1.1 Introduction
America’s campaign finance rules have been the subject of intense discussion; supporters claim that stricter limits are necessary to reduce money’s influence on the democratic process, while opponents claim such restrictions violate the right to free expression. Given the significant rise in the expense of running a successful campaign, more research is necessary to comprehend fully how campaign money shapes electoral competition (Kelly, 2012). This essay focuses on the effects of campaign financing laws on the competitiveness between young and established politicians in US elections. Therefore, the research hypothesis is that more stringent campaign finance restrictions, such as lower contribution and tighter spending limits, will reduce the number of new candidates running, particularly independent or third-party candidates. However, stricter campaign financing regulations won’t impact how competitive elections are between Democratic and Republican candidates. Relevant data will be gathered and analyzed using a quantitative research approach based on panel data regression analysis with a difference-in-differences methodology. The information collected for this study will be helpful in examining how campaign finance regulations impact political competition and entry in the US. It will also be crucial to analyze the impact of campaign finance limitations on the number of persons wanting to run for office and the level of competition in political contests. This topic tremendously aids in understanding the dynamics of electoral politics and the possible outcomes of measures to restrict campaign money. The results of this study will assist in drawing attention to potentially unintended consequences of well-meaning reforms intended to reduce the influence of private capital in politics. They also suggest that changes to campaign finance laws consider the effects on electoral access and diversity, both of which are essential to a healthy democracy. The paper’s methodology, study data, and literature evaluation are described in depth in the following parts.
1.2 Research Background
There has long been controversy over money’s influence on politics in the US. Due to increased private funding, many Americans think that special interests are prioritized over the general welfare regarding policymaking (Shepherd, 2008). Regulating political spending also affects the right to free expression. Campaign financing laws have been the subject of an ongoing discussion stoked by this tension. Although the general goal of changes is to reduce corruption and level the playing field for candidates, others contend that more stringent expenditure and fundraising regulations obstruct genuine political competition and participation.
The first significant campaign finance law was the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971, which established public financing, spending limitations, and disclosure requirements. However, statutory spending caps were declared illegal in the 1976 Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo, which equated political spending with free speech. However, FECA persisted in making systemic adjustments to campaign finance and expenditures (Lichtman, 2015). Later laws, such as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act 2002, increased contribution limits, restricted donations, and revised disclosure rules. Additionally, numerous states have passed their political money laws. Researchers have examined how these changing regulations affect competition, with varying degrees of success.
Although tighter campaign finance laws frequently aim to reduce money’s influence in elections and advance justice, extant evidence indicates unexpected outcomes. According to Briffault (2010), reforms shield incumbents against well-funded opponents. According to additional research, laws primarily hinder fundraising for independent candidates who still need an established donor base or access to party resources. Few stare at the direct effects of differing fundraising and expenditure regulations on rates of new candidate admission. Furthermore, although state and local governments make most of the decisions regarding campaign money, most previous research has focused on federal elections.
To close these gaps, this study will examine the causal effects on two important indices of political competition: the rate of new candidate entry and the margin of victory. The timing and strictness of campaign financing rules vary throughout states. Difference-in-differences regression analysis examines how tougher reforms impact the access of quality challengers and third-party candidates while accounting for concurrent changes in election laws, district demographics, and candidate attributes. Panel data on state house, state senate, and U.S. congressional elections from 1980 to 2018 are used for the analysis. Findings provide fresh perspectives on how funding and spending limitations affect accessibility in the early phases of political pipelines, when most policymakers initially appear, by concentrating on lower-level elections throughout several decades. The findings affect how money in politics is regulated in a way that balances free speech, justice, competition, and representation. Also, they contribute to meaningful discussions as the Supreme Court reviews its previous rulings on campaign funding.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
Campaign finance reform is one of American politics’s most hotly contested policy topics. According to supporters, regulations that limit political expenditure improve electoral integrity by lessening the impact of special interests and systemic corruption. According to critics such as Carpenter (2009), spending caps violate free expression rights and put challengers at a disadvantage when competing against incumbents with abundant. Similar disagreements persist in the empirical data regarding the effects of changes on diversity and competitiveness. This literature review summarizes research on how the United States patchwork laws governing campaign finance have affected necessary measures of electoral competition, such as the entry rates of new candidates and victory margins.
2.2 Theoretical Linkages Between Campaign Finance Regulations and Electoral Competition
Falguera et al. (2014) argue that most campaign finance laws in democracies are driven by the desire to uphold electoral systems’ responsiveness, encourage participation, limit consolidated power, and advance equity. The fundamental premise is that laws reduce inequality and distortion caused by money. Critics point out that such changes could have unforeseen effects by securing incumbent and political advantages. These divergent viewpoints draw attention to two theoretical connections between campaign finance regulations and electoral competition that call for empirical investigation: the degree to which the electoral field is available to new candidates and the intensity of rivalry amongst candidates once they are on the ballot.
2.3 New Candidate Emergence
Resource limits and entrance barriers are used in theoretical explanations of why more substantial restrictions may lower the rates of new candidates joining contests. As suggested by La Raja (2008), tighter regulations increase the cost of compliance while limiting the total amount of cash available by capping contributions and expenses. Due to their inexperience in fundraising, lack of donor contacts, and lack of party resources compared to incumbents and established candidates, these conditions present more significant obstacles for challengers. Because they need the infrastructure of major parties and an installed supporting base, the effect is exacerbated for independent and third-party candidates. Thus, research indicates that tighter campaign finance laws will immediately reduce the capability and incentives for new candidates to introduce their campaigns, limiting the entry rate, particularly for outsider candidates.
2.4 Electoral Competitiveness
Simultaneously, several theoretical frameworks generate conflicting conjectures regarding the impact of more stringent campaign funding regulations on the proximity of elections once contenders have joined the contest. According to Carpenter (2009), restrictions “level the playing field” between candidates and incumbents because they disproportionately benefit incumbents supported by notable interest organizations. That implies that more stringent regulations might boost competition amongst candidates from the major parties. On the other hand, because of inherent advantages in name recognition and structure, challengers need a more significant starting point of finance than incumbents to run a successful campaign. This perspective suggests minor expenditure limitations are more likely to favor incumbents and lessen electoral competition by disproportionately harming qualified challengers. Samuels (2003) refers to this tendency as “incumbent insulation.”
2.5 Empirical Scholarship and Remaining Gaps
As Mayer (2013) discussed, despite ongoing theoretical disagreements, stricter campaign funding laws reduce electoral competition in several ways, including incumbent reelection rates, challenger emergence, and the closeness of election results. Still, the majority of research focuses on federal elections. More studies that make use of state-level variance can assist in separating the effects of reforms. Furthermore, the interaction effects of several policy variables, such as contribution limitations against public financing choices, have yet to be extensively studied in previous studies. Therefore, updated analyses considering policy variation and interactions might offer more complex insights into how specific reform components influence political competition.
2.6 Incumbent Insulation
Tighter campaign funding laws have been shown through substantial empirical research to enhance incumbent reelection rates, particularly in congressional races. For instance, Stratmann & Aparicio-Castillo (2007) demonstrated the advantage of stricter contribution restrictions for incumbent candidates by analyzing individual and PAC contribution data over several election cycles. Barber (2016) discovered a similar correlation between higher incumbent success rates and lower state-level spending limitations. According to La Raja (2008), changes made in the 1990s and the first part of the 2000s increased incumbent margins by 5–10% points. When taken as a whole, these results provide credence to the “incumbent insulation” effect of stricter campaign money laws.
2.7 Depressed Challenger Entry Rates
According to other research, more stringent laws disproportionately prevent worthy competitors from emerging (Epstein and Zemsky 1995). Strict spending limitations and public financing lower the entry rates for skilled and well-funded competitors. Similarly, that does not affect the self-reported feasibility of a campaign; higher individual contribution restrictions dramatically reduced aspirants’ willingness to run using survey data from state legislative candidates between 2006 and 2008. These results validate theoretical predictions that the challengers with the most remarkable ability to mount competitive campaigns are disadvantaged by increased fundraising and expenditure constraints incorporated into more burdensome regulations.
2.8 Effects on Electoral Competitiveness
A smaller body of research uses the margin of victory as the outcome of interest to examine relationships between campaign financing rules and election closeness directly. The findings are still contradictory, while some research. Mayer & Wood (1995) finds that changes do not impact competitiveness; other studies demonstrate that public finance system improvements widen the margin of victory between candidates. Given that matching funds are one of the more recent policies intended to improve competitiveness, more research should be done on the relationship between expenditure limitations and public financing.
2.9 Conclusion
In conclusion, earlier research validates concerns that more stringent campaign financing laws can unintentionally lessen election competition by shielding incumbents and discouraging seasoned opponents. However, most research focuses on federal contests between 1980 and 2000 when there were significant differences in the regulatory environment. Updated evidence can be provided by further study that considers more recent state-level reforms. Moreover, analyzing certain aspects of regulations and examining how laws such as ceilings on spending, contribution limitations, and public financing interact can improve theoretical knowledge of the processes that promote or impede competition. Using panel data analysis on state and federal elections held since 2000, this study aims to close these gaps and offer fresh perspectives on how contemporary campaign funding laws affect winning margins and the development of quality challengers.
3. Research Design
This study uses a quantitative research approach to examine the hypothesis effectively. Estimating the causal impacts of stricter campaign financing laws will be easier using a panel data regression analysis with a difference-in-differences approach. The design will also help interpret the effects on the rates of new candidate entry and election closeness in state legislative and US congressional races throughout the previous ten years. The difference-in-differences approach takes advantage of variations in the timing and degree of restriction of changes to campaign finance laws among states (Johnson et al., 2015). It will, therefore assist in comparing trends in relevant outcome variables for treatment groups under more stringent regulatory regimes versus control groups in states with less strict regulations before and after reforms.
Candidates for state legislatures, state senates, and the U.S. House running in states with campaign laws with more stringent expenditure constraints, stricter contribution limitations, and the implementation of public financing systems throughout the sample period will be included in the treatment group. The control group will consist of candidates running in states with comparatively stable, less restrictive campaign financing laws throughout the same years (Salkind, 2010). Comparing pre- and post-reform trends between treatment and control states will be possible through multivariate panel regression, accounting for time-varying variables such as district demographics, election laws, and candidate qualities.
3.1 Measuring Variables
The rate at which new, “quality” challengers—well-funded, experienced contenders without a past elected office—emerge is one of the main outcome variables that capture electoral competitiveness. Another is the difference in votes between the front-runner and the back-runner. Indexes evaluating state campaign finance restrictiveness composite scores, which consider variables including contribution limitations, spending caps, and the availability of public financing choices over the sample period, are the main explanatory variables of interest. Control variables consider simultaneous changes in candidate attributes, election administration legislation, and district demography (Kariwala and Cao, 2013).
To approximate the causal implications of increasingly prohibitive fundraising and spending limits on entry and competition, the difference-in-differences methodology builds upon prior studies by utilizing cross-state heterogeneity in both the timing and intensity of campaign finance regulation changes. Subgroup analysis by political party, office type, and contributor class is improved by the extensive dataset that spans numerous election cycles and levels of office.
Multivariate modeling will analyze roughly 1,000 state-year data points or more than 180,000 candidates. Theoretically-based predictions indicate that more stringent campaign financing laws will result in fewer credible competitors and larger victory margins between contenders. Meanwhile, these consequences will likely be concentrated among candidates from minor parties. Alternative reform indices and matching techniques are examples of robustness checks.
3.2 Conclusion
This study aims to comprehend how campaign funding laws affect political rivalry and entry into the US. The findings will provide insight into how campaign finance regulations impact political participation and rivalry in the US, how campaign expenditure limitations influence individuals’ inclination to run for office, and how fierce political contests are. The findings of this study will also significantly improve our understanding of the dynamics of electoral politics and the possible consequences of measures to control campaign spending.
References
Barber, M. J. (2016). Ideological donors, contribution limits, and the polarization of American legislatures. The Journal of Politics, 78(1), 296-310.
Briffault, R. (2010). Campaign finance disclosure 2.0. Election Law Journal, 9(4), 273-303.
Carpenter, D. M. (2009). Mandatory disclosure for ballot-initiative campaigns. The Independent Review, 13(4), 567-583.
Carpenter, D. M. (2009). Mandatory disclosure for ballot-initiative campaigns. The Independent Review, 13(4), 567-583.
Epstein, D., & Zemsky, P. (1995). Money talks: Deterring quality challengers in congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 89(2), 295-308.
Johnson, J. B., Reynolds, H. T., & Mycoff, J. D. (2015). Political science research methods. Cq Press.
Kariwala, V., Ye, L., & Cao, Y. (2013). Branch and bound method for regression-based controlled variable selection. Computers & chemical engineering, 54, 1-7.
Kelly, K. S. (2012). Effective fund-raising management. Routledge.
La Raja, R. J. (2008). Small change: Money, political parties, and campaign finance reform. University of Michigan Press.
Lichtman, S. B. (2015). Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. The Encyclopedia of Civil Liberties in America, 26(347), 361.
Mayer, K. R. (2013, October). Public Election Funding: An Assessment of What We Would Like to Know. In The Forum (Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 365-384). De Gruyter.
Mayer, K. R., & Wood, J. M. (1995). The impact of public financing on electoral competitiveness: Evidence from Wisconsin, 1964-1990. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 69-88.
Ohman, M., Falguera, E., & Jones, S. (2014). Introduction to political finance. Funding of political parties and election campaigns: a handbook on political finance. Stockholm: Idea.
Salkind, N. J. (Ed.). (2010). Encyclopedia of research design (Vol. 1). sage.
Samuels, D. J., & Shugart, M. S. (2003). Presidentialism, elections and representation. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 15(1), 33-60.
Shepherd, J. M. (2008). Money, politics, and impartial justice. duke LJ, 58, 623.
Stratmann, T., & Aparicio-Castillo, F. J. (2007). Campaign finance reform and electoral competition: Comment. Public Choice, 133, 107-110.
write