Campaign Financing and Ideology Post-Citizens United

Last Modified

Creator

Giusto, Emma
- Affiliation: College of Arts and Sciences, Department of Political Science

Abstract

Since the Citizens United Supreme Court decision changed campaign finance laws in the United States, scholars have sought to determine the impact of different types of campaign financing on the political system. This paper serves to add to this research by answering the questions: given the freedom of outside spending now allowed by Supreme Court decisions such as Citizens United, how does ideology affect the relative amount of outside spending congressional candidates receive from sources other than their party committees? In turn, how does this affect polarization in Congress? Through examining the relationship between ideological extremism and relative levels of non-traditional outside funding (i.e. excluding party committee spending) I found that, in certain cases, ideology may play a role in determining the amount of non-traditional outside spending candidates receive. My findings suggest that there is a negative relationship between the percentage of non-traditional outside funding and ideological extremism for incumbents in the House and that there is a positive relationship between non-traditional outside spending relative to traditional party spending only and ideological extremism for non-incumbents in the House. This indicates that ideologically extreme non-incumbents in the House rely more heavily on non-traditional outside spending relative to traditional party spending, which may have important implications for elections going forward.

Date of publication

Keyword

DOI

Resource type

Advisor

Degree

Academic concentration

Honors level

Degree granting institution

Graduation year

Language

Relations

Thumbnail	Title	Date Uploaded	Visibility	Actions
	2019_Giusto.pdf	2019-05-18	Public	Download