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

Index

Index African American voters, 69–70; roll-off phenomenon among, 69, 76, 76t, 78 Alexander, Brad, 19 Alito, Samuel, 134 Arizona: campaign contributions and legislators’ behavior in, 38–40; costs of running for legislative office in, 31; funding levels of traditional vs. publicly funded candidates in, 103–4, 104f; personal campaigning in, importance of, 65–66; voter interaction in, candidates’ preference for, 47–48; voter roll-off trends in, 71–75, 72f, 74f. See also Arizona public election funding program Arizona Free Enterprise Club, 132 Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, 11, 124, 137. See also McComish v. Bennett Arizona public election funding program, 4, 21, 22t, 24–26; and campaign spending, 5, 136, 139; candidates opting out of, 110; and candidates’ time allocations, vs. traditional campaigns, 46, 54, 55f; “Clean Elections Voter Education Guide,” 153; and corruption, reduced appearance of, 40–41; and electoral competition, 82–83, 86–87, 86f; First Amendment challenge to, 124–25, 132–40; first-time candidates and defense of, 95–97; and incumbentchallenged elections, partisan dynamics in, 119f, 120–22, 121t, 123; matching funds provisions in, 125–32, 150; partisan gap in participation in, 118, 119f; primary goal of, 68–69, 88; qualification requirements for, 34; Republicans’ attitudes toward, 111–17; Page numbers followed by letters f and t refer to figures and tables, respectively. 196 Index Arizona public election funding program, (cont.) skepticism about, 93–95, 105; sources of funding for, 113–14; suspension of matching funds and participation in, 141; and voter interaction, 51–52 Arizona Taxpayer’s Action Committee, 132 ballots, public funding and completeness of, 65, 69. See also voter roll-off Bennett, Ken, 136. See also McComish v. Bennett Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), 133–34 Black, Gordon S., 30, 32, 41, 42 Borris, Thomas J., 82 Brewer, Jan, 132, 136 Brown, Adam R., 19 Buckley v. Valeo, 17–18, 20, 132, 142 Bush, George H. W., 17 California, cost of legislative campaigns in, 31 Campaign Finance Act (CFA), New York City, 144–46, 153 Campaign Finance Institute, 2, 15 campaign finance regulations: in early 1900s, 14–15; in 1960s, 16–17; Colbert’s satirical assault on, 1–2; first federal reform act, 13–14; goals of, 28; recent federal court decisions and, 2, 144 campaign spending. See spending candidate(s): entry calculus of, 12, 30, 80–81, 96–97; experienced, control of resources by, 103–5, 105f; experienced, public funding and likelihood of running by, 89, 90–91, 90f, 92, 92t; feelings of control over resources, publicly funded election programs and, 99–100, 99f, 101t, 102, 106; fundraising and inherent tensions for, 49; high-quality, fully funded election programs and “manufacturing” of, 102, 106–7; information dissemination by, 70; “low-quality” (inexperienced), crippling paradox facing, 81; “lowquality ” (inexperienced), public funding as incentive for running, 89–90; mass media and visibility of, 15; motivation and behavior of, public election funding programs and, 8–10, 11; qualification requirements for public funding, 34–35, 45; recruitment of, public funding and, 84, 96–97; strategic considerations of, public funding and, 29–30, 32, 38, 41–45, 43t; voter interaction in motivation of, 47. See also candidate quality; challengers; first-time candidates; incumbents; third-party candidates; time, candidates’ use of; traditional candidates candidate quality: Arizona candidates and legislators on, 93–97, 105–6; command of resources as measure of, 98–100, 99f, 101t; elites/incumbents on, 97–98; factors influencing, 88–89; fully funded election programs and, 89, 99–100, 99f, 102, 106–7, 150; partially funded election programs and, 90, 98, 99f; previous experience and, 10, 89, 95, 98, 103–5, 105f, 106; public election funding programs and, 10, 87–107, 90f, 92t, 149 Carsey, Thomas M., 80 challengers: cost-benefit calculus of, 34–35, 41–45; Democratic, public funding and competitive advantage of, 119f, 120–22, 121t, 123; “high-quality,” opportunistic behavior of, 80–81; inherent disadvantages of, 2, 3, 18–19, 36, 81, 83; public election funding and benefits for, 6–7, 36–37, 84–85; publicly funded vs. traditionally financed, 81; spending gap between incumbents and, 5, 18–19, 81, 83, 150 choice, public funding and, 84–85 citizen legislature, public funding and, 95–96, 107 Citizens United v. FEC, 1–2, 144 civil service patronage, era of, 13–14 “Clean Elections” programs, 4, 24–27; campaign strategy in, 29–30; FENA compared to, 152; and level playing field, [13.58.112.1] Project MUSE (2024-04-26 06...