Thomas Stratmann, a George Slape Visiting Scholar and economics professor at George Mason University, spoke to a general audience in the Lillis Business Complex Friday afternoon regarding political campaign contributions and their effect on elections.
Stratmann’s lecture focused on analyzing federal campaign subsidies, the fundraising gap between incumbents and challengers, candidate spending, the effect of advertising on elections and the possibility of corruption within campaign contributions.
“Money is important in politics,” Stratmann said. “It affects election outcomes. It affects who wins and who loses, and it affects the decisions of legislators.”
Stratmann’s findings indicate placing limits on campaign contributions will increase the competitiveness of elections by leveling the playing field between incumbents and challengers.
Stratmann, who began publishing his research on campaign contributions in 1990, asked the audience whether the current campaign finance laws serve as “incumbency protection acts” or “level the playing field” for candidates.
“Incumbency protection acts” are laws limiting campaign contributions as a way to help incumbents gain re-election.
“They pass the laws, so would they do something to hurt themselves?” Stratmann said of incumbents. “Probably not.”
As for seeing whether contribution limits close the fundraising gap or “level the playing field” between the incumbent and the challenger, Stratmann argued that contribution limits close the fundraising gap if the incumbent has a fundraising advantage from large contributions. Conversely, contribution limits can hurt challenging candidates if they can only receive large financial contributions from just one or a few sources.
Stratmann’s research looked to see if “extra money increases the probability of winning.”
Stratmann measured the probability by focusing on the amount a candidate spends on advertising. His findings revealed that a candidate receives slightly more votes when he or she outspends an opponent by $100,000 in advertising. Therefore, he concluded that all campaign spending is productive.
Stratmann said people contribute to campaigns either to influence the outcome of an election for a candidate who already aligns with their beliefs, or to influence a policy position by changing a candidate’s mind. Stratmann argued this creates the possibility for corruption from special interest groups because it raises the question of why such groups are contributing.
Stratmann’s findings show that $10,000 extra of political action committee contributions increase the likelihood of a vote change by 8 percentage points.
In the 2008 Congressional elections, individuals contributed $799 million, or about 56 percent of the total donations. Political action committees spent $380 million, or about 27 percent of the total donations. Political action committees are allowed to give $5,000 per candidate, per election, while individuals are only allowed $2,400 per candidate, per election.
Stratmann acknowledged the current data available are slightly outdated. He said more analysis of contribution limits can determine if public financing can improve the competitiveness of campaigns and reduce lobbying power.
At the end of the lecture, Stratmann said his instinct is that contribution limits are good for the political process, even though the hard data does not exist to back up his beliefs.
[email protected]