An important dimension of party positioning remains largely unexamined—that is, the clarity with which parties present policies to the electorate. Moreover, the effects of private campaign contributions on party positions are also vastly understudied. We address these gaps using a unique new data set on private contributions to political parties in eight Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries from the early 1990s to the present. We argue that parties are incentivized to present increasingly ambiguous, or broad appeal, policy positions as a result of increased private campaign contributions. Broad appeal campaigns allow parties to appease their donors with more extreme policy preferences while maintaining the support of their more moderate base supporters. We find support for this argument and show that increasing donations are associated with increased policy ambiguity. Using new data, this article is the first to examine an important connection between political finance and party positioning on a cross-national and time-series basis.
AbramowitzA. I. (1991). Incumbency, campaign spending, and the decline of competition in US house elections. The Journal of Politics, 53, 34-56.
2.
AdamsJ. (2012). Causes and electoral consequences of party policy shifts in multiparty elections: Theoretical results and empirical evidence. Annual Review of Political Science, 15, 401-419.
3.
AdamsJ.ClarkM.EzrowL.GlasgowG. (2004). Understanding change and stability in party ideologies: Do parties respond to public opinion or to past election results?British Journal of Political Science, 34, 589-610.
4.
AdamsJ.ClarkM.EzrowL.GlasgowG. (2006). Are niche parties fundamentally different from mainstream parties? The causes and the electoral consequences of western European parties’ policy shifts, 1976-1998. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 513-529.
5.
AdamsJ.Somer-TopcuZ. (2009). Moderate now, win votes later: The electoral consequences of parties? Policy shifts in 25 postwar democracies. The Journal of Politics, 71, 678-692.
6.
BartelsL. M. (1986). Issue voting under uncertainty: An empirical test. American Journal of Political Science, 30, 709-728.
7.
BenoitK.MarshM. (2003). For a few Euros more: Campaign spending effects in the Irish local elections of 1999. Party Politics, 9, 561-582.
8.
BonicaA. (2014). Mapping the ideological marketplace. American Journal of Political Science, 58, 367-386.
9.
BudgeI. (1994). A new spatial theory of party competition: Uncertainty, ideology and policy equilibria viewed comparatively and temporally. British Journal of Political Science, 24, 443-467.
10.
CahillC.StoneW. J. (2018). Voters’ Response to Candidate Ambiguity in U.S. House Elections. American Politics Research, 46, 890-908.
11.
CartyR. K.EaglesM. (1999). Do local campaigns matter? Campaign spending, the local canvass and party support in Canada. Electoral Studies, 18, 69-87.
12.
ClarkM.LeiterD. (2014). Does the ideological dispersion of parties mediate the electoral impact of valence? A cross-national study of party support in nine western European democracies. Comparative Political Studies, 47, 171-202.
13.
DownsA. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York, NY: Harper.
14.
EzrowL.De VriesC.SteenbergenM.EdwardsE. (2011). Mean voter representation and partisan constituency representation: Do parties respond to the mean voter position or to their supporters?Party Politics, 17, 275-301.
15.
FalgueraE.JonesS.OhmanO. (Eds.). (2012). Funding of political parties and election campaigns. Stockholm: IDEA.
16.
FennoR. F. (1998). Senators on the campaign trail: The politics of representation (Vol. 6). Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
17.
FergusonT. (1995). Golden rule: The investment theory of party competition and the logic of money-driven political systems. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
18.
FergusonT.RogersJ. (1987). Right turn: The decline of the democrats and the future of American politics. New York, NY: Macmillan.
19.
FisherJ.EisenstadtT. A. (2004). Introduction: Comparative party finance: What is to be done?London, England: Sage.
20.
ForrestJ.JohnstonR. J.PattieC. J. (1999). The effectiveness of constituency campaign spending in Australian state elections during times of electoral volatility: The New South Wales case, 1988–95. Environment and Planning A, 31, 1119-1128.
21.
ForrestJ.MarksG. N. (1999). The mass media, election campaigning and voter response the Australian experience. Party Politics, 5, 99-114.
22.
FranciaP. L.GreenJ. C.HerrnsonP. S.PowellL. W.WilcoxC. (2005). Limousine liberals and corporate conservatives: The financial constituencies of the democratic and republican parties. Social Science Quarterly, 86, 761-778.
23.
FranciaP. L.HerrnsonP. S. (2003). The impact of public finance laws on fundraising in state legislative elections. American Politics Research, 31, 520-539.
24.
GordonS. B. (2005). Campaign contributions and legislative voting: A new approach. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
25.
GerberA. (1998). Estimating the effect of campaign spending on senate election outcomes using instrumental variables. American Political Science Review, 92, 401-411.
26.
HanK. J. (2018). Beclouding party position as an electoral strategy: Voter polarization, issue priority and position blurring. British Journal of Political Science, 1-23.
27.
HerrnsonP. S. (2007). Congressional elections: Campaigning at home and in Washington. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
28.
JacobsonG. C. (1978). The effects of campaign spending in congressional elections. The American Political Science Review, 72, 469-491.
29.
JohnstonR. J.PattieC. J. (1995). The impact of spending on party constituency campaigns at recent British general elections. Party Politics, 1, 261-273.
30.
JohnstonR. J.PattieC. J. (2007). Funding local political parties in England and Wales: Donations and constituency campaigns. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 9, 365-395.
31.
KernellG. (2016). Strategic party heterogeneity. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 28, 408-430.
32.
LauR. R.RedlawskD. P. (1997). Voting correctly. The American Political Science Review, 91, 585-598.
33.
MoonW. (2004). Party activists, campaign resources and candidate position taking: Theory, tests and applications. British Journal of Political Science, 34, 611-633.
34.
PattieC. J.JohnstonR. J.FieldhouseE. A. (1995). Winning the local vote: The effectiveness of constituency campaign spending in Great Britain, 1983–1992. American Political Science Review, 89, 969-983.
35.
PonceA. F.ScarrowS. E. (2011). Who gives? Partisan donations in Europe. West European Politics, 34, 997-1020.
36.
RogowskiJ. C.TuckerP. D. (2018). Moderate, extreme, or both? How voters respond to ideologically unpredictable candidates. Electoral Studies, 51, 83-92.
37.
ScarrowS. E. (2007). Political finance in comparative perspective. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 193-210.
38.
ShepsleK. A. (1972). The strategy of ambiguity: Uncertainty and electoral competition. The American Political Science Review, 66, 555-568.
39.
Somer-TopcuZ. (2009). Timely decisions: The effects of past national elections on party policy change. The Journal of Politics, 71, 238-248.
40.
Somer-TopcuZ. (2015). Everything to everyone: The electoral consequences of the broad-appeal strategy in Europe. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 841-854.
41.
TomzM.Van HouwelingR. P. (2009). The electoral implications of candidate ambiguity. American Political Science Review, 103, 83-98.
VerbaS.SchlozmanK. L.BradyH.NieN. H. (1993). Citizen activity: Who participates? What do they say?The American Political Science Review, 87, 303-318.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
