MONEY TALKS, INCUMBENTS WALK: ANALYSIS OF STATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REQUIREMENTS AND THEIR EFFECT ON INCUMBENT SUCCESS

Abstract

In this thesis, I look to help explain some differences with state level campaign finance limits and requirements and the effect it has on incumbent candidate’s electoral success. Because of the importance of money and raising for candidates, it is necessary to examine if there are connections between the amount raised and the differing laws of states. Most of the literature studying campaign finance laws investigates its effect at a federal level rather than at the state level. It also tends to investigate whether campaign finance limits are a good or a bad thing for elections. I have previously studied this idea however in my research I used only ten states rather than all fifty. I use data from online campaign finance collection databases like Follow the Money (FTM) and Open Secrets (OS) to find information about the candidate, amount raised, incumbency status, result, and much more. Using this data, I ran regressions comparing incumbent and challenging candidates on a) how much they raised, and b) how successful they were. The data indicates that states with lenient campaign finance requirements, or in other words no limits on donations, results in incumbents seeing greater success in elections in both the House and the Senate, as opposed to states with limits. This is important to know because it shows the effect and need for campaign finance limits. If incumbents are significantly more likely to win, candidate opportunity and quality can suffer. Continued is a policy recommendation that suggests limits for different states that may be heavily conservative or democratic population. and an interesting difference in possible opinion of reform.