Previous work on candidate campaign finance in list proportional representation systems has focused on differential electoral returns of spending for incumbent and challenger candidates. This article asks whether incumbents and challengers in these systems fund election campaigns from different sources. We hypothesize that incumbents receive more: (a) contributions from individual and corporate donors; and (b) financial support from party organizations, as party elites strategically deploy resources to constrain intra-party competition. The analysis is based on a dataset on campaign funding sources of candidates for two legislative elections in Colombia (2014 and 2018). The results confirm that party organizations transfer more financial resources to incumbents than to challengers. Contrary to expectations, parties do not specifically support the electorally most vulnerable incumbents. We also find that challengers receive higher levels of non-corporate private donations than incumbents. These findings provide insights into individual campaigns and demonstrate how parties coordinate intra-party competition through campaign funding.
AaskovenLasse (2020) The Electoral Cycle in Political Contributions: The incumbency advantage of early elections. Acta Politica55: 670–691.
2.
AchurySusanRamírezMargaritaCantúFrancisco (2017) Endogenous Ballot Structures: The selection of open and closed lists in Colombia’s legislative elections. Electoral Studies49: 136–154.
3.
AlbarracínJuanMilaneseJuan Pablo (2021) Cuando lo local no es función de lo nacional. Efectos diferenciales del cambio institucional en Colombia (1997–2015) [When the local does not depend on the national. Different effects of institutional change in Colombia (1997–2015)]. Revista de Ciencia Política41(1): 35–65.
4.
AnsolabehereStephenSnyderJames M (2000) Money and Office: The sources of the incumbency advantage in congressional campaign finance. In BradyDavid WCoganJohn FFiorinaMorris P (eds) Continuity and Change in House Elections. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 65–86.
5.
ArterDavid (2021) It’s a Long Way from Kuusamo to Kuhmo: Mapping candidates’ electoral constituencies in the Finnish open-list single preference voting system. Political Studies Review19(3): 334–354.
6.
BenoitKennethMarshMichael (2010) Incumbent and Challenger Campaign Spending Effects in Proportional Electoral Systems: The Irish elections of 2002. Political Research Quarterly63(1): 159–173.
7.
BergmanMatthew EShugartMatthew SWattKevin A (2013) Patterns of Intra-Party Competition in Open-List & SNTV Systems. Electoral Studies32(2): 321–333.
8.
BrunellThomas L (2005) The Relationship Between Political Parties and Interest Groups: Explaining patterns of PAC contributions to candidates for congress. Political Research Quarterly58(4): 681–688.
9.
BuckleyFionaMarianiMack (2021) Money Matters: The impact of gender quotas on campaign spending for women candidates. International Political Science Review. Epub ahead of print 14 October 2021. DOI: 10.1177/01925121211041028.
10.
CareyJohn MShugartMatthew S (1995) Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A rank ordering of electoral formulas. Electoral Studies14(4): 417–439.
11.
ChangEric CCGoldenMiriam A (2007) Electoral Systems, District Magnitude and Corruption. British Journal of Political Science37(1): 115–137.
12.
CheibubJosé AntonioSinGisela (2020) Preference Vote and Intra-Party Competition in Open List PR Systems. Journal of Theoretical Politics32(1): 70–95.
13.
CoxGary WThiesMichael F (1998) The Cost of Intra-Party Competition: The single, nontransferable vote and money politics in Japan. Comparative Political Studies31(3): 267–291.
ElklitJorgen (2005) Denmark: Simplicity embedded in complexity (or is it the other way around?). In MichaelMitchellPaul (eds) The Politics of Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 453–471.
16.
EspinosaJosé Rafael (2015) Apuntes para una reforma a la financiación electoral en Colombia [Notes for a reform of electoral finance in Colombia]. Bogotá: Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo, Organización de Estados Americanos, Instituto Holandés para la Democracia Multipartidaria.
17.
Estrada RuizErika (2018) El financiamiento público como una vía para promover la representación política de las mujeres en México, Colombia y Brasil [Public finance as a way to enhance the political representation of women in Mexico, Colombia and Brazil]. In FreidenbergFlaviaCaminottiMarianaMuñoz-PogossianBetildeDošekTomáš (eds) Mujeres en la Política: experiencias nacionales y subnacionales en América Latina [Women and politics: national and subnacional experiences in Latin America]. México: Instituto Electoral de la Ciudad de México e Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas, UNAM, 99–116.
18.
FouirnaiesAlexanderHallAndrew B (2014) The Financial Incumbency Advantage: Causes and consequences. Journal of Politics76(3): 711–724.
19.
GoodliffeJay (2011) Campaign War Chests and Challenger Quality in Senate Elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly32(1): 135–156.
20.
GreenDonald PhilipKrasnoJonathan S (1988) Salvation for the Spendthrift Incumbent: Reestimating the effects of campaign spending in House elections. American Journal of Political Science32(4): 884–907.
21.
JacobsonGary C (1990) The Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections: New evidence for old arguments. American Journal of Political Science34(2): 334–362.
22.
JohnsonJoel W (2013) Campaign Spending in Proportional Electoral Systems: Incumbents versus challengers revisited. Comparative Political Studies46(8): 968–993.
23.
KarvonenLauri (2004) Preferential Voting: Incidence and effects. International Political Science Review25(2): 203–226.
24.
MaddensBartPutGert-Jan (2013) Office Effects and Campaign Spending in a Semi-Open List PR System: The Belgian/Flemish federal and regional elections 1999–2010. Electoral Studies32(4): 852–863.
25.
MershonCarol (2020) Challenging the Wisdom on Preferential Proportional Representation. Journal of Theoretical Politics32(1): 168–182.
26.
MurrayRainbowMuriaasRagnhildWangVibeke (2021) Editorial Introduction: Gender and political financing. International Political Science Review. Epub ahead of print 22 September 2021. DOI: 10.1177/01925121211040961.
27.
NagtzaamMarijn Avan ErkelPatrick F (2017) Preference Votes Without Preference? Institutional effects on preference voting: An experiment. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties27(2): 172–191.
28.
NemotoKuniakiShugartMatthew S. (2013) Localism and Coordination Under Three Different Electoral Systems: The national district of the Japanese House of Councillors. Electoral Studies32(1): 1–12.
29.
PachónMonicaShugartMatthew S (2010) Electoral Reform and the Mirror Image of Inter-Party and Intra-Party Competition. The adoption of party lists in Colombia. Electoral Studies29(4): 648–660.
30.
ParveenNarveenMullahMuhammadAhshanullahMohammad (2016) Tweedie Model for Analyzing Zero-Inflated Continuous Response: An application to job training data. British Journal of Economics, Management and Trade14(3): 1–7.
PattieCharlesJohnstonRon (2016) Resourcing the Constituency Campaign in the UK. Party Politics22(2): 203–214.
33.
PiscopoJennifer MHinojosaMagdaThomasGwynnSiavelisPeter M (2021) Follow the Money: Gender, incumbency, and campaign funding in Chile. Comparative Political Studies55(2): 222–253.
34.
PotterJoshua DTavitsMargit (2013) The Impact of Campaign Finance Laws on Party Competition. British Journal of Political Science45(1): 73–95.
35.
PutGert-JanSmuldersJefMaddensBart (2019) How Local Personal Vote-Earning Attributes Affect the Aggregate Party Vote Share: Evidence from the Belgian flexible-list PR system (2003–2014). Politics39(4): 464–479.
36.
QuirogaMauricio MoralesRodríguezRafael Piñeiro (2010) Campaign Expenditure and Electoral Success for Candidates to the House of Representative in Chile in2005. Revista de Ciencia Política30(3): 645–667.
37.
Rodríguez RagaJuan Carlos (2011) Voto preferente y cohesión partidista. Entre el voto personal y el voto de partido [Preferential votes and party cohesion. Between the personal vote and the partisan vote]. In BoteroFelipe (ed.) Partidos y elecciones en Colombia. Bogotá, Universidad de los Andes, 447–476.
38.
SacchetTeresaSpeckBruno Wilhelm (2012) Financiamento eleitoral, representação política e gênero: Uma análise das eleições de 2006 [Electoral funding, political representation and gender: An analysis of the 2006 elections]. Opinião Pública18(1): 177–197.
39.
SamuelsDavid (2001) Incumbents and Challengers on a Level Playing Field: Assessing the impact of campaign finance in Brazil. Journal of Politics63(2): 569–584.
40.
Schwindt-BayerLeslie A (2005) The Incumbency Disadvantage and Women’s Election to Legislative Office. Electoral Studies24(2): 227–244.
41.
SelbPeterLutzGeorg (2015) Lone Fighters: Intra-party competition, interparty competition, and candidates’ vote seeking efforts in open-ballot PR elections. Electoral Studies39: 329–337.
42.
ShugartMatthew S (2001) Electoral ‘Efficiency’ and the Move to Mixed-Member Systems. Electoral Studies20(2): 173–193.
43.
SmuldersJefPutGert-JanMaddensBart (2019) How Legislative Gender Quotas Affect the Gender Gap in Campaign Spending: An analysis of the federal and regional elections in Belgium. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties29(1): 41–60.
44.
SöderlundPeterSchoultzÅsa vonPapageorgiouAchillefs (2021) Coping with Complexity: Ballot position effects in the Finnish open-list proportional representation system. Electoral Studies71: 102330.
45.
Transparencia por Colombia (2014) Análisis de la financiación de las campañas legislativas de Colombia en 2014 [An analysis of the campaign finance of the 2014 legislative elections in Colombia]. Bogotá: Transparencia por Colombia.
46.
Transparencia por Colombia and ONU Mujeres (2019) Análisis sobre el acceso a recursos para la inclusión efectiva de las mujeres en la política [An analysis about the access to resources aiming at the effective inclusion of women in politics]. Bogotá: Transparencia por Colombia, ONU Mujeres.
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.
