Pew 1998
Undisclosed and Unregulated Money In Congressional Elections
David B. Magleby, Principle Investigator
Project Overview
Candidates in the most competitive races no longer control much of the communication with voters. Political parties, interest groups, and individuals are now permitted to spend unlimited and often undisclosed amounts of money in support of, or opposition to, particular candidates. Unprecedented amounts of soft money—unlimited donations to party committees by groups or individuals for “party building” purposes—were available to parties in the 1998 congressional elections. Disclosure of soft money receipts and expenditures is limited by the laxness of most state party reporting requirements. The unprecedented soft money fundraising by the congressional campaign committees resulted in efforts to persuade voters in the most competitive races. One of the top soft money expenditures in 1998 was issue ads, which outside groups could produce and run without limits so long as the ads did not expressly urge a vote for or against a candidate.
In 1998, CSED fielded a comprehensive study in 16 House and Senate races to gauge the impact of soft money, issue ads, and independent expenditures on congressional elections. This was the first study to systematically track soft money and other undisclosed and unregulated campaign activity across a national sample of congressional contests.
Methodology
CSED drew a sample of House and Senate contests that were likely to see high amounts of non-candidate spending in the 1998 congressional elections. A team of academics was recruited in each sample race to observe the contest and retrieve data on non-candidate campaign communications with voters. They monitored television and radio advertising buys; tracked print advertising, direct mail, and telephone contacts; and monitored media and tracking polls and conducted interviews with campaign managers, consultants, and political reporters. The academics in each district also created reconnaissance networks to collect further information on the frequency and substance of non-candidate communications. These data were supplemented with the standard Federal Election Commission data on the candidate campaigns.
Findings
The findings were initially published in a
monograph in February 1999. The monograph was later published as a book by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Click
here for more information.
Academics
| Race |
Academic |
School |
|
Connecticut 5
|
Sandra Anglund |
University of Connecticut |
| Clyde McKee |
Trinity College |
| Idaho 2 |
Doug Nilson |
Idaho State University |
| Iowa 3 |
John Haskell |
Drake University |
| Illinois 17 |
John Shockley |
Western Illinois University |
| Kentucky Senate & 6 |
Donald Gross |
University of Kentucky, Lexington |
| Penny Miller |
University of Kentucky, Lexington |
| Kansas 3 |
Allan Cigler |
University of Kansas |
| Nevada Senate |
Michael Bowers |
University of Nevada, Las Vegas |
| Tim Fackler |
University of Nevada, Las Vegas |
| Nathalie Frensley |
University of Nevada, Las Vegas |
| Erik Herzik |
University of Nevada, Reno |
| Ted Jelen |
University of Nevada, Las Vegas |
| Todd Kunioka |
University of Nevada, Las Vegas |
| New Mexico 3 |
Lonna Rae Atkenson |
University of New Mexico |
| Anthony Coveny |
University of New Mexico |
| North Carolina Senate |
Thad Beyle |
University North Carolina, Chapel Hill |
| Ferrel Guillory |
University North Carolina, Chapel Hill |
| Ohio 6 |
DeLysa Burneir |
Ohio University |
| Michael Burton |
Ohio University |
| Oregon 1 |
Russ Dondero |
Pacific University |
| Pennsylvania 13 |
Robin Kolodny |
Temple University |
| Sandra Suarez |
Temple University |
| Michael Rodrigues |
|
| South Carolina Senate |
William Moore |
College of Charleston |
| Danielle Vinson |
Furman University |
| Utah 2 |
Jay Goodliffe |
Brigham Young University |
| Wisconsin 1 |
Dennis Dresang |
University of Wisconsin |
