Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How prices matter in politics: the returns to campaign advertising

  • Published:
Public Choice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The apparent ineffectiveness of incumbent campaign spending in congressional elections is one of the enduring puzzles in the political economy literature. Previous work in this area has assumed that advertising prices are uniform across congressional districts, and therefore that campaign spending alone is a good proxy for campaign advertising. However, candidates in different districts face widely different advertising prices and this paper shows that differences in advertising costs are one source of the apparent ineffectiveness of campaign spending. Accounting for the price of advertising, this paper shows that campaign spending is productive for both incumbents and challengers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrajano, M. A., & Morton, R. B. (2004). All style and no substance? The strategic calculus of campaign advertising. Mimeo, New York University.

  • Abramowitz, A. I. (1988). Explaining Senate election outcomes. American Political Science Review, 82, 385–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramowitz, A. I. (1991). Incumbency, campaign spending, and the decline of competition in U.S. House elections. Journal of Politics, 53, 34–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansolabehere, S., & Gerber, A. (1994). The mismeasure of campaign spending: evidence from the 1990 U.S. House elections. Journal of Politics, 56(4), 1106–1118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkin, C., & Heald, G. (1976). Effects of political advertising. Public Opinion Quarterly, 40, 216–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkin, C., Bowen, L., Nayman, O. B., & Sheinkopf, K. G. (1973). Quality versus quantity in televised political ads. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 37, 209–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballotti, R. J., & Kaid, L. L. (2000). Examining verbal style in presidential campaign spots. Communication Studies, 51, 258–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benoit, W. L., Pier, P. M., & Blaney, J. R. (1997). A functional approach to televised political spots: Acclaiming, attacking, defending. Communication Quarterly, 45, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, L. (1994). Time of voting decision and use of political advertising: The Slate Gorton-Brock Adams senatorial campaign. Journalism Quarterly, 71(3), 665–675.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brians, C. L., & Wattenberg, M. P. (1996). Campaign issue knowledge and salience: Comparing reception from tv commercials, tv news and newspapers. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 172–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coates, D. (1998). Additional incumbent spending really can harm (at least some) incumbents: an analysis of vote share maximization. Public Choice, 95(1–2), 63–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erikson, R. S., & Palfrey, T. R. (1998). Campaign spending and incumbency: an alternative simultaneous equations approach. Journal of Politics, 60, 355–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, P., & Jondrow, J. (1984). Congressional elections and local federal spending. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 147–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritz, S., & Morris, D. (1992). Handbook of campaign spending. Washington: Congressional Quarterly Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, A. (1998). Estimating the effect of campaign spending on election outcomes using instrumental variables. American Political Science Review, 92, 401–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, K., & Freedman, P. (2000). New evidence for new arguments: Money and advertising in the 1996 Senate elections. Journal of Politics, 62, 1087–1108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, K., & Rivlin, J. (2005). Political advertising in 2002. Combined file [dataset]. Final release. Madison, WI: The Wisconsin Advertising Project, The Department of Political Science at The University of Wisconsin—Madison.

  • Goldstein, K., Franz, M., & Ridout, T. (2002). Political advertising in 2000. Combined file [dataset]. Final release. Madison, WI: The Department of Political Science at The University of Wisconsin—Madison and The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.

  • Green, D. P., & Krasno, J. S. (1988). Salvation for the spendthrift incumbent: reestimating the effects of campaign spending in House elections. American Journal of Political Science, 32, 884–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grier, K. (1989). Campaign spending and Senate elections, 1978–1984. Public Choice, 63(3), 201–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrnson, P. (2004). Congressional elections: campaigning at home and in Washington (4th edn.). Washington: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, G. C. (1978). The effects of campaign spending on Congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 72, 469–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, G. C. (1980). Money in congressional elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, G. C. (1985). Money and votes reconsidered: Congressional elections 1972–1982. Public Choice, 47, 7–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, G. C. (1989). Strategic politicians and the dynamics of House elections, 1946–1986. American Political Science Review, 83, 773–793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, G. C., & Kernell, S. (1983). Strategy and choice in congressional elections (2nd edn.). New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasperson, A. E., & Fan, D. P. (2002). An aggregate examination of the backlash effect in political advertising: the case of the 1996 U.S. Senate race in Minnesota. Journal of Advertising, 31(1), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaid, L. L. (1982). Paid television advertising and candidate name identification. Campaigns and Elections, 3, 34–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaid, L. L. (Ed.). (2004). Handbook of political communication research. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaid, L. L., Gobetz, R. H., Garner, J., Leland, C. M., & Scott, D. K. (1993). Television news and presidential campaigns: the legitimization of television political advertising. Social Science Quarterly, 74(2), 274–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koenker, R., & Bassett, G. (1978). Regression quantiles. Econometrica, 46, 107–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, S. D. (1994). Using repeat challengers to estimate the effect of campaign spending on election outcomes in the U.S. House. Journal of Political Economy, 102, 777–798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milyo, J. (2001). What do candidates maximize (and why should anyone care)? Public Choice, 109(1/2), 119–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, D. C. (2003). Public choice III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragsdale, L., & Cook, T. E. (1987). Representatives’ actions and challengers’ reactions: Limits to candidate connections in the House. American Journal of Political Science, 31, 45–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, D. R. (1999). The effect of TV ads and candidate appearance on statewide presidential votes, 1988–1996. American Political Science Review, 93, 345–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, A. (2002). The winning message: candidate behavior, campaign discourse, and democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiliotes, C. J., & Vavreck, L. (2002). Campaign advertising: partisan convergence or divergence. Journal of Politics, 64(1), 249–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stratmann, T. (2006). Contribution limits and the effectiveness of campaign spending. Public Choice, 129(3–4), 461–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Squire, P. (1989). Competition and uncontested seats in the U.S. House election. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 14(2), 281–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vavreck, L. (2001). The reasoning voter meets the strategic candidate: Signals and specificity in campaign advertising, 1998. American Politics Research, 29(5), 507–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wald, A. (1940). The fitting of straight lines if both variables are subject to error. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 11, 284–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, D. (2005). Air wars: television advertising in election campaigns, 1952–2004 (4th edn.). Washington: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. George Mason University, Fairfax, USA

    Thomas Stratmann

Authors
  1. Thomas Stratmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Stratmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stratmann, T. How prices matter in politics: the returns to campaign advertising. Public Choice 140, 357–377 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-009-9425-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-009-9425-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation