9 mmm Does Public Financing of State Election Campaigns Increase Voter Turnout? Jeffrey Milyo, David M. Primo, and Matthew L. Jacobsmeier P roponents of public financing for election campaigns frequently claim that such reforms increase voter participation. This argument not only is offered as a prediction about the effects of reforms but also has been cited as a factual consequence of prior public financing reforms. Despite these assertions, there is little evidence that there exists any such effect on turnout, let alone the dramatic impact claimed by proponents of public financing. This absence of evidence is in part attributable to a lack of attention paid to the question by social scientists. We are aware of only two scholarly investigations of the effects of public financing on voter turnout (Gross and Goidel 2003; Primo and Milyo 2006b). Further, both of these studies examined only voting in gubernatorial elections, and neither of study extended beyond 2000. Therefore, little is known about the turnout effects of either public financing of state legislative campaigns or recent full public financing (i.e., “clean elections”) reforms. In this study, we conduct the first systematic test of the treatment effect of state public financing on voter turnout. We exploit the occurrence of recent campaign finance reforms in the states to estimate the effect on voter turnout from public financing of gubernatorial and state legislative campaigns . The time period that we examine extends from 1990 to 2008, so we are also able to conduct the first evaluation of the effects of “clean elections” reforms in the states on voter turnout. In the next section, we elaborate on the motivation for our analysis. In subsequent sections, we detail our data, methods, and results. We then discuss the implications of our findings. 226 Jeffrey Milyo, David M. Primo, and matthew l. jacobsmeier The Link between Public Financing and Voter Turnout The reform community has long argued that public financing will have a dramatic and salutary effect on American democracy. In turn, voluntary participation in elections is widely considered a key indicator of the health of any democracy. It is therefore no surprise that many proponents of public funding for elections see it as an important determinant of voter turnout. Reformers identify at least two distinct means by which public financing is expected to increase voter turnout: increased confidence in government and increased electoral competition. For example, Warren Rudman, former U.S. senator and honorary cochair of Americans for Campaign Reform, articulates one causal pathway: The time has come for our Congress to seriously consider public financing of federal elections. With public financing, the power will be with voters, not special interests. When the cost of financing a campaign is not an intimidating obstacle, more of our most able leaders will run for office. Once elected, they will spend their time and energy attending to the nation’s business instead of wasting their time on nonstop fundraising. And when Americans have greater confidence in our democracy, more will participate and more will vote. (Common Cause 2009a)1 The second pathway by which public financing increases turnout is captured nicely in the same Web document available from Common Cause: While voter turnout is affected by other factors, Clean Elections, by increasing competition and bringing new, fresh faces into the system, encourages people to come out and vote.2 Reality Check: Slippery Statistics about Clean Elections In the wake of the implementation of clean elections reforms in Arizona and Maine, several advocacy groups have issued “studies” of the impact of public financing on elections in these states. Clean elections systems offer candidates the opportunity to receive public monies for campaigns provided that they spend and raise no other funds (beyond an initial set of small contributions to demonstrate support from the voters). This system has been hailed as an elixir that will cure all that ails government. For instance, the Arizona [44.192.107.255] Project MUSE (2024-03-28 12:05 GMT) does public financing increase voter turnout? 227 law approved by voters in 1998 promised that it “will improve the integrity of Arizona state government by diminishing the influence of special-interest money, will encourage citizen participation in the political process, and will promote freedom of speech under the U.S. and Arizona Constitutions. Campaigns will become more issue-oriented and less negative because there will be no need to challenge the sources of campaign money” (§16-940 of the Citizens Clean Elections Act, A.R.S., Title 16, Chapter 6...