Does complete public financing of campaigns enhance electoral competition? Arizona and Maine implemented similar clean elections programs for state-level races in 2000, providing an opportunity to examine the consequences of public financing. Employing two measures of competitiveness, I find that clean elections programs in both states significantly increased competition in districts where challengers accepted public funding. These findings suggest that public monies do not simply attract low-quality challengers and that access to campaign funds is an important determinant of competitiveness. As a result, while public financing programs are not panaceas for uncompetitive elections, such programs can enhance competition in races where money is accepted.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdelmanM.A.1969. “Comment on the ‘H’ Concentration Measure as a Numbers-Equivalent.” The Review of Economics and Statistics51: 99–101.
AlfordJohn R.HibbingJohn R.. 1981. “Increased Incumbency Advantage in the House.” The Journal of Politics43: 1042–61.
4.
BaronDavid P.1994. “Electoral Competition with Informed and Uninformed Voters.” American Political Science Review88: 33–47
5.
BeckNathanielKatzJonathan N.. 1995. “What to do (and not to do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data.” American Political Science Review89: 634–47.
6.
BreuschT.S.Paganand A.R.. 1979. “A Simple Test for Heteroskedasticity and Random Coeffcient Variation.” Econometrica47: 1287–94.
7.
CainBruce E.FerejohnJohn A.FiorinaMorris P.. 1987. The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8.
CareyJohn M.NiemiRichard G.PowellLynda W.. 2000. “Incumbency and the Probability of Reelection in State Legislative Elections.” The Journal of Politics62: 671–700.
CohenAyala. 1983. “Comparing Regression Coefficients Across Subsamples: A Study of the Statistical Test.” Sociological Methods and Research12: 77–94.
13.
CoxGary W.MorgensternScott. 1993. “The Increasing Advantage of Incumbency in the U.S. States.” Legislative Studies Quarterly18: 495–514.
14.
CoxGary W.MorgensternScott. 1995. “The Incumbency Advantage in Multi-Member Districts: Evidence from the U.S. States.” Legislative Studies Quarterly20: 329–50.
DonnayPatrick D.RamsdenGraham P.. 1995. “Public Financing of Legislative Elections: Lessons from Minnesota.” Legislative Studies Quarterly20: 351–64.
17.
FoxJohn. 1997. Applied Regression Analysis, Linear Models, and Related Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18.
FranciaPeter L.HerrnsonPaul S.. 2003. “The Impact of Public Finance Laws on Fundraising in State Legislative Elections.” American Politics Research31: 520–39.
19.
GelmanAndrewKingGary. 1990. “Estimating Incumbency Advantage without Bias.” American Journal of Political Science34: 1142–64.
20.
GordonSanford C.HuberGregory A.LandaDimitri. 2007. “Challenger Entry and Voter Learning.” American Political Science Review101: 303–20.
21.
Government Accountability Office.2003. Campaign Finance Reform: Early Experiences of Two States that Offer Full Public Funding for Political Candidates. GAO-03-435. Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office.
22.
GreenDonald P.KrasnoJonathan S.. 1988. “Salvation for the Spendthrift Incumbent: Reestimating the Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science32: 884–907.
23.
GrossDonald A.GoidelRobert K.ShieldsTodd G.. 2002. “State Campaign Finance Regulations and Electoral Competition.” American Politics Research30: 143–65.
24.
HausmanJ.A.1978. “Specification Tests in Econometrics.” Econometrica46: 1251–71.
25.
HoganRobert E.2004. “Challenger Emergence, Incumbent Success, and Electoral Accountability in State Legislative Elections.” The Journal of Politics66: 1283–303.
26.
HolbrookThomas M.TidmarchCharles M.. 1991. “Sophomore Surge in State Legislative Elections, 1968-1986.” Legislative Studies Quarterly16: 49–63.
JacobsonGary C.1978. “The Effects of Campaign Spending in Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review72: 469–91.
30.
JacobsonGary C.1990. “The Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections: New Evidence for Old Arguments.” American Journal of Political Science34: 334–62.
31.
JacobsonGary CKernellSamuel. 1983. Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
32.
KingGary. 1991. “Constituency Service and Incumbency Advantage.” British Journal of Political Science21: 119–28.
33.
KingGaryGelmanAndrew. 1991. “Systematic Consequences of Incumbency Advantage in U.S. House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science35: 110–38.
34.
KrasnoJonathan S.GreenDonald P.. 1988. “Preempting Quality Challengers in House Elections.” The Journal of Politics50: 920–36.
35.
LevittSteven D.1994. “Using Repeat Challengers to Estimate the Effect of Campaign Spending On Election Outcomes in the U.S. House.” Journal of Political Economy102: 777–98.
36.
LevittSteven D.SnyderJames M.. 1997. “The Impact of Federal Spending on House Election Outcomes.” Journal of Political Economy105: 30–53.
Maine Department of the Secretary of State.2006. Returns from Previous Elections. www.maine.gov/sos (March 28, 2008).
39.
MayerKenneth R.WoodJohn M.. 1995. “The Impact of Public Financing on Electoral Competitiveness: Evidence from Wisconsin, 1964-1990.” Legislative Studies Quarterly20: 69–88.
40.
MayerKenneth R.WernerTimothyWilliamsAmanda. 2006. Do Public Funding Programs Enhance Electoral Competition? In The Marketplace of Democracy: Electoral Competition and American Politics, eds. McDonaldMichael P.SamplesJohn. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
PerssonTorsten. 2004. “Consequences of Constitutions.” Journal of the European Economic Association2: 139–61.
43.
SanchezS.2001. First Returns on a Campaign Finance Reform Experiment: Maine, Arizona, and Full Public Funding. The National Institute on Money in State Politics. www.followthemoney.org (March 28, 2008).
44.
TaageperaReinShugartMatthew S.. 1989. Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
45.
WandJonathanMebaneWalter. 1999. “The Dynamics of Campaign Contributions in U.S. House Elections.” Paper presented at the 1999 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.
46.
WhiteHalbert. 1980. “A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity.” Econometrica48: 817–38.
47.
WooldridgeJeffrey M.2002. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
