IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v99y2018i1p216-230.html

Public Support for Campaign Finance Reform: The Role of Policy Narratives, Cultural Predispositions, and Political Knowledge in Collective Policy Preference Formation

Author

Listed:
  • Paul D. Jorgensen
  • Geoboo Song
  • Michael D. Jones

Abstract

Objective We use the variation in public support for campaign finance reform (CFR) to determine factors important to collective policy preference formation. Methods Using a national survey, we factor analyze the latent dimensions of various reforms, and rely on an experimental design to explain the role policy narratives, cultural theory (CT), and political knowledge play in preference formation. Results The reform debate groups along three dimensions: (1) strengthening limitations and regulations, (2) deregulating campaign finance, or (3) ending the dependence on private money altogether. We show policy narratives are most influential, and CT has more explanatory value, among those with higher levels of political knowledge. Certain policy narratives tend to increase support for CFR across all cultural types, including those who most oppose reforms that seek to end the dependence on private money. Conclusion As awareness of campaign finance increases, and as particular narratives become salient, we would expect increasing support for public financing, free media time, and/or public matching funds among those with higher levels of general political knowledge.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul D. Jorgensen & Geoboo Song & Michael D. Jones, 2018. "Public Support for Campaign Finance Reform: The Role of Policy Narratives, Cultural Predispositions, and Political Knowledge in Collective Policy Preference Formation," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 99(1), pages 216-230, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:99:y:2018:i:1:p:216-230
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.12357
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12357
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.12357?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gilens, Martin, 2001. "Political Ignorance and Collective Policy Preferences," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(2), pages 379-396, June.
    2. Berrens, Robert P. & Bohara, Alok K. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank & Silva, Carol & Weimer, David L., 2003. "The Advent of Internet Surveys for Political Research: A Comparison of Telephone and Internet Samples," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 1-22, January.
    3. Rachael M. Moyer & Geoboo Song, 2016. "Understanding Local Policy Elites’ Perceptions on the Benefits and Risks Associated with High‐Voltage Power Line Installations in the State of Arkansas," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(10), pages 1983-1999, October.
    4. Michael D. Jones, 2014. "Cultural Characters and Climate Change: How Heroes Shape Our Perception of Climate Science," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 95(1), pages 1-39, March.
    5. Geoboo Song, 2014. "Understanding Public Perceptions of Benefits and Risks of Childhood Vaccinations in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(3), pages 541-555, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rachael M. Moyer, 2022. "Images of controversy: Examining cognition of hydraulic fracturing among policy elites and the general public," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(4), pages 441-467, July.
    2. Aaron Smith-Walter & Michael D. Jones & Elizabeth A. Shanahan & Holly Peterson, 2020. "The stories groups tell: campaign finance reform and the narrative networks of cultural cognition," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 645-684, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Branden B. Johnson & Brendon Swedlow, 2021. "Cultural Theory's Contributions to Risk Analysis: A Thematic Review with Directions and Resources for Further Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 429-455, March.
    2. Qi Guo & Palizhati Muhetaer & Ping Hu, 2023. "Cultural worldviews and support for governmental management of COVID-19," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-16, December.
    3. Carsten Jensen & Jens Thomsen, 2014. "Self-reported cheating in web surveys on political knowledge," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 3343-3354, November.
    4. Dean Neu & Gregory D. Saxton & Abu S. Rahaman, 2022. "Social Accountability, Ethics, and the Occupy Wall Street Protests," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 180(1), pages 17-31, September.
    5. Hui Li & Robert P. Berrens & Alok K. Bohara & Hank C. Jenkins-Smith & Carol L. Silva & David L. Weimer, 2005. "Exploring the Beta Model Using Proportional Budget Information in a Contingent Valuation Study," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 17(8), pages 1-9.
    6. Kevin J. Boyle & Mark Morrison & Darla Hatton MacDonald & Roderick Duncan & John Rose, 2016. "Investigating Internet and Mail Implementation of Stated-Preference Surveys While Controlling for Differences in Sample Frames," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(3), pages 401-419, July.
    7. James Tilley & Christopher Wlezien, 2008. "Does Political Information Matter? An Experimental Test Relating to Party Positions on Europe," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 56(1), pages 192-214, March.
    8. Aaron C. Sparks & Heather Hodges & Sarah Oliver & Eric R. A. N. Smith, 2020. "Confidence in Local, National, and International Scientists on Climate Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, December.
    9. Shin, SunKyung & Park, Jooyeun, 2025. "A study on Metaverse risk factors and user risk perception in South Korea," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(3).
    10. Michael D. Jones, 2014. "Cultural Characters and Climate Change: How Heroes Shape Our Perception of Climate Science," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 95(1), pages 1-39, March.
    11. Kobayashi, Yoshiharu & Heinrich, Tobias & Bryant, Kristin A., 2021. "Public support for development aid during the COVID-19 pandemic," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    12. Matt Guardino & Suzanne Mettler, 2020. "Revealing the “Hidden welfare state†: How policy information influences public attitudes about tax expenditures," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 3(1).
    13. Ann Hillier & Ryan P Kelly & Terrie Klinger, 2016. "Narrative Style Influences Citation Frequency in Climate Change Science," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-12, December.
    14. Lergetporer, Philipp & Woessmann, Ludger, 2023. "Earnings information and public preferences for university tuition: Evidence from representative experiments," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).
    15. Sánchez, José J. & Baerenklau, Ken & González-Cabán, Armando, 2016. "Valuing hypothetical wildfire impacts with a Kuhn–Tucker model of recreation demand," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 63-70.
    16. Najam uz Zehra Gardezi & Brent S. Steel & Angela Lavado, 2020. "The Impact of Efficacy, Values, and Knowledge on Public Preferences Concerning Food–Water–Energy Policy Tradeoffs," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-20, November.
    17. repec:plo:pone00:0175799 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2008. "Internet CV surveys – a cheap, fast way to get large samples of biased values?," MPRA Paper 11471, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. James S. Fishkin, 2003. "Consulting the public through deliberative polling," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(1), pages 128-133.
    20. Erik Aschenbrand & Thomas Michler, 2021. "Why Do UNESCO Biosphere Reserves Get Less Recognition than National Parks? A Landscape Research Perspective on Protected Area Narratives in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-18, December.
    21. Beilei Cai & Trudy Cameron & Geoffrey Gerdes, 2010. "Distributional Preferences and the Incidence of Costs and Benefits in Climate Change Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(4), pages 429-458, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:99:y:2018:i:1:p:216-230. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.