BYU
Go to RouteY Brigham Young University

Pew 2000

Outside Money in the 2000 Presidential & Congressional Elections

David B. Magleby, Principle Investigator

Project Overview

The 2000 presidential election used even more soft money than the previous presidential election of 1996. The 2000 elections also set the course for the first decade of the new millennium. With such a close party balance in the public and in Congress, the stakes were very high and both parties relied heavily on soft money. This election also marked a rise in issue advocacy. Candidates in the most competitive races no longer controlled much of the campaign communication with voters. Political parties, interest groups, and individuals exploited court decisions and administrative rulings to run their own election campaigns. They also spent unlimited and often undisclosed amounts of money in support of, or opposition to, particular candidates. These campaign activities, which fell outside the realm of federal regulation, posed a significant threat to our democracy.

Using the methodology developed in a 1998 study, CSED monitored soft money, issue ads, and independent expenditures in key 2000 presidential primaries and in a sample of competitive states and house districts for the presidential, U.S. Senate and U.S. House general election races. Building upon our successful 1998 pilot study, we tested data-retrieval methods and assessed the impact of this new world of campaign finance on public confidence, candidate behavior, and the electoral process. CSED also conducted a set of focus groups between September 15 and October 30, 2000 to test whether voters can tell the difference between issue ads and ads run by campaigns.

Methodology

CSED again partnered with academics across the country to study seventeen of the most competitive presidential and congressional elections in 2000. The researchers gathered data from television and radio stations and established a reconnaissance network to collect political mail and report on campaigning via telephone. In addition, the researchers conducted extensive interviews with campaign professionals, party officials, and interest group leaders knowledgeable about each race. Additional interviews were conducted in Washington, D.C., with party and interest group professionals. Finally, researchers tallied and analyzed data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group (CMAG), which gathers data on television advertising. Combining these data collection methods has produced the most complete picture available of the many campaign organizations operating in each of these contests.

The sample of races monitored was developed based upon published lists of competitive races by The Cook Political Report, The Rothenberg Political Report, and the American Enterprise Institute’s Election Watch newsletter. This sample was circulated on a periodic basis to a panel of reporters from Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, party and PAC professionals, and other political experts who helped identify the contests in which outside money was most likely to be spent and to be important. Some effort was made to stratify the sample to have a mix of incumbent and open seat races and to have a mix of Democratic and Republican contests that would permit researchers to tap into a wide variety of interest group and party strategies. All but two of the contests were rated by one or more of the prognosticators as “toss-ups,” meaning that the race did not lean towards one party or the other.

Findings

Click here to download the monograph that was released at a press event held February 5, 2001 press event at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. Click here to read the press release about the event. The initial monograph was later published as a book by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Click here for more information.

The results of the focus groups were published in another monograph. Click here to download it.

Academics

Race Academic School
Arkansas 4
Harold Bass Ouachita Baptist University, Arkadelphia
Kathryn Kirkpatrick Ouachita Baptist University, Arkadelphia
Amber Wilson Ouachita Baptist University, Arkadelphia
California 27 Drew Linzer University of California, Los Angeles
David Menefee-Libey Pomona College
Connecticut 5 Sandra Anglund University of Connecticut
Joanne Miller University of Connecticut
Delaware Senate Joseph Pika University of Delaware
Illinois 10 Barry Rundquist University of Illinois at Chicago
Ola Adeoye University of Illinois at Chicago
Julia Dowse University of Illinois at Chicago
Chris Christenson University of Illinois at Chicago
Randy Smith University of Illinois at Chicago
Kentucky 6 Penny Miller University of Kentucky, Lexington
Donald Gross University of Kentucky, Lexington
Michigan Senate Michael Traugott University of Michigan
Michigan 8 Eric Freedman Michigan State University
Sue Carter Michigan State University
Missouri Senate Martha Kropf University of Missouri, Kansas City
Terry Jones University of Missouri, St. Louis
Anthony Simones Southwest Missouri State University
Dale Neuman University of Missouri, Kansas City
Allison Hayes Western Carolina University
Maureen Gilbride Mears University of Missouri, St. Louis
Montana Senate & At-large Craig Wilson Montana State University, Billings
New Jersey 12 Adam Berinsky Princeton University
Susan Lederman Kean University
Oklahoma 2 Rebekah Herrick Oklahoma State University
Charlie Peaden Oklahoma State University
Pennsylvania 4 Christopher Jan Carman University of Pittsburgh
David Barker University of Pittsburgh
Pennsylvania 13 Robin Kolodny Temple University
Sandra Suarez Temple University
Kyle Kreider Temple University
Virginia Senate Bob Dudley George Mason University
Harry Wilson Roanoke College
Robert Holsworth Virginia Commonwealth University
Scott Keeter George Mason University
Steven Medvic Old Dominion University
Washington 2 Todd Donovan Western Washington University
Charles Morrow Western Washington University