IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v50y2006i3p788-801.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is Spending More Potent For or Against a Proposition? Evidence from Ballot Measures

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas Stratmann

Abstract

The recent academic literature suggests that pressure from special interest groups has little or no influence on whether initiatives and referendums are passed or defeated. Further, there is a consensus that, to the degree that groups' campaigning is important for explaining outcomes, groups opposing the initiative and favoring the status quo have an advantage over groups that support change. These studies have not considered that interest groups campaign strategically and therefore that campaigning is endogenous in ballot measure elections. This study examines the effect of campaigning on ballot proposition elections and develops a research design that accounts for strategic and endogenous campaign advertising. The research design uses a two‐way fixed‐effects model to estimate the effect of interest group pressure on ballot measure outcomes. The data are based on television advertising for or against California ballot measures from 2000 to 2004. The results show that supporting and opposing interest groups' campaigning has a quantitatively important and statistically significant influence on ballot measure outcomes. The campaigning of supporting interest groups is at least as productive as that of opposing interest groups.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Stratmann, 2006. "Is Spending More Potent For or Against a Proposition? Evidence from Ballot Measures," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 788-801, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:50:y:2006:i:3:p:788-801
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00216.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00216.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00216.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeffrey M Wooldridge, 2010. "Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 2, volume 1, number 0262232588, April.
    2. Matsusaka, John G., 2004. "For the Many or the Few," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226510811, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Steven M. Karceski & Nives Dolšak & Aseem Prakash & Travis N. Ridout, 2020. "Did TV ads funded by fossil fuel industry defeat the Washington carbon tax?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 301-307, February.
    2. Rogers, Todd T & Middleton, Joel A., 2012. "Are Ballot Initiative Outcomes Influenced by the Campaigns of Independent Groups? A Precinct-Randomized Field Experiment," Scholarly Articles 9830357, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    3. Matsusaka, John G., 2018. "Special Interest Influence under Direct versus Representative Democracy," Working Papers 278, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State.
    4. John M. de Figueiredo & Chang Ho Ji & Thad Kousser, 2010. "Financing Direct Democracy: Revisiting the Research on Campaign Spending and Citizen Initiatives," NBER Working Papers 16356, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Ted D. Rossier, 2021. "Voter experience and ballot language framing effects: Evidence from a survey experiment," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2955-2971, November.
    6. Allender, William J. & Richards, Timothy J. & Fang, Di & Doyon, Maurice, 2011. "Media Advertising and Ballot Initiatives: An Experimental Analysis," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 104224, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mengyuan Zhou, 2022. "Does the Source of Inheritance Matter in Bequest Attitudes? Evidence from Japan," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 867-887, December.
    2. Campbell, Randall C. & Nagel, Gregory L., 2016. "Private information and limitations of Heckman's estimator in banking and corporate finance research," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 186-195.
    3. Giuliani, Elisa & Martinelli, Arianna & Rabellotti, Roberta, 2016. "Is Co-Invention Expediting Technological Catch Up? A Study of Collaboration between Emerging Country Firms and EU Inventors," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 192-205.
    4. Ilona Babenko & Benjamin Bennett & John M Bizjak & Jeffrey L Coles & Jason J Sandvik, 2023. "Clawback Provisions and Firm Risk," The Review of Corporate Finance Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 12(2), pages 191-239.
    5. Şahan, Duygu & Tuna, Okan, 2018. "Environmental innovation of transportation sector in OECD countries," Chapters from the Proceedings of the Hamburg International Conference of Logistics (HICL), in: Kersten, Wolfgang & Blecker, Thorsten & Ringle, Christian M. (ed.), The Road to a Digitalized Supply Chain Management: Smart and Digital Solutions for Supply Chain Management. Proceedings of the Hamburg International C, volume 25, pages 157-170, Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH), Institute of Business Logistics and General Management.
    6. Eric Fesselmeyer & Kiat Ying Seah, 2018. "Individual Payoffs and the Effect of Homeownership on Social Capital Investment," Journal of Housing Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(1), pages 59-78, January.
    7. Ruomeng Cui & Dennis J. Zhang & Achal Bassamboo, 2019. "Learning from Inventory Availability Information: Evidence from Field Experiments on Amazon," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 1216-1235, March.
    8. Luiz Paulo Fávero & Joseph F. Hair & Rafael de Freitas Souza & Matheus Albergaria & Talles V. Brugni, 2021. "Zero-Inflated Generalized Linear Mixed Models: A Better Way to Understand Data Relationships," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-28, May.
    9. Shaikh M. S. U. Eskander & Sam Fankhauser, 2022. "Income Diversification and Income Inequality: Household Responses to the 2013 Floods in Pakistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, January.
    10. Iván Fernández-Val & Martin Weidner, 2018. "Fixed Effects Estimation of Large-TPanel Data Models," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 10(1), pages 109-138, August.
    11. Peter Harasztosi & Attila Lindner, 2019. "Who Pays for the Minimum Wage?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(8), pages 2693-2727, August.
    12. Jinwon Kim & Jucheol Moon & Dongyun Yang, 2024. "Pigouvian Congestion Tolls and the Welfare Gain: Estimates for California Freeways," Working Papers 2402, Nam Duck-Woo Economic Research Institute, Sogang University (Former Research Institute for Market Economy).
    13. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Kim, Heeho & Roberts, Roland K. & Kim, Taeyoung & Lee, Daegoon, 2014. "Effects of changes in forestland ownership on deforestation and urbanization and the resulting effects on greenhouse gas emissions," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 93-109.
    14. Kazuki Onji & John P. Tang, 2015. "A nation without a corporate income tax: Evidence from nineteenth century Japan," Discussion Papers in Economics and Business 15-12, Osaka University, Graduate School of Economics.
    15. Brown, Sarah & Greene, William H. & Harris, Mark N. & Taylor, Karl, 2015. "An inverse hyperbolic sine heteroskedastic latent class panel tobit model: An application to modelling charitable donations," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 228-236.
    16. Roberto Martino & Phu Nguyen-Van, 2014. "Labour market regulation and fiscal parameters: A structural model for European regions," Working Papers of BETA 2014-19, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    17. Etienne Redor & Magnus Blomkvist, 2021. "Do all inside and affiliated directors hold the same value for shareholders?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 41(3), pages 882-895.
    18. Upasak Das & Rupayan Pal & Udayan Rathore & Bibhas Saha, 2023. "Rein in pandemic by pricing vaccine: Does social trust matter?," Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai Working Papers 2023-008, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, India.
    19. Andreas Fagereng & Luigi Guiso & Davide Malacrino & Luigi Pistaferri, 2020. "Heterogeneity and Persistence in Returns to Wealth," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(1), pages 115-170, January.
    20. Boeker, Warren & Howard, Michael D. & Basu, Sandip & Sahaym, Arvin, 2021. "Interpersonal relationships, digital technologies, and innovation in entrepreneurial ventures," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 495-507.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:50:y:2006:i:3:p:788-801. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5907 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.