Appearances of elected officials on cable news have become a regular feature of American politics. Do candidates going on cable news see a subsequent bump in fundraising? We evaluate all television appearances for every major party candidate running for the House from 2009–2020 on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News. We match these with FEC records of every individual campaign contribution made during the same period. We find evidence that candidates who appear on cable news do see a spike in fundraising on the day of the appearance. We find incumbents raise more money from in-state donors while nonincumbents see a bump from out-of-state donors. Also, this money comes more from appearances in primetime slots, not daytime appearances. Given that candidates see a bump in fundraising for TV appearances, it remains likely that this facet of American politics will persist.
AbramowitzA. I.AlexanderB.GunningM. (2006). Incumbency, redistricting, and the decline of competition in U.S. House elections. The Journal of Politics, 68(1), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00371.x
2.
AmlaniS.AlgaraC. (2021). Partisanship and nationalization in American elections: Evidence from presidential, senatorial, and gubernatorial elections in the U.S. Counties, 1872–2020. Electoral Studies, 73, 102387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2021.102387
3.
AnsolabehereS.SnyderJ. M.StewartC. (2001). Candidate positioning in U.S. House elections. American Journal of Political Science, 45(1), 136–159. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669364
BarberM. J. (2016). Ideological donors, contribution limits, and the polarization of American legislatures. The Journal of Politics, 78(1), 296–310. https://doi.org/10.1086/683453
6.
BornR. (2008). National forces and the US House vote, 1980-2004: The uncertain progress of nationalization Congress and the presidency: A journal of capital studies (pp. 87–103). Taylor and Francis.
7.
BrownC.PowellL.WilcoxC. (1995). Serious money: Fundraising and contributing in presidential nomination campaigns. Cambridge University Press.
8.
CarsonJ. L.SievertJ.WilliamsonR. D. (2020). Nationalization and the incumbency advantage. Political Research Quarterly, 73(1), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912919883696
9.
CaugheyD.DunhamJ.WarshawC. (2018). The ideological nationalization of partisan subconstituencies in the American states. Public Choice, 176(1–2), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-018-0543-3
10.
ChiangC. F.KnightB. (2011). Media bias and influence: Evidence from newspaper endorsements. The Review of Economic Studies, 78(3), 795–820. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdq037
11.
ClintonJ. D.EnamoradoT. (2014). The national news media’s effect on congress: How Fox news affected elites in congress. The Journal of Politics, 76(4), 928–943. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381614000425
12.
de Benedictis-KessnerJ.WarshawC. (2020). Politics in forgotten governments: The partisan composition of county legislatures and county fiscal policies. The Journal of Politics, 82(2), 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1086/706458
13.
DempseyS.SukJ.CramerK. J.FriedlandL. A.WagnerM. W.ShahD. V. (2021). Understanding Trump supporters’ news use: Beyond the Fox news bubble. The Forum, 18(3), 319–346. https://doi.org/10.1515/for-2020-2012
14.
FranciaP. L. (2018). Free media and twitter in the 2016 presidential election: The unconventional campaign of Donald Trump. Social Science Computer Review, 36(4), 440–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439317730302
15.
FranciaP.GreenJ.HerrnsonP.PowellL.WilcoxC. (2003). The financiers of congressional elections the Financiers of congressional elections: Investors, ideologues, and intimates. Columbia University Press. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.7312/fran11618/html
16.
GerberA. S.GimpelJ. G.GreenD. P.ShawD. R. (2011). How large and long-lasting are the persuasive effects of televised campaign ads? Results from a randomized field experiment. American Political Science Review, 105(1), 135–150. https://doi.org/10.1017/s000305541000047x
17.
GimpelJ. G.LeeF. E.KaminskiJ. (2006). The political geography of campaign contributions in American politics. The Journal of Politics, 68(3), 626–639. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00450.x
18.
GimpelJ. G.LeeF. E.Pearson-MerkowitzS. (2008). The check is in the mail: Interdistrict funding flows in congressional elections. American Journal of Political Science, 52(2), 373–394. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00318.x
19.
GroenendykE. (2018). Competing motives in a polarized electorate: Political responsiveness, identity defensiveness, and the rise of partisan antipathy. Political Psychology, 39(S1), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12481
20.
GroenendykE.SancesM. W.ZhirkovK. (2020). Intraparty polarization in American politics. The Journal of Politics, 82(4), 1616–1620. https://doi.org/10.1086/708780
21.
HeersinkB.NapolioN. G.PetersonJ. C. (2021). The mixed effects of candidate visits on campaign donations in the 2020 presidential election. American Politics Research.
22.
HerrnsonP. S.PanagopoulosC.BaileyK. L. (2019). Congressional elections: Campaigning at home and in Washington. CQ Press.
HopkinsD. J. (2018). The increasingly United States: How and why American political behavior nationalized. University of Chicago Press.
26.
HopkinsD. J.McDonald LaddJ. (2013). The consequences of broader media choice: Evidence from the expansion of Fox news. Social Science Research Network SSRN Scholarly Paper. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2070596
27.
HopkinsD. J.SchicklerE.AziziD. L. (2022). From many divides, one? The polarization and nationalization of American state party platforms, 1918–2017. Studies in American Political Development, 36(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0898588x22000013
28.
JacobsonG. C. (1978). The effects of campaign spending in congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 72(2), 469–491. https://doi.org/10.2307/1954105
29.
JacobsonG. C. (1989). Strategic politicians and the dynamics of U.S. House elections, 1946–86. American Political Science Review, 83(3), 773–793. https://doi.org/10.2307/1962060
30.
JacobsonG. C.CarsonJ. L. (2019). The politics of congressional elections. Rowman and Littlefield.
31.
KimE.LelkesY.McCrainJ. (2022). Measuring dynamic media bias. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 119(32), Article e2202197119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2202197119
32.
KlarS.KrupnikovY. (2016). Independent politics. Cambridge University Press.
33.
KlarS.KrupnikovY.RyanJ. B. (2018). Affective polarization or partisan disdain?: Untangling a dislike for the opposing party from a dislike of partisanship. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(2), 379–390. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfy014
34.
LevenduskyM.MalhotraN. (2016). Does media coverage of partisan polarization affect political attitudes?Political Communication, 33(2), 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2015.1038455
35.
LevenduskyM. S. (2022). How does local TV news change viewers’ attitudes? The case of Sinclair broadcasting. Political Communication, 39(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2021.1901807
MartinG. J.YurukogluA. (2017). Bias in cable news: Persuasion and polarization. American Economic Review, 107(9), 2565–2599. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20160812
38.
MatthewsC. (1999). Hardball: How politics is played told by one who knows the game. Simon and Schuster.
39.
MoskowitzD. J. (2021). Local news, information, and the nationalization of U.S. Elections. American Political Science Review, 115(1), 114–129. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055420000829
40.
MutzD. C. (2006). Hearing the other sideTheory and in Practice.
41.
PadgettJ.DunawayJ. L.DarrJ. P. (2019). As seen on TV? How gatekeeping makes the U.S. House seem more extreme. Journal of Communication, 69(6), 696–719. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz039
42.
PetersonE. (2021). Not dead yet: Political learning from newspapers in a changing media landscape. Political Behavior, 43(1), 339–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09556-7
43.
PriorM. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. Cambridge University Press.
44.
RogersS. (2016). National forces in state legislative elections. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 667(1), 207–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716216662454
45.
RogersS. (2017). Electoral accountability for state legislative roll calls and ideological representation. American Political Science Review, 111(3), 555–571. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055417000156
46.
ShawD. R. (1999). The effect of TV ads and candidate appearances on statewide presidential votes, 1988–96. American Political Science Review, 93(2), 345–361. https://doi.org/10.2307/2585400
47.
SidesJ.TeslerM.LynnV. (2019). Identity crisis identity crisis: The 2016 presidential Campaign and the Battle for the Meaning of America. Princeton University Press.
TrusslerM. (2021). Get information or get in formation: The effects of high-information environments on legislative elections. British Journal of Political Science, 51(4), 1529–1549. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123419000577
51.
TrusslerM. (2022). The effects of high-information environments on legislative behavior in the US House of representatives. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 47(1), 95–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12325
