The campaign finance terrain is highly influential on potential
candidates' decisions to run or not run. Campaign finances
(structured by campaign finance rules) also undoubtedly influence the
positions officeholders are willing to be courageous on, because a
large potential war chest deters such courage.
It can be difficult to quantify this deterrence scientifically, but
this does not make such deterrence any the less real, just as the
deterrent effect of armed forces or nuclear weapons assuredly exists,
even if it is difficult to measure using the present tools of
political science. It thus seems that the CU data requested below,
while informative, only gives a portion of the overall picture
regarding the influence of campaign finance rules.
Paul Lehto, J.D.
On 3/13/11, Mathew Manweller <manwellerm@cwu.edu> wrote:
A few months after the CU decision there was a debate on this listserv about
the role of unregulated corporate money as it pertained to state elections.
A few people posted data comparing election results and donations from the
states with limits/bans on corporate money and those states with unlimited
corporate donations.
I can't find those email in my inbox and I was hoping the person that posted
them would be willing to either re-post the link/data or respond offline at
manwellerm@cwu.edu
Regards,
Matt Manweller
Central Washington University
Associate Professor of Political Science
manwellerm@cwu.edu
509-963-2396