populations and actual sizes differ greatly, which in part explains differences in campaign spending across states (Gierzynski andBreaux 1991, Hogan 2000) and differences in campaign technology. Lastly, state effects control for omitted time -invariant state characteristics that simultaneously determine vote shares and campaign finance regulations.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The state with one of the lowest percentages in this category is Minnesota, but even there this category amounts to approximately 45 percent of all funding sources (Malbin and Gais, 1998 p.154ff). Party contributions constitute only a small percentage of candidate funding (Gierzynski and Breaux 1991), while the contribution pattern in states examined by Malbin and Gais (1998) showed that in no state did corporate, labor and political action committee contributions together amount to more than thirty percent of all contributions (Malbin and Gais, 1998 p.154ff). Therefore, in some of our regressions, we focus on individual contribution regulations since these contributions are quantitatively the most important in state elections.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Competition policy for elections: Do campaign contribution limits matter?

Stratmann

Francisco²,

Aparicio-Castillo

2006

Public Choice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines whether campaign contribution restrictions have consequences for election outcomes. States are a natural laboratory to examine this issue. We analyze elections to Assemblies from 1980 to 2001 and determine whether candidates' vote shares are altered by changes in state campaign contribution restrictions. We find that limits on giving narrow the margin of victory of the winning candidate. Limits lead to closer elections for future incumbents, but have less effect on the margin of victory of incumbents who passed the campaign finance legislation. We also find some evidence that contribution limits increase the number of candidates in the race.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Competition policy for elections: Do campaign contribution limits matter?

Stratmann

Francisco²,

Aparicio-Castillo

2006

Public Choice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Gubernatorial campaign spending on a per capita basis is examined to control for state population within the dependent variable. Gierzynski and Breaux (1991) and Hogan and Hamm (1998) note that population is in fact one of the most important explanatory factors in campaign spending.…”

Section: State Gubernatorial Election Cycle Spendingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The voter initiative and the power of the governor: evidence from campaign expenditures

Randolph

2011

Const Polit Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although a great deal of research examines the impact of the voter initiative process on the state legislature, the consequences for the state executive branch have been largely ignored. The voter initiative process provides the governor with a method to circumvent the legislature, which may increase the power of the governor in theory. However, it also provides citizens with a means to bypass the traditional lawmaking process and avoid the governor's veto. This may reduce the power of the governor and lead to policies farther from the preferences of the governor. This study examines the impact of the voter initiative process on the power of the state governor by estimating total election cycle spending. Campaign expenditures are expected to reflect any sustained gain or loss in power due to the availability of the voter initiative process. The results indicate that gubernatorial campaign expenditures are significantly lower in states in which the voter initiative process is available. This finding suggests that state governors sustain a loss in political power when the voter initiative is available. Additionally, the findings imply that individuals may employ the voter initiative process as a substitute for gubernatorial support.JEL Codes: H1, H7

show abstract

“…Moreover, party leaders in Sacramento have a great deal of leverage over campaign funds (though few have the power former Speaker Willie Brown held). While political science research has been relatively sanguine about the effects of contributions on member behavior, campaign money does affect who wins elections, particularly in the lowinformation environment of state legislative campaigns (Gierzynski and Breaux 1991;Caldeira and Patterson 1982).…”

Section: Other Causes Of Partisan Polarizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Redistricting Reform Could Save California from Itself

Jarvis¹

2009

CJPP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Money and Votes in State Legislative Elections

Cited by 83 publications

References 7 publications

Competition policy for elections: Do campaign contribution limits matter?

Competition policy for elections: Do campaign contribution limits matter?

The voter initiative and the power of the governor: evidence from campaign expenditures

Redistricting Reform Could Save California from Itself

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About