This paper seeks to understand the effect of campaign finance laws on electoral and policy outcomes. Spurred by the recent Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. FEC (2010), which eliminated bans on corporate and union political spending, the study focuses on whether such bans generate consequences notably different from an electoral system that lacks such bans. We observe three key outcomes: partisan control of government, incumbent reelection rates and corporate tax burdens. Using historical data on regulations in 49 American states between 1935 and 2009 we test alternative models for evaluating the impact of corporate and union spending bans put in place during this period. The results indicate that spending bans appear to have limited, if any, effect on these outcomes.
From a new paper by Ray Laraja and Brian Schaffner. Their findings are very much in the spirit of the research I noted not long after the Citizens United decision (here, here, and here).
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Not to be that guy that criticizes a paper for not answering the question I want answered but, screw it, I am that guy, the real question is, does campaign spending reform/bans affect policy outcomes? Who cares about the rest? The “corporate tax burden” measure attempts to get at this question but doesn’t do a good job using the correct measure, which is really the effective corporate tax rates (i.e. what corporations ACTUALLY pay in taxes) which has little or nothing to do with corporate tax rates.
amen