This study examines the impact of Florida’s 2013 campaign finance reforms (HB 569), enacted to align with Citizens United, on state legislative electioneering and outcomes. Our analysis shows that while total campaign funds increased, this growth was driven entirely by political committees, significantly benefiting incumbents. A difference-in-differences analysis reveals a shift toward “soft money” mechanisms, reinforcing institutional advantages. These findings align with broader post-Citizens United trends in state elections. Despite these shifts in campaign finance dynamics, we find little evidence that HB 569 significantly altered electoral outcomes, highlighting its role in reshaping fundraising rather than affecting election results.
AnsolabehereS.de FigueiredoJ. M.SnyderJ. M.2003. “Why Is There So Little Money in US Politics?” The Journal of Economic Perspectives17, no. 1: 105–130.
2.
AnsolabehereS.SnyderJ. M.2000. “Soft Money, Hard Money, Strong Parties.” Columbia Law Review100, no. 3: 598–619.
3.
AparicioD.Avenancio-LeónC. F.2022. “Is Banning Corporate Contributions Enough? The Dynamics of Incomplete Campaign Finance Reform.” The Journal of Law and Economics65, no. 3: 581–606.
4.
BarberM. J.2016. “Ideological Donors, Contribution Limits, and the Polarization of American Legislatures.” The Journal of Politics78, no. 1: 296–310.
5.
BardwellK.2002. “Money and Challenger Emergence in Gubernatorial Primaries.” Political Research Quarterly55, no. 3: 653–67.
6.
Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2025. “GDP by State.” Dataset Maintained by the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis.
7.
ButcherJ.MilyoJ.2020. “Do Campaign Finance Reforms Insulate Incumbents from Competition? New Evidence from State Legislative Elections.” PS: Political Science & Politics53, no. 3:460–64.
8.
ChenJ.RothJ.2024. “Logs with Zeros? Some Problems and Solutions.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics139, no. 2: 891–936.
9.
ClemensJ.PaysonJ. A.VeugerS.2024. “Aid for Incumbents: The Electoral Consequences of COVID-19 Relief.” No. w32962, National Bureau of Economic Research.
10.
CordisA. S.MilyoJ.2016. “Measuring Public Corruption in the United States: Evidence from Administrative Records of Federal Prosecutions.” Public Integrity18, no. 2: 127–48.
11.
DahmM.PorteiroN.2008. “Side Effects of Campaign Finance Reform.” Journal of the European Economic Association6, no. 5: 1057–77.
12.
DawoodY.2015. “Campaign Finance and American Democracy.” Annual Review of Political Science18, no. 1: 329–48.
13.
DepaloK. A.2015. The Failure of Term Limits in Florida. University Press of Florida.
14.
FlavinP.2015. “Campaign Finance Laws, Policy Outcomes, and Political Equality in the American States.” Political Research Quarterly68, no. 1: 77–88.
15.
Florida House of Representative Staff. 2013. “House of Representatives Final Bill Analysis.” https:// www.flhouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc. aspx?FileName=h0569z.EES.DOCX&Doc umentType=Analysis&BillNumber=569&Sess ion=2013
16.
FouirnaiesA.HallA. B.2014. “The Financial Incumbency Advantage: Causes and Consequences.” The Journal of Politics76, no. 3: 711–24.
17.
FouirnaiesA.HallA. B.2018. “How Do Interest Groups Seek Access to Committees?” American Journal of Political Science62, no. 1: 132–47.
18.
GierzynskiA.BreauxD.1991. “Money and Votes in State Legislative Elections.” Legislative Studies Quarterly16, no. 2: 203–217.
19.
GilensM.PattersonS.HainesP.2021. “Campaign Finance Regulations and Public Policy.” American Political Science Review115, no. 3: 1074–81.
20.
GrossD. A.GoidelR. K.2001. “The Impact of State campaign Finance Laws.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly1, no. 2: 180–95.
21.
GulzarS.RuedaM. R.RuizN. A.2022. “Do Campaign Contribution Limits Curb the Influence of Money in Politics?” American Journal of Political Science66, no. 4: 932–46.
22.
HarveyA.MattiaT., 2022. “Does Money Have a Conservative Bias? Estimating the Causal Impact of Citizens United on State Legislative Preferences.” Public Choice191, no. 3: 417–41.
HoganR. E.1999. “Campaign Spending in State Legislative Primary Elections.” State & Local Government Review31, no. 3: 214–20.
25.
HoganR. E.2000. “The Costs of Representation in State Legislatures: Explaining Variations in Campaign Spending.” Social Science Quarterly81, no. 4: 941–56.
26.
IssacharoffS.KarlanP. S.1998. “Hydraulics of Campaign Finance Reform.” Texas Law Review77:1705.
27.
KimI. S.StuckatzJ.FrieyetW.2026. “Systemic and Sequential Links between Campaign Donations and Lobbying.” The Journal of Politics88, no. 1: 110–24.
28.
KlasM.2013. “House Priority to End Political Slush Funds and Raise Caps to $10K Passes First Hurdle.” Tampa Bay Times, February11.
29.
KlumppT.MialonH. M.WilliamsM. A.2016. “The Business of American Democracy: Citizens United, Independent Spending, and Elections.” The Journal of Law and Economics59, no. 1: 1–43.
30.
KuleszaC. F.MillerM. G.WitkoC.2017. “State Responses to US Supreme Court Campaign Finance Decisions.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism47, no. 3: 467–90.
31.
La RajaR. J.SchaffnerB. F.2014. “The Effects of Campaign Finance Spending Bans on Electoral Outcomes: Evidence from the States about the Potential Impact of Citizens United v. FEC.” Electoral Studies33: 102–114.
32.
LeRoy Collins Institute. 2014. Tough Choices: Best Practices in Campaign Finance and Public Access to Information. Florida State University.
33.
LeRoy Collins Institute. 2015. Money in Politics Reforms in Florida: Initial Impacts and Comparison to Other States. Florida State University.
34.
LottJ. R.2006. “Campaign Finance Reform and Electoral Competition.” Public Choice129, no. 3: 263–300.
35.
MillerK.2025. “Federal Judge Blocks Maine’s Voter-Approved Law Capping Donations to Super PACs.” Maine Public, July15.
36.
MoncriefG.ThompsonJ. A.CassieW.1996. “Revisiting the State of U. S. State Legislative Research.” Legislative Studies Quarterly21, no. 3: 301–335.
37.
MyersA. C.2025. “Do Donors Punish Extremist Primary Nominees? Evidence from Congress and American State Legislatures.” American Political Science Review85:1–21.
OsterE.2019. “Unobservable Selection and Coefficient Stability: Theory and Evidence.” Journal of Business & Economic Statistics37, no. 2: 187–204.
40.
PrimoD. M.MilyoJ. D.2020. Campaign Finance and American Democracy: What the Public Really Thinks and Why It Matters. University of Chicago Press.
41.
RobinsonT. S.2023. “When Do Voters Respond to Campaign Finance Disclosure? Evidence from Multiple Election Types.” Political Behavior45, no. 4: 1309–332.
42.
SquireP.1995. “Candidates, Money, and Voters. Assessing the State of Congressional Elections Research.” Political Research Quarterly48, no. 4: 891–917.
43.
StratmannT.Aparicio-CastilloF.2006. “Competition Policy for Elections: Do Campaign Contribution Limits Matter?” Public Choice127, no. 1: 177–206.
44.
SweeneyD.2015. New Map Gets Nod, Forces All State Senators to Run in 2016. South Florida Sun Sentinel.
45.
TorchinskyJ.ReeseE.2016. “State Legislative Responses to Citizens United: Five Years Later.” Syracuse Law Review66:273.
46.
WitkoC.2006. “PACs, Issue Context, and Congressional Decision Making.” Political Research Quarterly59, no. 2: 283–95.
47.
WoodA. K.2023. “Voters Use Campaign Finance Transparency and Compliance Information.” Political Behavior45, no. 4: 1553–79.
48.
YorgansonC.2024. “Campaign Finance Vouchers Do Not Expand the Diversity of Donors: Evidence from Seattle.” American Political Science Review119, no. 1: 1–9.
