Do Campaign Finance Reforms Insulate Incumbents from Competition?

[Flash]

"Variations in state campaign finance regulations across states and over time provide an opportunity to test the effects of reforms on the electoral success of incumbent state legislators. We use the most recent state legislative election returns dataset to test whether state campaign finance reforms help or hinder incumbents. Our analysis of nearly 66,000 contests in 33 years reveals that campaign contribution limits and partial public financing have little impact on incumbent reelection prospects. However, full public financing and prohibitions on corporate independent expenditures significantly increase the probability of incumbent reelection."

https://politicalsciencenow.com/do-...xBtrXupjZV-AidePsl5m7hzlORiV_DAiciIGC0cTJNcwc

 

[canceled.2021.3]

duh

 

[Flash]

duh

We have often heard that reforms will cure certain political problems--limit campaign contributions or spending, repeal the 17th Amendment, abolish the electoral college, automatic voter registration, public financing of elections...........

 

[LV426]

"Variations in state campaign finance regulations across states and over time provide an opportunity to test the effects of reforms on the electoral success of incumbent state legislators. We use the most recent state legislative election returns dataset to test whether state campaign finance reforms help or hinder incumbents. Our analysis of nearly 66,000 contests in 33 years reveals that campaign contribution limits and partial public financing have little impact on incumbent reelection prospects. However, full public financing and prohibitions on corporate independent expenditures significantly increase the probability of incumbent reelection."

https://politicalsciencenow.com/do-...xBtrXupjZV-AidePsl5m7hzlORiV_DAiciIGC0cTJNcwc

Well yeah, because the politician starts legislating on behalf of their constituents instead of special interests, which makes them popular, which leads to incumbency.

 

[canceled.2021.3]

We have often heard that reforms will cure certain political problems--limit campaign contributions or spending, repeal the 17th Amendment, abolish the electoral college, automatic voter registration, public financing of elections...........

You hear a lot of things from statists. Much of it is lies. If you need help sifting through their bullshit, you can just ring me up. I didn't need to read this article to tell me what you posted. I already knew it. How you may ask?

Easy. Experience guided by common sense.

Why would ANY politician pass a law that would keep them from keeping their lucrative jobs? It is like nimrods who think these same politicians will pass tax laws that will negatively impact them.

But, you were told that the Wu Flu was a big deal but it really wasn't. You get played a lot. I can help you with that

 

[LV426]

But, you were told that the Wu Flu was a big deal but it really wasn'tt

But it was. Trump even said so. It's on recorded audio. It makes you look really stupid.

 

[Flash]

Well yeah, because the politician starts legislating on behalf of their constituents instead of special interests, which makes them popular, which leads to incumbency.

They don't legislate on behalf of constituents any more with these reforms than without them. The point is that reforms reduce competition and benefit incumbents.

All constituents are special interests and most legislation benefits some groups and hurts others. It is impossible to avoid this outcome.

 

[Flash]

You hear a lot of things from statists. Much of it is lies. If you need help sifting through their bullshit, you can just ring me up. I didn't need to read this article to tell me what you posted. I already knew it. How you may ask?

Easy. Experience guided by common sense.

Why would ANY politician pass a law that would keep them from keeping their lucrative jobs? It is like nimrods who think these same politicians will pass tax laws that will negatively impact them.

But, you were told that the Wu Flu was a big deal but it really wasn't. You get played a lot. I can help you with that

The right thinks reforms will help just like the left does. The right wants to repeal the 17th amendment, use voter IDs they think will prevent voter fraud........They are both naive to think changes the rules changes human behavior.

 

[archives]

"Variations in state campaign finance regulations across states and over time provide an opportunity to test the effects of reforms on the electoral success of incumbent state legislators. We use the most recent state legislative election returns dataset to test whether state campaign finance reforms help or hinder incumbents. Our analysis of nearly 66,000 contests in 33 years reveals that campaign contribution limits and partial public financing have little impact on incumbent reelection prospects. However, full public financing and prohibitions on corporate independent expenditures significantly increase the probability of incumbent reelection."

https://politicalsciencenow.com/do-...xBtrXupjZV-AidePsl5m7hzlORiV_DAiciIGC0cTJNcwc

You have to purchase the study to look at it, but it raises a few questions

How can a study covering 33 years be possible when Citizens United is only ten years old? And I can't recall any election anywhere they ever received full public financing

 

[Flash]

You have to purchase the study to look at it, but it raises a few questions

How can a study covering 33 years be possible when Citizens United is only ten years old? And I can't recall any election anywhere they ever received full public financing

Corporations could make independent expenditures before Citizens United. I assume some states must have full public financing because of the study. Incumbents often set campaign contributions and total spending limits too low because it limits competition.

The U. S. presidential general election was fully publicly funded from 1976 until 2008 when Obama chose not to take the public funds because he would be limited in total and per state spending. The D and R nominees could accept public funding and could raise no outside funds. They could spend only the total amount of the federal grant and each state had a limit based on population.

The nomination process was partially publicly funded. The federal government matched privately raised money up to set limits.

This is not the complete article but a short summary (not much more than was in the abstract).

https://phys.org/news/2020-07-campaign-reforms-elections-competitive.html

 

[archives]

Corporations could make independent expenditures before Citizens United. I assume some states must have full public financing because of the study. Incumbents often set campaign contributions and total spending limits too low because it limits competition.

The U. S. presidential general election was fully publicly funded from 1976 until 2008 when Obama chose not to take the public funds because he would be limited in total and per state spending. The D and R nominees could accept public funding and could raise no outside funds. They could spend only the total amount of the federal grant and each state had a limit based on population.

And weren't those prior public funding campaigns you highlighted actually matching public funds up to a certain amount? The candidate had to swear that they wouldn't spend over a certain amount and then the Gov't would match up to that amount? And it only addressed campaigns, not the PACs or other supporting entities. Regardless, it's history since Citizens United

The nomination process was partially publicly funded. The federal government matched privately raised money up to set limits.

This is not the complete article but a short summary (not much more than was in the abstract).

https://phys.org/news/2020-07-campaign-reforms-elections-competitive.html

But weren't those independent expenditures limited, in fact, severely limited, now, limitations are rare, and seemingly an incumbent, given they have had time in office, could benefit the corporation's interests so that funding next time was easier, something a new candidate would not have the ability to do. Can't see unlimited corporate money in an election not benefiting an incumbent

And those

 

[LV426]

They don't legislate on behalf of constituents any more with these reforms than without them.

Flash, if a politician is no longer getting campaign contributions from corporations or PACs, how is that politician going to get re-elected? By legislating on behalf of their constituents...you know...doing their actual job.

The point is that reforms reduce competition and benefit incumbents.

What competition? If a politician is elected and passes legislation their constituents want, why wouldn't they be re-elected? Why shouldn't they be re-elected?

Part of the antipathy towards elected politicians is the perception that they don't work for their constituents.

So in a system where they don't have to beg for campaign money, how would they go about getting re-elected? BY DOING THEIR JOB.

All constituents are special interests

Stop.

This is sophistry.

Expanding the definition of "special interests" to say that every voter is a special interest.

Yes, Flash, precisely.

So to get re-elected, a politician must do...what, in this reform scenario?

most legislation benefits some groups and hurts others.

Well that's a broad, vague thing to say.

How does Medicare for All hurt you?

It is impossible to avoid this outcome.

So then you would prefer a system where your choice of elected representatives is made for you? Sounds anti-democratic to me.

 

[Flash]

But weren't those independent expenditures limited, in fact, severely limited, now, limitations are rare, and seemingly an incumbent, given they have had time in office, could benefit the corporation's interests so that funding next time was easier, something a new candidate would not have the ability to do. Can't see unlimited corporate money in an election not benefiting an incumbent

And those

Corporate limitations varied by state. Independent spending is not a contribution given to the candidate. Contributions usually benefit the incumbent because the incumbent has the best chance to win. They get money because they have support, not vice versa.

 

[Bigdog]

We have often heard that reforms will cure certain political problems--limit campaign contributions or spending, repeal the 17th Amendment, abolish the electoral college, automatic voter registration, public financing of elections...........

Yep, ... and a "politburea", where the political bureaucrats are all the same party, ... one party rule.

 

[Nordberg]

It is also that once you are in office, you meet the people who want something. That makes raising money much more efficient.Unfortunately pols spend over a third of their day asking for money.
We need campaign finance reform. Only funded by tax payers, no outside money.

 

[Flash]

Flash, if a politician is no longer getting campaign contributions from corporations or PACs, how is that politician going to get re-elected? By legislating on behalf of their constituents...you know...doing their actual job.

What makes you think the politician is not legislating on behalf of his constituents even if he does receive contributions from unions, PACs, corporations, or individuals? If he keeps getting reelected a plurality of voters must be happy with his work.

In reality very few voters have any clue what legislation their legislators vote for so they are seldom voting based on their voting behavior.

What competition? If a politician is elected and passes legislation their constituents want, why wouldn't they be re-elected? Why shouldn't they be re-elected?

Part of the antipathy towards elected politicians is the perception that they don't work for their constituents.

So in a system where they don't have to beg for campaign money, how would they go about getting re-elected? BY DOING THEIR JOB.

They must be doing their jobs and making their constituents happy under the current system because House members are reelected about 95-98% of the time and about 90% for the Senate.

Expanding the definition of "special interests" to say that every voter is a special interest.

Every voter is not a special interest but they are part of larger interests and candidates appeal to these voters based on those interests.

They are union members, blacks, Hispanics, seniors on Social Security and Medicare, teachers, parents, liberals/conservatives, Democrats/Republicans, members of civil rights, environmental, and gun groups.............

The idea of legislating for "the people" vs special interests is a traditional Populist pitch that has no real meaning.

So then you would prefer a system where your choice of elected representatives is made for you? Sounds anti-democratic to me.

The current system allows the voters to select their representatives whether they get campaign contributions or not. I'm sure you don't think special interest money is determining your vote. To think it is affecting the vote of others but not yourself is elitist snobbery.

Studies show legislators do not vote differently than they did before public financing, some found increased polarization. And many studies over the years have failed to find relationships between legislator's votes and campaign contributions.

The main reason is that groups (and individuals) tend to contribute (and vote) for legislators who already share their political views. They don't change their voting behavior because some union or corporation gave them money.

I didn't see any difference in governing or public perception when presidential candidates were prohibited from raising funds privately and given equal funding from 1976-2004 when both major party candidates accepted public financing for the general election.

 

[LV426]

What makes you think the politician is not legislating on behalf of his constituents even if he does receive contributions from unions, PACs, corporations, or individuals?

I mean...

*gestures broadly at society*

200,000+ dead.

An economy in shambles.

A GOP Senate that refuses to take up any House-passed legislation.

The deficit.

 

[LV426]

In reality very few voters have any clue what legislation their legislators vote for so they are seldom voting based on their voting behavior..

Right, and why do you think that is? Because few voters have access to these politicians...specifically the few voters that are wealthy. You're making my case for me.

 

[LV426]

They must be doing their jobs and making their constituents happy under the current system because House members are reelected about 95-98% of the time and about 90% for the Senate.

Right, but turnout is only 50%. So half of voters aren't even engaged. Why do you think that is?

 

[LV426]

Every voter is not a special interest but they are part of larger interests and candidates appeal to these voters based on those interests.

What "larger interests"? What are you talking about?

They are union members, blacks, Hispanics, seniors on Social Security and Medicare, teachers, parents, liberals/conservatives, Democrats/Republicans, members of civil rights, environmental, and gun groups.............

So you believe that different racial groups have different legislative priorities? How so?

The idea of legislating for "the people" vs special interests is a traditional Populist pitch that has no real meaning.

Actually, what you wrote has no real meaning because you had to exercise sophistry by pretending that demographic groups are special interests, somehow.