What Price Justice(s)? Understanding Campaign Spending in State Supreme Court Elections

Abstract

Among the least-researched American elections are those for seats on the states' supreme courts, arguably some of the most important political positions in the states. We know not only that campaign spending in these races has increased sharply in the past 20 years but also that there is great variation in spending among them. What factors cause campaign spending to vary among races for the states' highest courts? And what can an understanding of campaign spending in these races tell us about campaign spending for other offices? I use data from 281 state supreme court races in 21 states from 1990 to 2000 to answer these questions. I find that state supreme court campaign spending is driven by the characteristics of the race, institutional arrangements, and the electoral and state supreme court context.

Estimating the Impact of State Policies and Institutions with Mixed-Level Data

“…Buckley and Westerland (2004), in a Practical Researcher piece addressing discrete event history analysis, also examine the impact of clustering in their work. Finally, Bonneau (2005) does not present estimates that have been corrected for clustering, but does note that his key findings on the determinants of campaign spending in state judicial elections are not sensitive to correcting for clustering of judicial elections within states.…”

An Exploratory Analysis of Judicial Elections in Texas: Does Subject Matter Jurisdiction Matter?

“…Spending by candidates and special interest groups in all states with judicial elections dramatically increased in recent years (Bonneau, 2005;Hall & Bonneau, 2009). A positive correlation has also been found between spending on judicial campaigns and citizen participation rates in state supreme court elections regardless of whether the balloting was partisan or non-partisan (Hall & Bonneau 2008).…”

Analyzing the Link between Dollars and Decisions: A Multi-State Study of Campaign Contributions and Judicial Decision Making

“…One of the main areas of concern is the influx of money into judicial elections, which is why there has been increased attention by judicial scholars to the effects of campaign contributions on judicial decision making (Bonneau 2005;Hall and Bonneau 2006). Advocates of an independent judiciary free from electoral pressures cite the growing number of studies showing a relationship between contributions and case outcomes.…”

“…The idea is that nonpartisan ballots and strict contribution limits make judicial candidates less susceptible to political pressure from contributors because they alter the source and amount of campaign funds. In partisan elections, political parties and their supporters have a stake in the success of their candidates, and therefore, are willing to invest additional funds to help them (Bonneau 2005;Frederick and Streb 2011), making political parties the critical players in this process Shepherd 2011:2013). On the other hand, nonpartisan candidates often must raise money on their personal qualifications alone (Bonneau 2005;Peters 2007), or spend more from their own coffers to get information to voters (Bonneau and Hall 2009;Rock and Baum 2010).…”