A lack of gender parity amongst candidates for public office is of perpetual concern to political reformers. One reform that is suggested as a partial solution is the full public subsidy of election costs. In theory, “clean election” laws should dramatically lower the perceived costs of campaigns to potential candidates outside of traditional fundraising networks. If the perceived costs are lowered to a significant enough degree, public subsidies could encourage more women to run for office. Using panel data of potential candidates from Connecticut and Massachusetts, this article finds that the Citizens' Election Program may have led to some progress towards that goal. However, women's emergence decisions and attitudes concerning fundraising are more dependent upon active recruitment by civil society organizations and political parties, factors well beyond the reach of clean election laws.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BerryWilliam D., BerkmanMichael B., and SchneidermanStuart.2000. “Legislative Professionalism and Incumbent Reelection: The Development of Institutional Boundaries.” American Political Science Review, 94(4): 859–74.
2.
BiancoWilliam T.1984. “Strategic Decisions on Candidacy in U.S. Congressional Districts.” Legislative Studies Quarterly, 9(2): 351–64.
3.
BlackGordon S.1972. “A Theory of Political Ambition: Career Choices and the Role of Structural Incentives.” American Political Science Review, 66(1): 144–59.
4.
BurrellBarbara.1994. A Woman's Place Is in the House: Campaigning for Congress in the Feminist Era. Ann Arbor: University of Michagan Press.
5.
CarrollSusan and SanbonmatsuKira. 2013. More Women Can Run: Gender and Pathways to the State Legislatures. New York: Oxford.
6.
DonnayPatrick D. and RamsdenGraham P.. 1995. “Public Financing of Legislative Elections: Lessons from Minnesota.” Legislative Studies Quarterly, 20(3): 351–64.
7.
DowlingConor.2011. “Public Financing and Candidate Participation in Gubernatorial Elections.” in Public Financing in American Elections, ed. Costas Panagopoulos. Philadelphia: Temple Univeristy Press, 184–224.
8.
FoxRichard L. and LawlessJennifer L.. 2010. “If Only They'd Ask: Gender, Recruitment, and Political Ambition.” Journal of Politics, 72(2): 310–326.
9.
FranciaPeter L. and HerrnsonPaul S.. 2003. “The Impact of Public Finance Laws on Fundraising in State Legislative Elections.” American Politics Research, 31(5): 520–39.
10.
FultonSarah A., MaestasCherie D., SandyMaisel L., and StoneWalter J.. 2006. “The Sense of a Woman: Gender, Ambition, and the Decision to Run for Congress.” Political Research Quarterly, 59(2): 235–248.
11.
HammKeith E. and HoganRobert E.. 2008. “Campaign Finance Laws and Candidacy Decisions in State Legislative Elections.” Political Research Quarterly, 61(3): 458–67.
12.
JackmanRobert W. and MillerRoss A.. 1996. “A Renaissance of Political Culture?” American Journal of Political Science, 40(3): 632–59.
13.
JacobsonGary C. and KernellSamuel.1981. Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.
14.
JenkinsShannon.2007. “A Woman's Work is Never Done? Fundraising Perception among Female State Legislative Candidates.” Political Research Quarterly, 60(2): 230–239.
15.
KrasnoJonathan S. and GreenDonald Philip.1988. “Preempting Quality Challengers in House Elections.” Journal of Politics, 50(4): 920.
16.
La RajaRaymond J., and WiltseDavid L.. 2015a. “The Candidate Emergence and Public Financing of Elections Dataset.” Available at <http://dataverse.org>. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Amherst.
17.
La RajaRaymond J. and WiltseDavid L.. 2015b. “Money That Draws No Interest: Public Financing of Legislative Elections and Candidate Emergence.” Election Law Journal, 14(4): 392–410.
18.
LawlessJennifer L. and FoxRichard L.. 2005. It Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don't Run for Office. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19.
LawlessJennifer L. and FoxRichard L.. 2010. It Still Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don't Run for Office. New York: Cambridge University Press.
20.
LawlessJennifer L, and PearsonKathryn. 2008. “The Primary Reason for Women's Underrepresentation? Reevaluating the Conventional Wisdom.” Journal of Politics, 70(1): 67–82.
21.
LazarusJeffrey.2008. “Incumbent Vulnerability and Challenger Entry in Statewide Elections.” American Politics Research, 36(1): 108–29.
22.
MaestasCherie D., FultonSarah, SandyMaisel L., and StoneWalter J.. 2006. “When to Risk It? Institutions, Ambitions, and the Decision to Run for the U.S. House.” American Political Science Review, 100(02): 195–208.
23.
MaiselSandy L. and StoneWalter J.. 2003. “The Not-So-Simple Calculus of Winning: Potential U.S. House Candidates' Nomination and General Election Prospects.” Journal of Politics, 65(4): 951–77.
24.
MaiselSandy L. and StoneWalter J.. 1997. “Determinants of Candidate Emergence in U.S. House Elections: An Exploratory Study.” Legislative Studies Quarterly, 22(1): 79–96.
25.
MalhotraNeil.2008. “The Impact of Public Financing on Electoral Competition: Evidence from Arizona and Maine.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 8(3):263–81.
26.
MayerKenneth R., WenerTimothy, and WilliamsAmanda.2006. “Do Public Funding Programs Enhance Electoral Competition?” in The Marketplace of Democracy: Electoral Competition and American Politics, ed. Michael McDonald and John Curtis Samples. Washington, DC: Cato Institute: Brookings Institution Press.
27.
MayerKenneth R. and WoodJohn M.. 1995. “The Impact of Public Financing on Electoral Competitiveness: Evidence from Wisconsin, 1964–1990.” Legislative Studies Quarterly, 20(1): 69–88.
28.
MayerKenneth R.2013. “Public Election Funding: An Assessment of What We Would Like to Know.” The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics, 11(3): 365–384.
29.
MillerMichael Gerald.2013. Subsidizing Democracy: How Public Funding Changes Elections and How It Can Work in the Future. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
30.
MithchellNathan K.2014. “Ballot Access Rules and the Entry of Women Candidates in the State Legislative Primaries.” Journal of Power, Politics, and Governance, 2(3&4): 1–25.
31.
MithchellNathan K. and MonroeBilly.2014. “Where Do Women Run? A Case for the Study of ‘Women Friendly Districts’ in State Legislative Primaries.” Journal of Power, Politics, and Governance, 2(4): 37–57.
32.
PanagopoulosCostas and GreenDonald P.. 2008. “Field Experiments Testing the Impact of Radio Advertisments on Electoral Competition.” American Journal of Political Science, 52(1): 156–168.
33.
PontRyan and PollockBradley R.. 2014. “Last Rites for Clean Elections.” Arizona Law Review, 56(4): 1243–1256.
34.
SchneiderDeborah E.2000. “As Goes Maine? The 1996 Maine Clean Election Act: Innovations and Implications for Future Campaign Finance Reforms at the State and Federal Level.” Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, 2(1): 627–664.
35.
SpencerAndrew.2012. “Cleaning Elections.” Arizona Law Review, 54: 277–309.
36.
ThompsonJoel, MoncriefGary, and HammKeith. 1998. “Gender, Candidate Attirbutes, and Campaign Contributions.” in Campaign Finance in State Legislative Elections, ed. Joel Thompson and Gary Moncrief. Washington, DC: CQ Quarterly, 117–138.
37.
WernerTimothy and MayerKenneth R.. 2007. “Public Election Funding, Competition, and Candidate Gender.” PS: Political Science and Politics, 40(4): 661–67.
38.
WindettJason Harold.2011. “State Effects and the Emergence and Success of Female Gubernatorial Candidates.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 11(4): 460–482.
