The dispute over the Brennan's Center's findings
has been blurring issues that need to be kept
distinct.
There is very little dispute between Judge Leon
and the 1998 or 2000 Brennan research teams
about the following facts:
(1) # of issue ads before September 1;
(2) # " " " after " ";
(3) # electioneering ads before " ";
(4) # " after " ".
The 6% figure reported in the 1998 Brennan
study is #2 divided by (#1 + #2).
Judge Leon's higher number is #2 divided by (#2 + #3).
That is, the difference between Judge Leon's 17% and
the 6% number has nothing to do with coding,
accuracy, motives or content analysis methodology.
They are working from the same facts.
Judge Leon says that his method is better for thinking
about overbreadth for First Amendment purposes. He
wants to know what percentage of the ads captured by
the bright line test (without the targeting provision
added after the Brennan Center work) were
non-electioneering issue ads. His answer: 17%.
The 1998 study asks a different question: what percentage
of issue ads during a year are captured by the bright
line test. Its answer: 6%.
Both answers are right. Both are accurate. They answer
different questions. Which is the better question to
use is an argument about law. It is a judgment about
what is better or worse. It is not a question of fact
or social science.
Nothing I have read calls Krasno's or Goldstein's content
analysis seriously into question. It is normal (a) to give
students or other not very specialized readers coding
instructions [to use specialized readers would be a
mistake]; (b) to test the consistency of the coders by
running inter-coder reliability tests and (c) for the
principal investigator to be called in to resolve
occasional differences.
Asking the PI to resolve differences has nothing to
do with funding sources. I had to do the same as PI
on a very large congressional history database
created with NSF funding. [And it surely is relevant
that the majority of recoded cases went in a direction
opposite to the presumed interest of the Brennan Center.]
Nor is there anything intrinsically softer about content
analysis than survey research, or deductive modeling.
Each method has its appropriate standards for testing
validity.
It would be better, therefore to recast this dispute.
It is not about facts. The important differences between
the two percentages are about standards, questions and law.
These issues are hard enough without confusing them.
And for the record, the Campaign Finance Institute did
not take a position on McCain-Feingold.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Michael J. Malbin
Executive Director
Campaign Finance Institute
1990 M Street NW (Suite 380)
Washington, D.C. 20036
PH: 202-969-8890
FAX: 202-969-5612
email: mmalbin@CFInst.org
web: http://www.CFInst.org
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *