Do State Campaign Finance Reforms Reduce Public Corruption?
The Supreme Court has long held that campaign finance regulations are permissible for the purpose of preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption. Yet the implied hypothesis that campaign finance reforms are effective tools for combating public corruption has gone essentially untested. We conduct the first systematic evaluation of the effects of campaign finance laws on actual corruption rates in the states. We examine the effects of state reforms on both convictions and filings in public corruption cases over the last 25 years; overall, we find no strong or convincing evidence that state campaign finance reforms reduce public corruption. Earlier research that employs similar methods also finds little support for the contention that state campaign finance regulations increase public trust and confidence in government. Together, these results call into question the legal rationale for campaign finance regulations.
|Date of creation:||17 Jan 2013|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: (573) 882-0063
Fax: (573) 882-2697
Web page: http://economics.missouri.edu/
More information through EDIRC
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:umc:wpaper:1301. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mark Stratton)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.