An Analysis of Congressional Voting on Legislation Limiting Congressional Campaign Expenditures
AbstractCongressional voting on proposed floor amendments concerned solely with setting the level of the election campaign expenditure ceiling provision of the House Administration Committee's broad campaign finance reform bill of 1974 is analyzed for consistency with either the public-interest or economic theories of regulation. The benefit or cost to the individual congressman of a given ceiling is defined as the implied increase or decrease in his probability of reelection under the ceiling. Logit regression analysis provides the preponderant support for the economic theory of regulation by indicating that the likelihood of voting for a given ceiling varies directly with the implied change in reelection probability under the ceiling and is quite sensitive to the implied change. Copyright 1988 by University of Chicago Press.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by University of Chicago Press in its journal Journal of Political Economy.
Volume (Year): 96 (1988)
Issue (Month): 5 (October)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JPE/
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Fredriksson, Per G. & Gaston, Noel, 1999. "The "greening" of trade unions and the demand for eco-taxes," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 663-686, November.
- Filip Palda, 2001. "Election Finance Regulation in Emerging Democracies: Lessons from Canada and the U.S," Public Economics 0111010, EconWPA.
- 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.
- 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.
- Pastine, Ivan & Pastine, Tuvana, 2012. "Incumbency advantage and political campaign spending limits," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 20-32.
- Filip Palda, 2002. "Campaign Finance: An Introduction to the Field," Public Economics 0209005, EconWPA.
- Filip Palda, 2001. "The Economics of Election Campaign Spending Limits," Public Economics 0111011, EconWPA.
- repec:ebl:ecbull:v:4:y:2008:i:2:p:1-12 is not listed on IDEAS
- John A. Hird, 1990. "Superfund expenditures and cleanup priorities: Distributive politics or the public interest?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(4), pages 455-483.
- Franklin Mixon, Jr. & Steven Caudill & Christopher Duquette, 2008. "The impact of money on elections: evidence from open seat races in the United States House of Representatives, 1990-2004," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(2), pages 1-12.
- Thomas Evans, 2007. "An empirical test of why incumbents adopt campaign spending limits," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 132(3), pages 437-456, September.
- Anthony Boardman & Aidan Vining & W. G. Waters, 1993. "Costs and benefits through bureaucratic lenses: Example of a highway project," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(3), pages 532-555.
- John Lott, 2006. "Campaign finance reform and electoral competition," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 129(3), pages 263-300, December.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Journals Division).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.