Campaign Contribution Limits: No Harm To Challengers
2006-06-01
Executive Summary
Robust
electoral competition is one indicator of a healthy democracy.
Academics and practitioners have long debated the impact of campaign
contribution limits on election outcomes. In the context of high
incumbency rates at the federal level and in most states, advocates and
policymakers want to know if limits help or hurt challengers.A new
study by political scientists Kihong Eom and Donald A. Gross analyzes
contribution data for 57 gubernatorial election cycles from 1990 to
2000 in 41 states that have varying regulations on contributions to
political candidates. The central finding is that there is no support
for the notion that campaign contribution limits hurt challengers. If
anything, contribution limits can work to reduce the financial bias
that traditionally works in favor of incumbents.
Significant findings include:
•
Contribution limits do not increase the contribution bias in favor of
incumbents or increase the differences in fundraising among
gubernatorial candidates in general.
• Contribution limits do not increase disparities in campaign spending in favor of incumbents.
• Contribution limits benefit challengers by decreasing the ratio of
contributions made to incumbents versus challengers by policy-
oriented contributors – those most likely to seek legislative influence.
These contributors include corporations, labor unions, and political action
committees (PACs) affiliated with either.
• Corporate contribution limits have no statistically significant impact upon
the ratio of corporate giving to incumbents versus challengers.
|
