[EL] impact of disclosure on candidate contributions

[Ray La Raja]

Hi Lorraine,
Thanks for reading the paper and your comments.   The findings apply to all likely donors (not just a subset).   ALL donors systemically choose to give at amounts less than the threshold when told that donations above $50 would be public. So instead of giving $100 (like in the control group), they might give $50.  That's a lot of small donations to lose when multiplied over the population.   Only the cross-pressured donors decided to STOP donating totally when faced with disclosure.  But these cross-pressured citizens make up more than 10% of population of donors  -- not insignificant -- and it's a group that is already reluctant to participate in politics (see Diana Mutz's work).  

Good suggestion on varying the question to see if I scared them with my wording. In some ways, I felt like i downplayed it too much by saying 'names of donors are made public".  I think many respondents skipped over this line and only respond when they see a number.  (I should have tried: "names of donors above $1 are made public" ).  And I imagine the response might be pretty sharp if I asked them to insert their name and address on an Internet form, like many candidates do.

At any rate, the key point is that potential donors really changed their behavior on the downside. And this happens among citizens with high socio-economic status who typically engage in politics more than everyone else.

Best,
Ray


On Jan 19, 2013, at 12:08 PM, Lorraine Minnite wrote:

> Ray:
> 
> This is a very interesting study.  I think it would be fascinating to test different versions of the key question of your experiment,: "Please note: names of donors are made public on the Internet."  It sounds simple and straightforward, but to me there is an undertone.  The wording is more active than what the word "disclosure" suggests.  I'd think that my name, donation level and candidate choice were going to be announced and advertised on the Internet.  I take your point that the issue here is that information once simply disclosed to election agencies (passive anonymity) is now more widely available through the medium of the Internet, but we also know how sensitive survey results are to question wording.  Were other versions of this questions tested?  For example, "Please note: donations to candidates are public information," or "Please note: campaign finance laws require disclosure of contributions over X."  Would you think it would make a difference?
> 
> Also, the paper abstract somewhat over-states the findings (the abstract says, that the paper "demonstrates how individuals refrain from making contributions or reduce their donations to avoid disclosing their identities").  Aren't your findings of a negative effect of publicity on donating restricted to a relatively small sub-set of cross-pressured voters (i.e., "...the findings demonstrate that citizens who are surrounded by people who do not share their views are more likely to refrain from or limit making political contributions," p. 3; and "The only set of voters who react negatively to disclosure are those who feel they are surrounded by those with different views." p. 14; also, the finding that the $1 threshold for disclosure had no affect on any group of voters, p. 16)? 
> 
> Again, a fine paper I'd encourage all interested in this subject to read. 
> 
> Lori Minnite
> 
> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Ray La Raja <laraja at polsci.umass.edu> wrote:
> Here is some evidence that low disclosure thresholds potentially affects the willingness of small donors to make contributions.
> 
> Abstract
> This study assesses whether public disclosure of campaign contributions affects citizens’ willingness to give money to candidates. In the American states, campaign finance laws require disclosure of private information for contributors at relatively low thresholds ranging from $1 to $300. Drawing on social influence theory, the analysis suggests that citizens are sensitive to divulging private information, especially those who are surrounded by people with different political views. Using experimental data from the 2011 Cooperative Congressional Election Studies, it demonstrates how individuals refrain from making contributions or reduce their donations to avoid disclosing their identities. The experimental findings compare favorably to observational data on political contributions across states with different disclosure thresholds. The conclusion discusses the implications of transparency laws for political participation, especially for small donors.
> 
> The working paper is available here:
> La Raja, Raymond J., Political Participation and Civic Courage: The Negative Effect of Transparency on Making Campaign Contributions (November 29, 2012). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2202405
> Best,
> Ray L.
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130119/5b304b05/attachment.html>