The Determinants of Campaign Spending: The Role of the Government Jackpot
AbstractTo raise money for their campaigns, political candidates auction a part of government wealth (the jackpot) to contributors. The larger the jackpot, the more candidates spend. Data on the gubernatorial races of 1978 and 1986 indicate that (1) for every dollar increase in the per capita jackpot, campaign spending rises by 0.0004 cents per voter; (2) balanced budget laws hinder the candidate's ability to raise money; and (3) in states that give the governor more power over the budget (measured by a "Schlesinger" index), candidates raise more. The paper emphasizes that candidates willingly limit their spending to avoid indebtedness to contributors. Copyright 1992 by Oxford University Press.
Download InfoTo our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Western Economic Association International in its journal Economic Inquiry.
Volume (Year): 30 (1992)
Issue (Month): 4 (October)
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK
Fax: 01865 267 985
Web page: http://ei.oupjournals.org/
More information through EDIRC
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Filip Palda, 2002. "Campaign Finance: An Introduction to the Field," Public Economics 0209005, EconWPA.
- Ivan Pastine & Tuvana Pastine, 2010.
"Political Campaign Spending Limits,"
Economics, Finance and Accounting Department Working Paper Series
n213-10.pdf, Department of Economics, Finance and Accounting, National University of Ireland - Maynooth.
- Joaquín Artés & Enrique Viñuela, 2007. "Campaign spending and office-seeking motivations: an empirical analysis," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 133(1), pages 41-55, October.
- Filip Palda, 2001. "Election Finance Regulation in Emerging Democracies: Lessons from Canada and the U.S," Public Economics 0111010, EconWPA.
- David R. Stockman, 2001. "Balanced-Budget Rules: Welfare Loss and Optimal Policies," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 4(2), pages 438-459, July.
- Potters, J.J.M. & Sloof, R., 1996.
"Interest groups: A survey of empirical models that try to assess their influence,"
Open Access publications from Tilburg University
urn:nbn:nl:ui:12-73373, Tilburg University.
- Potters, Jan & Sloof, Randolph, 1996. "Interest groups: A survey of empirical models that try to assess their influence," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 403-442, November.
- Pastine, Ivan & Pastine, Tuvana, 2012. "Incumbency advantage and political campaign spending limits," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 20-32.
- Gregory Randolph, 2011. "The voter initiative and the power of the governor: evidence from campaign expenditures," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 265-286, September.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Oxford University Press) or (Christopher F. Baum).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.