Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5c569c448b-4wdfl Total loading time: 0.216 Render date: 2022-07-03T18:21:56.968Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Gaming Arizona: Public Money and Shifting Candidate Strategies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2008

Michael Miller
Affiliation:
Cornell University

Extract

Since public election financing was first implemented during the wave of post-Watergate reforms, the burning question has been, “does it work?” Evaluations of public financing have focused on its primary objectives, which are designed to address familiar grievances: Elections are too expensive and not competitive enough. Corporate PACs and other “special interests” contribute disproportionately to incumbents because they are interested in purchasing influence. Candidates must devote so much time to fundraising that little is left for other campaign tasks. Lost in these considerations, however, is the fact that mandated financial parity changes the strategic environment candidates function in, altering their decision making and potentially changing the nature of elections. As fully subsidized elections gain increasing ubiquity in the United States, reformers must decide whether this is a cost worth bearing.

Type
Features
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 2008

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

Cassie, William, and Breaux, David. 1998. “Expenditures and Election Results.” In Campaign Finance in State Legislative Elections, ed. Thompson, Joel and Moncrief, Gary. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, 99114.Google Scholar
Donnay, Patrick D., and Ramsden, Graham P.. 1995. “Public Financing of Legislative Elections: Lessons from Minnesota.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 20 (February): 351–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francia, Peter L., and Herrnson, Paul S.. 2003. “The Impact of Public Finance Laws on Fundraising in State Legislative Elections.” American Politics Research 31 (5): 520–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
General Accounting Office. 2003. Report to Congressional Committees. Campaign Finance Reform: Early Experiences of Two States That Offer Full Public Funding for Political Candidates. Washington, D.C.: United States General Accounting Office.Google Scholar
Herrnson, Paul S. 2004. Congressional Elections: Campaigning at Home and in Washington. 4th ed.Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Howell, Susan E. 1982. “Campaign Activities and State Election Outcomes.” Political Behavior 4 (4): 401–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Ruth S., and Borris, Thomas J.. 1985. “Strategic Contributing in Legislative Campaigns: The Case of Minnesota.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 10 (February): 89105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraus, Jeffrey. 2006. “Campaign Finance Reform Reconsidered: New York City's Public Finance Program after Fifteen Years.” The Forum 3 (4): 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malbin, Michael, and Gais, Thomas. 1998. The Day After Reform: Sobering Campaign Finance Lessons From the American States. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute.Google Scholar
Mayer, Kenneth R., and Wood, John M.. 1995. “The Impact of Public Financing on Electoral Competitiveness: Evidence from Wisconsin, 1964–1990.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 20 (February): 6988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, Kenneth R., Werner, Timothy, and Williams, Amanda. 2006. “Do Funding Programs Enhance Electoral Competition?” In The Marketplace of Democracy: Electoral Competition and American Politics, ed. McDonald, Michael P. and Samples, John. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 245–67.Google Scholar
Schultz, David. 2002. “Special Interest Money in Minnesota State Politics.” In Money, Politics, and Campaign Finance Reform Law in the States, ed. Schultz, David. Durham: Carolina Press.Google Scholar
5
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Gaming Arizona: Public Money and Shifting Candidate Strategies
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Gaming Arizona: Public Money and Shifting Candidate Strategies
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Gaming Arizona: Public Money and Shifting Candidate Strategies
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *