Over the past 20 years, nearly every major city in the United States has faced making the decision of whether to build a new stadium or other professional sports facility. In this period, 41 referendums have been held to authorize the public financing of such a facility. Previous studies have demonstrated that elite endorsements affect referendum voters, but these studies have not differentiated the effects of different kinds of elites on public support. We examine the differing effects of the support and opposition of elected officials, business groups, minority leaders, and community groups when modeling referendum outcomes. Our analysis reveals that among these elites' cues, opposition by elected officials (either Republican or Democratic) has the greatest effect on the final referendum vote and that the size of the public subsidy has a significant influence on public support. We also find evidence that opposition by elected officials is exogenous to public opinion.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AsherHerbert B.1983. Causal Modeling. 2nd ed. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, series no. 07-003. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2.
BarnesTom. 1997. “TV Ads Tout the Benefit of Tax Boost,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 12 June, A-12.
3.
BergerEric. 2000. “Rockets OK Arena Terms; Major Hurdle is Crossed for Nov. 7 Referendum,” Houston Chronicle, 13 July, A1.
4.
BowlerShaunDonovanTodd. 1998. Demanding Choices: Opinion, Voting and Direct Democracy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
5.
BradyHenry E.SnidermanPaul M.. 1985. “The Attitude Attribution: A Group Basis for Political Reasoning.” American Political Science Review79: 1061–78.
6.
BrownClydePaulDavid M.. 1999. “Local Organized Interests and the 1996 Cincinnati Sports Stadia Tax Referendum.” Journal of Sport & Social Issues23: 218–37.
7.
BrownClydePaulDavid M.. 2002. “The Political Scorecard of Professional Sports Facility Referendums in the United States, 1984-2000.” Journal of Sport & Social Issues26: 248–67.
8.
CarminesEdward G.KuklinskiJames H.. 1990. “Incentives, Opportunities, and the Logic of Public Opinion in American Political Representation.” In Information and Democratic Processes, eds. FerejohnJohn A.KuklinskiJames H.. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
9.
CroninThomas E.1989. Direct Democracy: The Politics of Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
DonovanToddBowlerShaun. 1998. “An Overview of Direct Democracy in the American States.” In Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States, eds. BowlerShaunDonovanToddTolbertCaroline J.. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
11.
DruckmanJames N.2001. “On the Limits of Framing Effects: Who Can Frame?” Journal of Politics63: 1041–66.
12.
FlaniganWilliam H.ZingaleNancy H.. 2006. Political Behavior and the American Electorate. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
13.
GerberElisabeth R.1999. The Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct Legislation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
14.
GerberElisabeth R.PhillipsJustin H.. 2003. “Development Ballot Measures, Interest Group Endorsements, and the Political Geography of Growth Preferences.” American Journal of Political Science47: 625–39.
15.
GreenDonaldKrasnoJonathan. 1988. “Salvation for the Spendthrift Incumbent: Reestimating the Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science32: 884–907.
16.
“Growth Advice, Dallas Style.”2000. Charlotte Observer, 19 May, 1D.
17.
GrunwaldMichael. 1998. “Even Bronco Fans May Buck Plea for Tax-Funded Stadium,” Boston Globe, 16 March, A1.
IyengarShantoKinderDonald R.. 1987. News That Matters: Television and American Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
20.
JacobsonGary. 1990. “The Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections: New Evidence for Old Arguments.” American Journal of Political Science34: 334–62.
21.
KarpJeffrey A.1998. “The Influence of Elite Endorsements in Initiative Campaigns.” In Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States, eds. BowlerShaunDonovanToddTolbertCaroline J.. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
22.
KingGaryHonakerJamesJosephAnneScheveKenneth. 2001. “Analyzing Incomplete Political Science Data: An Alternative Algorithm for Multiple Imputation.” American Political Science Review95: 49–69.
23.
KuklinskiJames H.HurleyNorman L.. 1994. “On Hearing and Interpreting Political Messages: A Cautionary Tale of Citizen Cue-Taking.” Journal of Politics56: 729–51.
24.
LauRichard R.RedlawskDavid P.. 2001. “Advantages and Disadvantages of Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision Making.” American Journal of Political Science45: 951–71.
25.
LowensteinDaniel H.1982. “Campaign Spending and Ballot Propositions: Recent Experience, Public Choice Theory, and the First Amendment.” UCLA Law Review29: 505–641.
26.
LupiaArthur. 1994. “Shortcuts versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections.” American Political Science Review88: 63–76.
27.
LupiaArthurMcCubbinsMathew D.. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know?Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
MaglebyDavid B.1984. Direct Legislation: Voting on Ballot Propositions in the United States. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
30.
MondakJeffrey. 1993. “Source Cues and Policy Approval: The Cognitive Dynamics of Public Support for the Reagan Agenda.” American Journal of Political Science37: 186–212.
31.
NelsonThomas E.OxleyZoe M.. 1999. “Issue Framing Effects on Belief Importance and Opinion.” Journal of Politics61: 1040–67.
32.
NicholsonStephen P.2003. “The Political Environment and Ballot Proposition Awareness.” American Journal of Political Science47: 403–10.
33.
PaulDavid M.2001. “The Politics of Persuasion: Testing the Power of Local Elites.” Ph.D. diss. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
34.
PaulDavid M.BrownClyde. 2001. “Testing the Limits of Elite Influence on Public Opinion: An Examination of Sports Facility Referendums.” Political Research Quarterly54: 871–88.
35.
NewswirePR. 1995. “Most Americans Oppose Public Funding of Stadiums, WJBK TV2 Poll Finds.” PR Newswire Financial News, October 1. Accessed via Lexis/Nexis Academic.
36.
RobinsonLynnGorenPaul. 1997. “Religious Conservative Elites as Source Cues.” Social Science Quarterly78: 223–33.
37.
SmithMark A.2001. “The Contingent Effects of Ballot Initiatives and Candidate Races on Turnout.” American Journal of Political Science45: 700–6.
38.
WeissmanDan. 1987. “Baseball Bond Boosters See Major League Lift for State Image, Economy,” Star-Ledger (Newark, NJ), 25 October, A15.
