When Do War Chests Deter?

Abstract

I present a repeated election model of campaign fund-raising and spending where the incumbent may use money not spent in one election for a future election, i.e. may create a war chest. I characterize the conditions where an incumbent creates a war chest for deterrence. The strongest incumbents do not create the largest war chests since they deter the challenger on their own. It is the weaker incumbents who must create the larger war chests to deter the challenger.KEY WORDS . campaign finance . challenger entry . deterrence . incumbent strength . war chestThe incumbent's most effective electoral strategy is to discourage serious opposition.

Incumbency Advantage and Tenure Length in the Chilean Chamber of Deputies, 1989-2009

“…As Gordon and Landa (2009) argue, sources of electoral advantage are available to incumbents almost exclusively by virtue of their access to the powers of office. They have greater name recognition (Cain, Ferejohn, and Fiorina, 1987), franking privileges (Mayhew, 1974), media coverage (Arnold, 2004;Prior, 2006;Ansolabehere, Snowberg, and Snyder Jr., 2006), and the ability to amass more contributions (Goodliffe, 2005).…”

Are federal PACs obsolete?

“…Spending and fundraising abilities after all are closely connected. While incumbents are more dependent upon PAC funds, they have less need of additional funds in general due to sizable campaign war chests (Box-Steffensmeier 1996;Goodliffe 2005;Herrson 2012). As a consequence, every additional dollar is likely to provide a lower marginal return.…”

Does party support help candidates win?

“…Turnover in Congress also remains low because incumbents benefit greatly from their name recognition among voters, previous electoral experience, and record in office (Cain, Ferejohn, & Fiorina, 1987;Cox & Katz, 1996;Levitt & Wolfram, 1997). They also possess significant fundraising advantages (Box-Steffensmeier, 1996;Goodliffe, 2005). Together these factors contribute to their re-election 98% of the time in the House.…”