Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-18T07:56:44.361Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Estimating the Effect of Campaign Spending on Senate Election Outcomes Using Instrumental Variables

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Alan Gerber*
Affiliation:
Yale University

Abstract

To examine the traditional view that challenger spending is more effective than incumbent spending, I reestimate the effects of spending using instrumental variables that affect a candidate's ability to raise campaign funds, such as candidate wealth levels. When the endogeneity of candidate spending levels is properly taken into account, the marginal effects of incumbent and challenger spending are roughly equal. In contrast to previous research showing that, because of higher marginal returns to challenger spending, the incumbent's spending advantage cannot explain high incumbent reelection rates, this article shows that in an average Senate election the incumbent's spending advantage yields a 6% increase in the incumbent's vote share. That incumbent spending wins elections has direct implications regarding the consequences of campaign finance reform. My findings imply that equalizing spending levels may significantly increase incumbent defeat rates, and caps on candidate spending may improve the chances of challengers.

Type
Research Notes
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abramowitz, Alan. 1988. “Explaining Senate Election Outcomes.” American Political Science Review 82(June):385403.Google Scholar
Abramowitz, Alan. 1991. “Incumbency, Campaign Spending, and the Decline of Competition in the U.S. House.” Journal of Politics 53(February):3457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, 1990. “Winning Is Easy, but It Sure Ain't Cheap.” University of California at Los Angeles. Typescript.Google Scholar
Bianco, William T. 1984. “Strategic Decisions on Candidacy in U.S. Congressional Districts.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 9(May):351–64.Google Scholar
Born, Richard. 1986. “Strategic Politicians and Unresponsive Voters.” American Political Science Review 80(June):599612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory, and Patterson, Samuel. 1982. “Bringing Home the Votes: Electoral Outcomes in State Legislative Races.” Political Behavior 4(1):3367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert, and Palfrey, Thomas. 1992. “The Puzzle of Incumbent Spending in Congressional Elections.” University of Houston. Typescript.Google Scholar
Gerber, Alan. 1993. “Campaign Spending and Senate Election Outcomes.” Chapter 1, Ph.D. diss. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Giertz, J. Fred, and Sullivan, Dennis. 1977. “Campaign Expenditures and Election Outcomes: A Critical Note.” Public Choice 31(Fall):157–62.Google Scholar
Glantz, Stanton, Abramowitz, Alan, and Burkhart, Michael. 1976. “Election Outcomes: Whose Money Matters?Journal of Politics 38(November):1033–8.Google Scholar
Green, Donald, and Krasno, Jonathan. 1988. “Salvation for the Spendthrift Incumbent: Reestimating the Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 32(November):884907.Google Scholar
Grier, Kevin. 1989. “Campaign Spending and Senate Elections, 1978–1984.” Public Choice 63(December):201–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, J. A. 1983. “Specification and Estimation of Simultaneous Models.” In Handbook of Econometrics, vol. 1. ed Griliches, Z and Intriligator, Michael. Pp. 391448.Google Scholar
Hibbing, John, and Brandes, Sara. 1983. “State Population size and U.S. Senate Elections, 1958–1986.” American Journal of Political Science 27(November):808–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinich, Melvin, and Munger, Michael. 1989. “Political Investment, Voter Perceptions, and Candidate Strategy: An Equilibrium Spatial Analysis.” In Models of Strategic Choice in Politics, ed. Ordeshook, Peter. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary. 1978. “The Effects of Campaign Spending in Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 72(June):469–91.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary. 1980. Money in Congressional Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary. 1985. “Money and Votes Reconsidered: Congressional Elections, 1972–1982.” Public Choice 47(1):762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary. 1990. “The Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections: New Evidence for Old Arguments.” American Journal of Political Science 34(May):334–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary, and Kernell, Samuel. 1981. Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Kenny, Christopher, and McBurnett, Michael. 1992. “A Dynamic Model of the Effect of Campaign Spending on Congressional Vote Choice.” American Journal of Political Science 36(November):923–37.Google Scholar
Kenny, Christopher, and McBurnett, Michael. 1994. “An Individual Level Multiequation Model of Expenditure Effects in Contested House Elections.” American Political Science Review 88(September):699710.Google Scholar
Krasno, Jonathan S. 1994. Challengers, Competition, and Reelection: Comparing Senate and House Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Levitt, Steven. 1994. “Using Repeat Challengers to Estimate the Effect of Campaign Spending on Election Outcomes in the U.S. House.” Journal of Political Economy 102(August):777–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lott, William, and Warner, P. D.. 1974. “The Relative Importance of Campaign Expenditures: An application of Production Theory.” Quality and Quantity 8(1):99105.Google Scholar
Mann, Thomas, and Wolfinger, Raymond. 1980. “Candidate and Parties in Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 74(September):617–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, Peverill. 1991. “Preemptive Fundraising and Challenger Profile in Senate Elections.” Journal of Politics 53(November):1150–64.Google Scholar
Shepard, Lawrence. 1977. “Does Campaign Spending Really Matter?Public Opinion Quarterly 41(Summer):196205.Google Scholar
Silberman, Jonathan, and Yochum, Gilbert. 1978. “The Role of Money in Determining Election Outcomes.” Social Science Quarterly 58(March):671–82.Google Scholar
Sorauf, Frank J. 1992. Inside Campaign Finance, Myths and Realities. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Snyder, James. 1989. “The Market for Campaign Contributions: Evidence for the U.S. Senate, 1980–1986.” Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Typescript.Google Scholar
Snyder, James. 1990. “Campaign Contributions as Investments: The U.S. House of Representatives, 1980–1986.” Journal of Political Economy 98(December):1195–227.Google Scholar
Stewart, Charles. 1989. “A Sequential Model of Senate Elections.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 14(November):567601.Google Scholar
Thomas, Scott. 1989. “Do Incumbent Campaign Expenditures Matter?Journal of Politics 51(November):965–75.Google Scholar
Welch, William. 1974. “The Economics of Campaign Funds.” Public Choice 20(Winter):8397.Google Scholar
Westlye, Mark. 1991. Senate Elections and Campaign Intensity. Baltimore: Johns-Hopkins.Google Scholar
White, Halbert. 1980. “A Heteroscedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroscedasticity.” Econometrica 48(May):817–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Gerald, Robert, Erikson, and Mclver, John. 1985. “Measuring State Partisanship and Ideology with Survey Data.” Journal of Politics 47(May):479–89.Google Scholar