Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Not buying, or boycotting, is a long standing tradition in consumer activism. While many boycotts have been directed at specific corporations or industries (Cohen 2003; Friedman 1985; Garrett 1987; Kozinets & Handelman 2004; Smith 1990) there are some that have been more general. Buy Nothing Day, for example, has become an annual celebration for numerous people around the world. Different from previous boycotts, it has taken the very idea of unchecked consumerism as its target. How then does Buy Nothing Day fit into this history of consumer activism? This question is addressed by looking at websites and videos from BND activists as well as press coverage globally and historically.
This paper looks at BND by way of three elements: (1) modes of protest, (2) stated message(s), and (3) intended target. The mode includes the kinds of protests held on BND as well as media produced. The message includes reasons given by activists for participating and proclamations made to their audience. Finally, the intended target is understood as the audience or the primary site where change is expected to occur. While the mode of BND is similar to other consumerism activism, its messages and target are very different. Unlike previous decades’ consumer activism, it is focused on encouraging change in individuals not institutions. Through this analysis Buy Nothing Day is shown to be highly tied to niche marketing practices (Turow 2006).

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: We identify characteristics of the two types of socially responsible consumers (boycotters and boycotters) and examine how they think about big business, brand values, advertising, and advertising ethics. Our analysis of 2004-2005 national consumer panel data reveals that SRCs share personal traits and support restricting unethical advertising. But consumers who engage in these SRCBs show dissimilar levels of belief in brand values and cynicism about big business and advertising.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Anyone running for an elected office knows the importance of campaign contributions—a resource that can potentially be translated into votes (Mayhew 1974). A great deal of research on contributions in elections has focused on one of two topics: the effect of campaign spending on electoral outcomes, or the effect of campaign contributions on voting decisions. This is true at both the federal (Green and Krasno 1988) and state levels (Caldeira and Patterson 1982). However, virtually no research has comparatively examined the effects of campaign contributions on different types of elections._x000d_This research seeks to answer the question of whether there a difference between the ways in which campaign contributions affect judicial versus legislative races at the state level? Using an original data set of races in 16 states, I find that not only is there a significant difference in the amount of contributions received by candidates, but contributions are also found to be more significant in legislative elections than judicial. While this may be surprising due to the contextual factors of the races, I argue this is possibly a reflection of the way in which constituents view the function of legislators versus judges.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In many countries political parties distribute particularistic benefits to individuals in order to win elections. The existing literature suggests that parties can choose among numerous different strategies when distributing benefits, but does not explain why parties might choose one strategy over another. This paper presents a formal model that provides insights into how parties allocate resources across strategies. Most studies focus exclusively on "vote buying," a strategy by which parties pay opposing or indifferent voters to switch their votes. The basic setup of our model shows how parties tradeoff between "vote buying" and "turnout buying," a strategy by which parties target nonvoting supporters (Nichter 2008). However, we also argue that "vote buying" and "turnout buying" fail to explain the full range of strategies observed. Thus, we extend our model to show how parties trade off between "vote buying," "turnout buying" and other observed strategies. To explore the comparative statics from our model, we also provide qualitative evidence from developing countries.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Japan’s new electoral system for the Lower House eliminated the necessity of intraparty competition at the election stage, which many political reformers and scholars hope will make money less necessary to “buy” votes. In addition, new campaign finance regulations were adopted to make the flow of money more transparent. However, elections may not have become any less expensive because candidates appear to be spending considerable sums to boost their vote shares in the single-member districts. For this reason, money and votes should be positively correlated in Japan’s new system. In this paper, I examine the empirical relationship between campaign spending and vote shares for politicians in the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ). I uncover a strong and positive correlation between candidates’ expenditures and vote shares, which underscores the continued importance of money for election campaigns in Japan’s Lower House.