Fundraising Consultants and the Representation of National versus Local Donors in US House Election Campaigns
-
Sean A. Cain
Sean A. Cain is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Loyola University New Orleans. I thank Gary Jacobson for election result and candidate quality data. A previous version of this paper was prepared for presentation at the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, New Orleans, LA, August 30–September 2, 2012.
Abstract
Does the relationship of political consultants to national political party committees influence whether US House candidates who use fundraising specialists appeal to national or local campaign donors? This question clarifies whether campaign fundraising is a means to represent the interests of donors across the nation or the local concerns of interests within congressional districts. Recent scholarship argues that donors give to non-local candidates in competitive races when prompted by party leaders and elites. Yet this causal mechanism may understate the calculus and ability of candidates to pursue local versus distant contributions. Using FEC data on party expenditures to fundraising consulting firms, candidate spending on fundraising firms, and candidate donor location in the 2010 House elections, I demonstrate that as candidates spend more on fundraising firms that are connected to national parties, they will raise more in out-of-district donations than if they hire those without party ties, who are more effective in attracting in-district contributions, while spending on fundraising consultants connected to national parties corresponds to a depreciation in local funds raised. The findings demonstrate the fundraising impact of political consultants within national party networks, as well as the limitations of national fundraising networks to direct local donors to congressional election campaigns.
About the author
Sean A. Cain is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Loyola University New Orleans. I thank Gary Jacobson for election result and candidate quality data. A previous version of this paper was prepared for presentation at the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, New Orleans, LA, August 30–September 2, 2012.
- 1
In the FEC electronic files, records of party coordinated expenditures are labeled “SF,” independent expenditures “SE,” and generic committee work “SB21B” and “SD10.”
- 2
I measure previous competitiveness as “the difference between the Democratic and Republican percentage of the vote in the immediately preceding contest, subtracted from 100; higher scores indicate greater competition (Gimpel, Lee, and Pearson-Merkowitz 2008, p. 384).”
- 3
The following variables are included in the two-equation system, where Ys are endogenous, Xs are exogenous, and Zs are instrumental: Y1 = Out-of-district itemized contributions (in $K), Y2 = Current competitiveness (Oct. 2010 CQ Seat Rankings), X1 = In-district individual contributions (in $K), X2 = Party-agent fundraising firm spending (in $K), X3 = Unconnected fundraising firm spending (in $K), X4 = Candidate party (Democrat), X5 = Candidate position in party leadership (dummy), X6 = Candidate House seniority (number of terms if an incumbent and zero otherwise), X7 = Officeholder’s ideological extremity (folded DW-Nominate scores), X8 = Candidate quality (one if incumbent or with prior elected office and zero otherwise), X9 = District population density (in square miles), Z1 = Prior competition (from 2008 election results), Z2 = District partisanship (In-party’s 2008 presidential vote), Z3 = Contested primary (dummy), Z4 = Incumbent candidate (dummy). The system of equations is as follows:
Y1 = β0 + β1Y2+ β2X1+ β3X2+ β4X3+ β5X4+ β6X5+ β7X6+ β8X7+ β9X8 + β10X9 + μi
Y2 = β11+ β12Y1+ β13Z1+ β14Z2+ β15Z3+ β16Z4+ νi
In the second version of the model, the Y1 is replaced with in-district individual contributions, and X1 with out-of-district contributions.
Appendix
Descriptive Statistics on Variables of Interest in the OLS and 2SLS Models.
| Mean | Std. Dev. | Min. | Max. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Out-of-district Indiv. Contributions (in $K) | 282.131 | 336.304 | 0 | 3464.492 |
| In-district Indiv. Contributions (in $K) | 206.784 | 232.487 | 0 | 1544.591 |
| Party-agent Fund. Firm Spending (in $K) | 10.870 | 95.311 | 0 | 2495.792 |
| Unconnected Fund. Firm Spending (in $K) | 77.747 | 252.882 | 0 | 4579.550 |
| Party (Democrat) | 0.489 | 0.500 | 0 | 1 |
| Party Leadership Position | 0.027 | 0.163 | 0 | 1 |
| Seniority | 2.732 | 4.311 | 0 | 28 |
| Ideological Extremity | 0.466 | 0.203 | –0.082 | 1.315 |
| Candidate Quality | 0.606 | 0.489 | 0 | 1 |
| Population Density | 2436.809 | 6925.305 | 1.245 | 62362.31 |
| Current Competitiveness | 0.678 | 1.296 | 0 | 5 |
| Prior Competition | 60.711 | 28.465 | 0 | 99.8 |
| District Partisanship | 59.715 | 11.929 | 23.5 | 95 |
| Contested Primary | 0.485 | 0.500 | 0 | 1 |
| Incumbent | 0.466 | 0.499 | 0 | 1 |
| Open-seat Candidate | 0.100 | 0.300 | 0 | 1 |
| N | 841 |
First-stage Regression Estimates Dep. Var.: Current Competitiveness (Oct 2010 CQ Seat Ranking).
| Indep. Var. | Model A | Model B | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coef. | Std. Err. | Z | Coef. | Std. Err. | Z | |
| Out-of-district Indiv. Contribs. (in $K) | 0.0010 | 0.0001 | 8.51*** | |||
| In-district Indiv. Contributions (in $K) | 0.0011 | 0.0002 | 6.46*** | |||
| Party-agent Fund. Firm Spend (in $K) | –0.0002 | 0.0004 | –0.47 | –0.0012 | 0.0004 | –2.82*** |
| Unconnected Fund. Firm Spend (in $K) | 0.0001 | 0.0002 | 0.40 | –0.0001 | 0.0002 | –0.36 |
| Party (Democrat) | 0.12 | 0.07 | 1.71* | –0.01 | 0.07 | –0.21 |
| Party Leadership Position | –0.20 | 0.20 | –0.99 | –0.38 | 0.20 | –1.91* |
| Seniority | –0.02 | 0.01 | –2.18** | –0.03 | 0.01 | –3.16*** |
| Ideological Extremity | –2.53 | 0.18 | –13.92*** | –2.46 | 0.18 | –13.79*** |
| Candidate Quality | 0.48 | 0.11 | 4.37*** | 0.51 | 0.11 | 4.72*** |
| Population Density | 0.000005 | 0.000005 | 0.94 | 0.000002 | 0.000005 | 0.46 |
| Prior Competition | 0.0013 | 0.0014 | 0.94 | 0.0013 | 0.0014 | 0.93 |
| District Partisanship | –0.0245 | 0.0038 | –6.38*** | –0.0244 | 0.0037 | –6.50*** |
| Contested Primary | –0.086 | 0.071 | –1.21 | –0.084 | 0.070 | –1.21 |
| Incumbent | –0.38 | 0.13 | –2.98*** | –0.42 | 0.13 | –3.32*** |
| Open-seat Candidate | 0.35 | 0.12 | 2.84*** | 0.39 | 0.12 | 3.27*** |
| Constant | 2.89 | 0.28 | 10.21*** | 2.92 | 0.27 | 10.65*** |
| N | 841 | 841 | ||||
| R-squared | 0.49 | 0.50 | ||||
| F | 55.69 | 59.75 | ||||
*p<0.1; **p<0.05; ***p<0.01.
OLS Regression Dep. Vars.: Out-of-district and in-district individual donations ($K).
| Indep. Var. | Out-of-district | In-district | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coef. | Std. Err. | Z | Coef. | Std. Err. | Z | |
| Out-of-district Indiv. Contribs. (in $K) | 0.24 | 0.02 | 9.96*** | |||
| In-district Indiv. Contributions (in $K) | 0.45 | 0.05 | 9.96*** | |||
| Party-agent Fund. Firm Spending (in $K) | 0.81 | 0.11 | 7.54*** | –0.41 | 0.08 | –5.25*** |
| Unconnected Fund. Firm Spend. (in $K) | 0.25 | 0.04 | 5.90*** | 0.14 | 0.03 | 4.37*** |
| Party (Democrat) | 80.07 | 18.14 | 4.41*** | –89.78 | 12.95 | –6.94*** |
| Party Leadership Position | 206.32 | 50.65 | 4.07*** | –10.56 | 37.11 | –0.28 |
| Seniority | 5.78 | 2.70 | 2.14** | –7.60 | 1.95 | –3.91*** |
| Ideological Extremity | –60.39 | 51.11 | –1.18 | –99.03 | 36.95 | –2.68*** |
| Candidate Quality | –0.33 | 28.11 | –0.01 | 59.59 | 20.29 | 2.94*** |
| Population Density | 0.003 | 0.001 | 2.34** | 0.0005 | 0.0010 | 0.52 |
| Current Competition | 58.089 | 8.803 | 6.60*** | 24.1843 | 6.4986 | 3.72*** |
| Prior Competition | 0.43 | 0.35 | 1.22 | 0.56 | 0.26 | 2.20** |
| District Partisanship | –0.76 | 0.99 | –0.76 | –2.04 | 0.72 | –2.84*** |
| Contested Primary | 9.17 | 17.97 | 0.51 | 9.49 | 13.04 | 0.7300 |
| Incumbent | 105.35 | 32.66 | 3.23*** | 60.21 | 23.76 | 2.53** |
| Open-seat Candidate | 27.96 | 31.56 | 0.89 | 110.88 | 22.58 | 4.91*** |
| Constant | 43.41 | 76.09 | 0.57 | 235.27 | 54.60 | 4.31*** |
| N | 841 | 841 | ||||
| R-squared | 0.51 | 0.46 | ||||
| F | 57.55 | 47.19 | ||||
*p<0.1; **p<0.05; ***p<0.01.
References
Bartolini, Stefano. 1999. “Collusion, Competition and Democracy: Part I.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 11 (4): 435–470.10.1177/0951692899011004001Search in Google Scholar
Cain, Sean A. 2011. “An Elite Theory of Political Consulting and Its Implications for U.S. House Election Competition.” Political Behavior 33 (3): 375–405.10.1007/s11109-010-9140-ySearch in Google Scholar
Cohen, Marty, David Karol, Hans Noel, and John Zaller. 2008. The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226112381.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Dominguez, Casey B. K. 2005. “Groups and the Party Coalitions: A Network Analysis of Overlapping Donor Lists.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, 1–4 September, Washington, DC.Search in Google Scholar
Dulio, David A. 2004. For Better or Worse?: How Political Consultants are Changing Elections in the United States. Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press.Search in Google Scholar
Francia, Peter L., John C. Green, Paul S. Herrnson, Lynda W. Powell, and Clyde Wilcox. 2003. The Financiers of Congressional Elections: Investors, Ideologues, and Intimates. New York: Columbia University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Franz, Michael M. 2010. “The Citizens United Election? Or Same As It Ever Was?” The Forum 8 (4): Article 7.10.2202/1540-8884.1408Search in Google Scholar
Gimpel, James G., Frances E. Lee, and Shanna Pearson-Merkowitz. 2008. “The Check Is in the Mail: Interdistrict Funding Flows in Congressional Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 52 (2): 373–394.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00318.xSearch in Google Scholar
Grant, J. Tobin, and Thomas J. Rudolph. 2002. “To Give or Not to Give: Modeling Individuals′ Contribution Decisions.” Political Behavior 24 (1): 31–54.10.1023/A:1020994921777Search in Google Scholar
Grenzke, Janet. 1988. “Comparing Contributions to U.S. House Members from Outside Their Districts.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 13 (1): 83–103.10.2307/439946Search in Google Scholar
Grossmann, Matt. 2009. “Campaigning as an Industry: Consulting Business Models and Intra-Party Competition.” Business and Politics 11 (1): Article 2.10.2202/1469-3569.1243Search in Google Scholar
Grossmann, Matt, and Casey B. K. Dominguez. 2009. “Party Coalitions and Interest Group Networks.” American Politics Research 37 (5): 767–800.10.1177/1532673X08329464Search in Google Scholar
Herrnson, Paul S. 1992. “Campaign Professionalism and Fundraising in Congressional Elections.” Journal of Politics 54 (3): 859–870.10.2307/2132315Search in Google Scholar
Herrnson, Paul S. 2000. “Hired Guns and House Races: Campaign Professionals in House Elections.” In Campaign Warriors: Political Consultants in Elections, edited by James A. Thurber and Candice J. Nelson, 65–90. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.Search in Google Scholar
Herrnson, Paul S. 2004. Congressional Elections: Campaigning at Home and in Washington. 4th ed. Washington: CQ Press.Search in Google Scholar
Herrnson, Paul S. 2009. “The Roles of Party Organizations, Party-Connected Committees, and Party Allies in Elections.” Journal of Politics 71 (4): 1207–1224.10.1017/S0022381609990065Search in Google Scholar
Herrnson, Paul S. 2012. Congressional Elections: Campaigning at Home and in Washington. 6th ed. Washington: CQ Press.Search in Google Scholar
Herrnson, Paul S. and Peter L. Francia. 2007. “Keeping it Professional: The Influence of Political Consultants on Candidate Attitudes toward Negative Campaigning.” Politics and Policy 35 (2): 246–272.10.1111/j.1747-1346.2007.00059.xSearch in Google Scholar
Himes, David. 1995. “Strategy and Tactics for Campaign Fundraising.” In Campaigns and Elections, American Style, edited by James A. Thurber and Candice J. Nelson, 62–77. San Francisco, CA: Westview Press.Search in Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 1980. Money in Congressional Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Johnson, Dennis W. 2007. No Place For Amateurs: How Political Consultants are Reshaping American Democracy. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge Press.Search in Google Scholar
Koger, Gregory, Seth Masket, and Hans Noel. 2009. “Partisan Webs: Information Exchange and Party Networks.” British Journal of Political Science 39 (4): 633–653.10.1017/S0007123409000659Search in Google Scholar
Koger, Gregory, Seth Masket, and Hans Noel. 2010. “Cooperative Party Factions in American Politics.” American Politics Research 38 (1): 33–53.10.1177/1532673X09353509Search in Google Scholar
Kolodny, Robin. 2000. “Electoral Partnerships: Political Consultants and Political Parties.” In Campaign Warriors: Political Consultants in Elections, edited by James A. Thurber and Candice J. Nelson, 110–132. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kolodny, Robin, and David A. Dulio. 2003. “Political Party Adaptation in U.S. Congressional Campaigns.” Party Politics 9 (6): 729–746.10.1177/13540688030096004Search in Google Scholar
Kolodny, Robin, and Diana Dwyre. 2006. “A New Rule Book: Party Money After BCRA.” InFinancing the 2004 Election, edited by David B. Magleby, Anthony Corrado, and Kelly D. Patterson, 183–207. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.Search in Google Scholar
La Raja, Raymond J. 2008. Small Change: Money, Political Parties, and Campaign Finance Reform. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press.10.3998/mpub.293864Search in Google Scholar
Maestas, Cherie D. and Cynthia R. Rugeley. 2008. “Assessing the ‘Experience Bonus’ Through Examining Strategic Entry, Candidate Quality, and Campaign Receipts in U.S. House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 52 (3): 520–535.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00327.xSearch in Google Scholar
Magleby, David B. 2011. “Political Parties and the Financing of the 2008 Congressional Elections.” In Financing the 2008 Election, edited by David B. Magleby and Anthony Corrado, 210–248. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.Search in Google Scholar
Magleby, David B., Kelly D. Patterson, and James A. Thurber. 2000. “Campaign Consultants and Responsible Party Government.” Presented at the annual conference of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC. August 31 – September 3. http://www.apsanet.org/~pop/apsa1950/apsa2000magleby.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
Malbin, Michael, and Sean A. Cain. 2007. “The Ups and Downs of Small and Large Donors.” Campaign Finance Institute. http://www.cfinst.org/books_reports/SmallDonors/Small-Large-Donors_June2007.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 2003. “Rethinking Representation.” The American Political Science Review 97 (4): 515–528.10.1017/S0003055403000856Search in Google Scholar
Masket, Seth E. 2009. No Middle Ground: How Informal Party Organizations Control Nominations and Polarize Legislatures. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.10.3998/mpub.349912Search in Google Scholar
Masket, Seth E., Joanne M. Miller, Michael T. Heaney, and Dara Z. Strolovitch. 2009. “Networking the Parties:A Comparative Study of Democratic and Republican National Convention Delegates in 2008.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, 3–6 September, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.Search in Google Scholar
Medvic, Stephen K. 2001. Political consultants in U.S. congressional elections. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Medvic, Stephen K. 2003. “Professional Political Consultants: An Operational Definition.” Politics 23 (2): 119–127.10.1111/1467-9256.00187Search in Google Scholar
Sabato, Larry J. 1981. The Rise of Political Consultants: New Ways of Winning Elections. New York: Basic Books.Search in Google Scholar
©2013 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Masthead
- Masthead
- Editorial
- Introduction
- Articles
- What Americanists Don’t Know About American Politics
- Public Opinion Among Political Elites: The “Insiders Poll” as a Research Tool
- 527 Committees, Formal Parties, and Party Adaptation
- Fundraising Consultants and the Representation of National versus Local Donors in US House Election Campaigns
- Beyond the New Deal: The Postmaterialist Divide in Pennsylvania Presidential Elections
- Compromising Partisans: Assessing Compromise in Health Care Reform
- “Life Ain’t Easy for a President Named Barack”: Party, Ideology, and Tea Party Freshman Support for the Nation’s First Black President
- The Younger, More Independent Republican Leaner
- Turnout in the 2012 Election: A Review and Call for Long-Term Solutions
- Book Reviews
- The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns
- Ike’s Bluff: President Eisenhower’s Secret Battle to Save the World
- Coolidge
- Erratum
- Erratum
Articles in the same Issue
- Masthead
- Masthead
- Editorial
- Introduction
- Articles
- What Americanists Don’t Know About American Politics
- Public Opinion Among Political Elites: The “Insiders Poll” as a Research Tool
- 527 Committees, Formal Parties, and Party Adaptation
- Fundraising Consultants and the Representation of National versus Local Donors in US House Election Campaigns
- Beyond the New Deal: The Postmaterialist Divide in Pennsylvania Presidential Elections
- Compromising Partisans: Assessing Compromise in Health Care Reform
- “Life Ain’t Easy for a President Named Barack”: Party, Ideology, and Tea Party Freshman Support for the Nation’s First Black President
- The Younger, More Independent Republican Leaner
- Turnout in the 2012 Election: A Review and Call for Long-Term Solutions
- Book Reviews
- The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns
- Ike’s Bluff: President Eisenhower’s Secret Battle to Save the World
- Coolidge
- Erratum
- Erratum
