Recent research asserts that coalitions of party leaders, interest groups, and activists will cooperate to support the nomination of mutually acceptable candidates in primary elections. In this article, I utilize an original data set containing FEC contributions and expenditures data for 1648 candidates who ran in open seat primary elections for the US House from 2006 to 2016 to measure the extent and effects of coordination among interest groups and party organizations. I find that Democratic-aligned interest groups and party leaders coordinate more often and with a more positive substantive effect than their Republican counterparts. Moreover, I provide evidence that, with the advent of super PACs in the second half of the 2010 primary cycle, a small number of interest groups can act as a latent threat to broader coalitions that unite behind a candidate using independent expenditures to outspend the broader coalitions. This increased resource parity has tangible representational consequences.
AbramowitzAIAlexanderBGunningM (2006) Incumbency, redistricting, and the decline of competition in U.S. House elections. The Journal of Politics68(1): 75–88.
2.
AldrichJ (1995) Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Party Politics in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3.
AnsolabehereSHansenJMHiranoS, et al. (2007) The incumbency advantage in U.S. primary elections. Electoral Studies26(3): 660–668.
4.
AnziaS (2011) Election timing and the electoral influence of interest groups. The Journal of Politics73(2): 412–427.
5.
AsheJStewartK (2012) Legislative recruitment: using diagnostic testing to explain underrepresentation. Party Politics18(5): 687–707.
6.
BarberM (2016) Donation motivations: testing theories of access and ideology. Political Research Quarterly69(1): 148–159.
7.
BawnKCohenMKarolD, et al. (2012) A theory of political parties: groups, policy demands, and nominations in American politics. Perspectives on Politics10: 571–597.
8.
BerryJMWilcoxC (2016) The Interest Group Society, 5th ed. New York: Routledge.
9.
BoatrightRG (2013) Getting Primaried: The Changing Politics of Congressional Primary Challenges. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
10.
BoatrightRGMalbinMJGlavinB (2016) Independent expenditures in congressional primaries after citizens united: implications for interest groups, incumbents, and political parties. Interest Groups and Advocacy5(2): 119–140.
CohenMKarolDNoelH, et al. (2008) The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13.
CoxGMcCubbinsM (2005) Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives. New York: Cambridge University Press.
14.
CurrinderML (2009) Money in the House: Campaign Funds and Congressional Party Politics. Boulder: Westview Press.
15.
DesmaraisBALa RajaRJKowalMS (2015) The fates of challengers in U.S. house elections: the role of extended party networks in supporting candidates and shaping electoral outcomes. American Journal of Political Science59(1): 194–211.
16.
DominguezCBK (2011) Does the party matter? Endorsements in congressional primaries. Political Research Quarterly55(4): 845–860.
17.
DownsA (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper Collins.
18.
DwyreDHeberligESKolodnyR, et al. (2006) Committees and candidates: national party finance after BCRA. In: GreenJCCoffeyD (eds.), The State of the Parties. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 95–112.
19.
DwyreDKolodnyR (2003) The committee shuffle: major party spending in congressional elections. In: GreenJCFarmerR (eds.), The State of the Parties. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 115–131.
20.
FerejohnJA (1977) On the decline of competition in congressional elections. American Political Science Review71(1): 166–176.
21.
GodwinRK (1992) Money, technology, and political interests: the direct marketing of politics. In: PetraccaMP (ed.) The Politics of Interests: Interest Groups Transformed. New York: Westview Press, pp. 308–325.
22.
GrossmannMDominguezCBK (2009) Party coalitions and interest group networks. American Politics Research37(5): 767–800.
23.
HassellHJG (2018) The Party’s Primary: Control of Congressional Nominations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
24.
HerrnsonPS (2005) National party organizations at the dawn of the twenty-first century. In: MaiselLS (ed.) The Parties Respond: Changes in American Parties and Campaigns. Cambridge: Westview Press, pp. 47–78.
25.
HerrnsonPS (2009) The roles of party organizations, party-connected committees, and party allies in elections. Journal of Politics71(4): 1207–1224.
26.
JacobsonGCCarsonJL (2016) The Politics of Congressional Elections, 9th ed. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
27.
JacobsonGCKernellS (1981) Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.
28.
KazeeTAThornberryMC (1990) Where’s the party? Congressional candidate recruitment and American party organizations. Western Political Quarterly43(1): 61–80.
29.
KeyVOJr (1958) Pressure Groups. New York: Thomas Crowell.
30.
KingDCMatlandRE (2003) Sex and the grand old party: an experimental investigation of the effect of candidate sex on support for a republican candidate. American Politics Research31(6): 595–612.
31.
KitchensKESwersML (2016) Why aren’t there more republican women in congress? Gender, partisanship, and fundraising support in the 2010 and 2012 elections. Politics & Gender12(4): 648–676.
32.
KochJW (2000) Do citizens apply gender stereotypes to infer candidates’ ideological orientations?Journal of Politics62(2): 414–429.
33.
KogerGMasketSNoelH (2009) Partisan webs: information exchange and party networks. British Journal of Political Science39(3): 633–653.
34.
KousserTLucasSMasketSE, et al. (2015) Kingmakers or cheerleaders? Party power and the causal effects of endorsements. Political Research Quarterly68(3): 443–456.
35.
La RajaRJSchaffnerBF (2015) Campaign Finance and Political Polarization: When Purists Prevail. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
36.
LawlessJLFoxRL (2010) It Still Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don't Run for Office, Revised Edition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
37.
LeeFE (2016) Insecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
38.
MaestasCDMaiselLSStoneWJ (2005) National party efforts to recruit state legislators to run for the U.S. house. Legislative Studies Quarterly30(2): 277–300.
39.
MasketSE (2009) No Middle Ground: How Informal Party Organizations Control Nominations and Polarize Legislatures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
40.
MasketSEHeaneyMTMillerJM, et al. (2012) Polarized networks: the organizational affiliations of national party convention delegates. American Behavioral Scientist56(12): 1654–1676.
41.
MoeTM (2005) Teacher unions and school board elections. In: HowellWG (ed.) Besieged: School Boards and the Future of Education Politics. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.
42.
NivenD (1998) Party elites and women candidates: the shape of bias. Women and Politics19(2): 57–80.
43.
PettigrewSOwenKWanlessE (2014) U.S. house primary election results (1956-2010). DOI: 10.7910/DVN/26448. Harvard Dataverse, V4. Available at: UNF:6:CO5mjgzxwopCZB2/gcAepQ==;Houseprimaryelections(1956-2010)data(pettigrew).tab[filename],UNF:6:CO5mjgzxwopCZB2/gcAepQ==[fileUNF] (accessed 21 March 2018).
44.
PooleKRosenthalH (1997) Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Cambridge University Press.
StratmannT (1998) The market for congressional votes: Is timing of contributions everything?The Journal of Law and Economics41(1): 85–114.
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.
