Subsidizing Democracy: How Public Funding Changes Elections and How It Can Work in the Future

Appendix 1

Appendix 1 Description of Data Sources In order to gain insight into candidate activities and motivation, this book employs a wide range of data from a mixed-methods study. In Chapters 3–6 I analyze elite survey data collected from the major-party lower-house candidate populations in eighteen states during the 2008 election , including all six states offering ubiquitous full (Arizona, Connecticut , and Maine) and partial (Hawaii, Minnesota, and Wisconsin) public financing to legislative candidates in that year. To maximize the possibility of meaningful comparison between publicly and privately (or “traditionally ”) financed candidates, I also surveyed the candidate populations of twelve additional states with no available public financing for legislative candidates. Criteria for selection as a comparison state include the average cost of a legislative campaign, proximity within Squire’s (2007) index of legislative professionalization, average district population, chamber size, electoral timeline, and where possible, geographical location as a proxy for regional culture differences. Thus, I added Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, 156 Appendix 1 Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, and West Virginia to the sampling frame. Survey instruments (contained in Appendix 2) solicited responses to questions regarding candidate attitudes toward their campaign, the electorate , and their competition. Each candidate was also asked to quantify the amount of time he or she personally devoted to various tasks in ten areas: fundraising, public speeches, field activity, electronic campaigning, media relations, research, strategy, phoning voters, sending mailings, and the courting of interest groups. Finally, the survey allowed for the collection of demographic information about state legislative candidates, information that can be hard to come by; obtaining it allowed for a wide range of factors to be controlled in the subsequent statistical analysis. The dataset therefore provides unprecedented insight into candidate strategy, behavior , and opinion in state legislative contests. Response rates in surveys of elite candidate populations tend to be low, often less than 40 percent (e.g., Francia and Herrnson 2003; Howell 1982). I made multiple contacts to overcome this issue, devoting particular attention to fully funded candidates, who made up roughly 15 percent of the sampling frame. Initial survey packages were delivered via U.S. mail to candidates’ home addresses during the first week of October 2008. Prepaid return envelopes were included, but the cover letter also directed respondents to an identical online version. I also sent electronic invitations to available addresses on October 19, November 11, and December 8, and mailed reminder postcards in mid-November. Electronic mail addresses were obtained for approximately 60 percent of the overall candidate population . Also in mid-November, I assessed the response rate of each state and re-sent full survey packages to nonrespondents in both fully funded and low-responding states. Full packages were re-sent to candidates in Rhode Island, New Mexico, Delaware, and Colorado. While response rates were not problematic in publicly funded states, I re-sent full packages to Hawaii, Connecticut, Wisconsin, and Arizona in an effort to obtain as many responses as possible from those states. I made final contact with remaining nonrespondents in those states by phone in mid-December. Thus, candidates in the sampling frame received up to eight contacts, and there was a higher probability of more contact for publicly funded candidates (especially those accepting full funding). The response window remained open until December 31, 2008. Appendix 1 157 The overall candidate population contained 2,971 candidates. I received 1,022 responses, for a response rate of 34.4 percent. As noted above, this rate is consistent with previous surveys of elite candidate and/or legislator populations (Poggione 2004; Francia and Herrnson 2003; Howell 1982). State response rates ranged between 23.7 percent in Rhode Island and 49.5 percent in Arizona. Table A.1 contains state-by-state response rates as well as basic characteristics of both the sample and candidate population in the survey frame. The sample contains a higher percentage of fully funded candidates than the population, which is the result of a concentrated effort to illicit responses from those candidates. Women and Democrats also make up a higher proportion of the sample than the population, which should be expected given the high response rates of fully funded candidates in tandem with existing evidence that both Democrats and women are more likely to accept full public funding in state house elections (GAO 2010; Werner and Mayer 2007). To be clear, the effort to oversample candidates who accepted...