 |
Campaign Finance in Municipal Elections: Evidence from Three Cities
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
2
Other research has looked at who contributes to local campaigns. Krebs and
Pellisero (2001; also see Hogan and Simpson 2001) compared the fundraising coalitions of Harold Washington and Richard Daley in Chicago, and found that both mayoral candidates relied on different sources for their campaign funds, reflecting differences in the composition of their governing regimes. Strachan (2003), in her study of small cities, argues that the cost of elections in these cities has increased (due to more sophisticated campaigning strategies), reducing the ability of citizens to make meaningful contributions to political campaigns. While candidates in these cities still rely primarily on small contributions from individuals, they are increasingly relying on interest group contributions to fund their campaigns.
Arrington and Ingalls (1984) argued that contributions are aligned by race (e.g.
Black contributors tend to give to Black candidates), and in a later study (Ingalls and Arrington 1991) found that female candidates have smaller average contribution sizes and collected a greater proportion of their funds from women. These studies, however, are limited by their focus on one city (Charlotte, North Carolina) and are now somewhat dated. Further research exploring the role of race and gender in campaign fundraising on the local level has not been conducted.
A second line of research explores the factors that influence the success of a
candidacy. Krebs (1998) found that incumbency, fundraising, and party support are all important variables in predicting candidate success. Lieske (1989) has argued that a candidate’s political following, resources, civic endorsements and personal achievements are all relevant for predicting candidate success. One conclusion from these studies is that the factors influencing candidate success at the local level are not much different than at the state or national level.
In sum, the research on campaign fundraising in local elections has pursued a few
key questions: fundraising patterns, who contributes, and what it takes to win. There are many gaps, however, in our understanding of these issues. The goal of this paper is to help fill one particular gap: the relationship between campaign finance and electoral success.
The Data
This paper is based on elections in three cities: Los Angeles, San Francisco, and
Seattle. Table 1 identifies the elections covered and provides general information on each city. The data we include for Los Angeles extends from 1993 to 2003 (a total of eight primary elections and eight runoff elections); for San Francisco we evaluate data from 1998, 2000, and 2002 election cycles only (one at-large election, two primaries, two runoffs); for Seattle, elections held 1997 to 2003 (four primaries, four runoffs) for a total of 447 cases. We acquired campaign finance data from the Ethics Commission in each city (all three maintain electronic databases of campaign finance activity). The data includes all itemized contributions to city candidates, including the name, address, occupation, and employer of the contributor, the date and amount of the contribution, and
|
| | Authors: Van Vechten, Renee. and Adams, Brian. |
|
| |
|
|
2
Other research has looked at who contributes to local campaigns. Krebs and
Pellisero (2001; also see Hogan and Simpson 2001) compared the fundraising coalitions
of Harold Washington and Richard Daley in Chicago, and found that both mayoral
candidates relied on different sources for their campaign funds, reflecting differences in
the composition of their governing regimes. Strachan (2003), in her study of small cities,
argues that the cost of elections in these cities has increased (due to more sophisticated
campaigning strategies), reducing the ability of citizens to make meaningful contributions
to political campaigns. While candidates in these cities still rely primarily on small
contributions from individuals, they are increasingly relying on interest group
contributions to fund their campaigns.
Arrington and Ingalls (1984) argued that contributions are aligned by race (e.g.
Black contributors tend to give to Black candidates), and in a later study (Ingalls and
Arrington 1991) found that female candidates have smaller average contribution sizes
and collected a greater proportion of their funds from women. These studies, however,
are limited by their focus on one city (Charlotte, North Carolina) and are now somewhat
dated. Further research exploring the role of race and gender in campaign fundraising on
the local level has not been conducted.
A second line of research explores the factors that influence the success of a
candidacy. Krebs (1998) found that incumbency, fundraising, and party support are all
important variables in predicting candidate success. Lieske (1989) has argued that a
candidate’s political following, resources, civic endorsements and personal achievements
are all relevant for predicting candidate success. One conclusion from these studies is
that the factors influencing candidate success at the local level are not much different
than at the state or national level.
In sum, the research on campaign fundraising in local elections has pursued a few
key questions: fundraising patterns, who contributes, and what it takes to win. There are
many gaps, however, in our understanding of these issues. The goal of this paper is to
help fill one particular gap: the relationship between campaign finance and electoral
success.
The Data
This paper is based on elections in three cities: Los Angeles, San Francisco, and
Seattle. Table 1 identifies the elections covered and provides general information on
each city. The data we include for Los Angeles extends from 1993 to 2003 (a total of
eight primary elections and eight runoff elections); for San Francisco we evaluate data
from 1998, 2000, and 2002 election cycles only (one at-large election, two primaries, two
runoffs); for Seattle, elections held 1997 to 2003 (four primaries, four runoffs) for a total
of 447 cases. We acquired campaign finance data from the Ethics Commission in each
city (all three maintain electronic databases of campaign finance activity). The data
includes all itemized contributions to city candidates, including the name, address,
occupation, and employer of the contributor, the date and amount of the contribution, and
|
|
 Convention | | All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention. | | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. | | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! | | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! | | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. | | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! | | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
