Up Close and Personal: Campaign Contact and Candidate Spending in U.S. House Elections
| Author | Christopher Kenny,Michael McBurnett |
| Published date | 01 March 1997 |
| Date | 01 March 1997 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/106591299705000104 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
75
Up
Close
and
Personal:
Campaign
Contact
and
Candidate
Spending
in
U.S.
House
Elections
CHRISTOPHER
KENNY,
LOUISIANA
STATE
UNIVERSITY
MICHAEL
McBURNETT,
ILLINOIS
POWER
COMPANY
Very
little
evidence
exists
on
which
forms
of
voter
contact
have
the
greatest
impact
on
election
outcomes.
In
this
article
we
attempt
to
assess
systemati-
cally
the
effect
of
different
forms
of
voter
contact
on
congressional
vote
choice.
By
estimating
a
system
of
equations
for
spending
and
vote
choice
with
three
different
forms
of
personal
and
media
contact
we
are
able
to
investigate
how
different
forms
of
contact
directly
affect
the
vote
choice
as
well
as
mediate
the
impact
of
candidate
spending.
We
find
that
incum-
bents
and
challengers
benefit
differently
from
the
different
forms
of
con-
tact.
Challengers
tend
to
get
a
bigger
direct
effect
from
contact
in
general
probably
because
as
a
group
they
are
less
well
known
than
incumbents.
Incumbents,
on
the
other
hand,
seem
able
to
use
contact
through
the
me-
dia
to
maintain
their
advantage.
Contact
through
television
enhances
the
effect
of
spending
to
a
much
greater
extent
than
is
true
for
challengers,
suggesting
that
incumbents
who
reach
a
large
percentage
of
the
electorate
are
difficult
to
beat.
Any
discussion
of
elections
and
campaigns
eventually
turns
to
the
topic
of
money.
Indeed,
it
is
well
documented
that
the
amount
of
money
spent
trying
to
get
elected
to
public
office
in
the
US
has
grown
considerably
over
the
last
30
years,
although
that
trend
has
slowed
a
bit
recently
(Alexander
1992).
While
the
trend
is
easy
to
see,
the
reasons
for
its
occurrence
are
less
clear.
The
availability
of
new
campaign
technologies
and
the
ever-
changing
finance
laws
under
which
candidates
operate
are
commonly
cited
reasons.
Perhaps
the
main
reason
that
candidates
spend
so
much
is
be-
cause
of
the
uncertainty
surrounding
their
campaign
efforts.
Evidence
re-
garding
the
cost
of
additional
votes
and
the
effectiveness
of
various
76
campaign
techniques
is
virtually
nonexistent
(Alexander
1992;
Jacobson
1992),
as
evidenced
by
the
frequently
held
assertion
that
&dquo;half
the
money
spent
on
campaigns
is
wasted.
The
trouble
is,
we
don’t
know
which
half&dquo;
(Jacobson
1992).
The
result
of
this
uncertainty
is
often
seat-of-the-pants
decision
making
in
terms
of
allocating
campaign
resources.
Candidates
will
often
do
what
has
worked
in
the
past,
both
in
terms
of
their
own
successes
as
well
as
imitating
what
seems
to
have
worked
for
others.
They
will
also
let
tradition
guide
them,
producing
yard
signs,
bumper
stickers,
and
buttons,
because
campaigns
have
always
produced
them
(Kayden
1978).
As
Jacobson
(1992:
82)
points
out,
this
uncertainty
also
stimulates
innovation.
There
is
an
incentive
for
less
advantaged
candidates
(typi-
cally
challengers)
to
try
out
new
tactics.
With
comparatively
few
dollars
and
little
hope
of
winning,
they
have
little
to
lose
and
everything
to
gain.
The
goal
of
a
political
campaign
is
straightforward:
to
contact,
convince,
and
get
to
the
polls,
enough
voters
for
victory
on
election
day
(Jacobson
1992).
It
is
the
purpose
of
this
study
to
initiate
the
systematic
examination
of
differ-
ent
ways
of
contacting
voters
as
they
affect
congressional
vote
choice.
Several
questions
guide
our
research
effort.
To
what
extent
do
the
different
methods
of
contact
directly
affect
vote
choice?
Can
we
identify
certain
forms
of
contact
which
show
the
strongest
direct
effects?
Additionally,
does
the
method
of
con-
tact
enhance
or
inhibit
the
effect
of
candidate
spending?
Or,
to
put
it
another
way,
does
the
manner
in
which
the
voter
is
reached
mediate
the
effect
of
the
candidate’s
effort
to
influence
the
voter?
Finally,
are
these
effects,
if
any,
the
same
for
challengers
and
incumbents,
or
do
interesting
differences
emerge?
.:
FORMS
OF
CAMPAIGN
CONTACT
While
the
figures
vary
along
several
different
lines,
it
is
usually
the
case
that
a
large
percentage
of
the
campaign
budget
is
spent
trying
to
produce
and
distribute
persuasive
messages
to
the
voting
public
or
some
targeted
segment
of
it
(Goldenberg
and
Traugott
1984).
Indeed,
that
is
the
whole
purpose
of
a
campaign;
to
reach
potential
voters
and
persuade
them
to
vote
for
you.
In
House
races,
the
exact
mix
of
these
activities
varies
depending
on
a
number
of
factors
such
as
the
size
of
the
budget,
whether
the
candidate
is
the
incumbent
or
the
challenger,
tradition,
and
the
efficiency
with
which
television
markets
fit
the
district,
to
name
just
a
few
(Jacobson
1992:
81-86;
Alexander
1992:
94).
The
purpose
of
this
section
is
to
identify
these
different
methods
of
con-
tact
and
to
organize
them
in
a
way
that
will
prove
useful
in
later
analyses.
Candidates
for
public
office
can
contact
citizens
in
a
variety
of
ways.
As
Jacobson
(1992;
83-86)
points
out,
there
are
certain
activities
that
virtually
all
campaigns
undertake.
He
divides
these
activities
into
two
groups.
The
first
is
mass
media
advertising,
which
includes
contacting
the
voters
through
televi-
To continue reading
Request your trial