When Do Voters Respond to Campaign Finance Disclosure? Evidence from Multiple Election Types

In recent American elections political candidates have actively emphasized features of their fundraising profiles when campaigning. Yet, surprisingly, we know comparatively little about how financial information affects vote choice specifically, whether effects differ across types of election, and how robust any effects are to other relevant political signals. Using a series of conjoint experiment designs, I compare the effects of campaigns’ financial profiles on vote choice across direct democratic and representative elections, randomizing subjects’ exposure to additional political cues. I find that while the financial profile of candidates can affect vote choice, these effects are drowned out by non-financial signals. In ballot initiative races, the explicit policy focus of the election appears to swamp any effect of financial information. This paper is the first to explore the comparative effects of financial disclosure across election type, contributing to our understanding of how different heuristics interact across electoral contexts.

How Much To Ask? Platforms, Parties, and Suggested Amounts in Political Fundraising

How much do political campaigns ask for contributions, and how do they vary by electoral characteristics and fundraising environments? When soliciting donations, campaigns typically present a set of suggested amounts to procure more money from potential donors. However, we know almost nothing about how campaigns make these demand-side choices. This paper builds benchmark observations and analyzes how political parties and fundraising platforms shape these decisions, using data collected from U.S. federal candidates and fundraising platforms in 2020. Candidates' average suggested amounts differ by party, state-level average income, and fundraising platforms. Ideologically extreme candidates did not solicit smaller dollars, and if anything, the opposite was documented. In addition, the representative digital fundraising platforms by party---ActBlue for Democrats, WinRed for Republicans---could influence campaign tactics such as effective, top-down adjustment for increased contribution limits. I conclude that platforms can be important, active players in the campaign finance ecosystem.

Study protocol: Assessing the association between corporate political influence and implementation of policies to tackle commercial determinants of non-communicable diseases: a cross-sectional analysis of 172 countries

Objectives: To assess the association between corporate political influence and implementation of WHO-recommended policies to constrain sales, marketing and consumption of tobacco, alcohol, and unhealthy foods. Design: Cross-sectional analysis using national datasets from 2015, 2017, and 2020. Setting: Global analysis of data from 172 of the 194 WHO Member States Main outcome measures: We will use random effects multivariate regression to test the association between implementation status of 12 WHO-recommended tobacco, alcohol, and diet policies and corporate political influence, a metric that combines disclosure of campaign donations, public campaign finance, corporate campaign donations, legislature corrupt activities, disclosure by politicians, and executive oversight. We will control for GDP per capita, population aged >65 years, urbanization, level of democracy, continent, ethno-linguistic fractionalization, legal origin, Small Island Developing States, and Muslim population (to capture alcohol policy differences). We will include year dummies to address the possibility of a spurious relationship between the outcome variable and the independent variables of interests. For example, there may be an upward global trend in policy implementation that coincides with an upward global trend in in the regulation of lobbying and campaign finance. Ethics and dissemination: As this study uses publicly available data, ethics approval is not required. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Findings will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication in the academic literature. All data, code, and syntax will be made publicly available on GitHub.

Campaign finance vouchers do not reduce donor inequality

Donating to a campaign is inherently costly, and as a result, the composition of campaign donors differs from the composition of the electorate. What happens when the financial barriers to participation in campaign finance are removed? This paper analyzes Seattle's recent campaign finance reforms, where all registered voters receive four $25 vouchers to donate to candidates abiding by stricter campaign finance restrictions. Utilizing individual- and census block group-level data combined with administrative donation records, I find that those most mobilized by the availability of vouchers belong to groups already overrepresented within the donor pool. In many cases, the availability of vouchers appears to pull the donor pool even further from parity within the electorate. This finding is significant across race, income, past political participation, age, and partisanship.

Identity in Campaign Finance and Elections: The Impact of Gender and Race on Money Raised in 2010–2018 U.S. House Elections

Disproportionate rates of congressional representation based on gender and race are especially stark considering the symbolic and substantive meaning derived from descriptive representation (Mansbridge 1999). Using an original data set consisting of candidate demographics, district characteristics, and campaign finance reports, we analyze an understudied barrier to representation: unequal access to campaign receipts. We argue that it is the simultaneous gendering and racialization of the campaign finance system that produces gaps in campaign fundraising and representation (Crenshaw 1989). Our results underscore the limitations of unitary approaches which conclude that women no longer face a disadvantage in campaign fundraising. Unequal access to campaign receipts serve as a barrier to the descriptive representation of women of color. By analyzing the interaction of both race and gender on campaign receipt totals in U.S. House elections from 2010 to 2018, we assert the path to representation is not equal for all.