MIT LIBRARIES
DUPL
3 9080 02617 7326
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in
2011 with funding from
Boston Library Consortium
Member
Libraries
http://www.archive.org/details/statisticalbiasiOOanso
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Department of Economics
Working Paper Series
Newspaper Reporting
on Campaign Finance
Statistical Bias in
Stephen Ansolabehere
Erik C. Snowberg
James M. Snyder,
Jr.
Working Paper 03-36
October 31, 2003
Room
E52-251
50 Memorial Drive
Cambridge,
MA 021 42
This paper can be downloaded without charge from the
Social Science Research Network Paper Collection at
http://ssrn.com/abstract=463780
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE
OF TECHNOLOGY
I
NOV
2
20D3
I
LIBRARIES
NEWSPAPER REPORTING
ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE^
STATISTICAL BIAS IN
Stephen Ansolabehere
Department of
Political Science
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Erik C. Snowberg
Department of Snowberging
Snowberg
Institute of
Snowberg
James M. Snyder,
Jr.
Department of Pohtical Science and Department
of
Economics
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
October 31, 2003
^Thanks to MIT librarian Anita Perkins who helped us liberate the Los Angeles Times from
Media Conglomeration. We also thank the Carnegie Corporation for its support under
the grip of
the Carnegie Scholare program and Philip BuiTowes for his exceptional research assistance.
Abstract
newspaper reporting on campaign
finance.
campaign expenditures, contributions, and
receipts
This paper examines evidence of statistical bias
We compile
data on
all
dollar
amounts
for
in
reported in the five largest circulation newspapers in the United States from 1996 to 2000.
We
then compare these figures to the universe of campaign expenditures, contributions and
receipts, as recorded
by the Federal Election Commission. The figures reported in newspaper
accounts exceed the average expenditure and contribution by as
much
as eight fold.
Press
reporting also focuses excessively on corporations contributions and soft m.oney, rather than
on the more common types of donors
We
-
individual
-
and types of contributions - hard money.
further find that these biases are reflected in public perceptions of
money
in elections.
1.
Introduction
Public discourse about campaign finance reflects a substantial disparity between perception
and
money"
of the
reality.
Most Americans hold strongly
in poUtics,
to the conjecture that there
is
much
"too
but also do not have a clear understanding of existing regulation or
amounts of money spent (Mayer, 2001). To gauge the degree of misperception, we
conducted a national survey of 1200 adults and asked how much money they thought the
House incumbent
typical U. S.
raised for reelection.
The average estimate among survey
respondent was that House incumbents spend $5.8 million to win reelection. In
average U.
House incmnbent
S.
raises
reality,
the
and spends approximately $780,000.
In this paper we consider a potential source of this bias: media reporting of campaign
Frank Sorauf examined the potential bias in the reporting
finance. In a 1987 paper,
"Some candidates and
paign finance.
display[s] a
tribution,
in
cam-
of
contributors," he reported, charged that "the
media
deep and pervasive bias against the solicitation and contribution of campaign con-
and
their reporting
more generally overstates the importance
of
campaign money
campaigns, in election outcomes and in eventual legislation." (Sorauf, 1987) Sourauf pre-
sented three examples that showed clear indications of bias.
The amoimts
reported
in several
cases were clearly out of hne with the reahty of fimdraising at that time,
and the reporters,
how they
covered campaign
Sorauf argued, had strong pohtical behefs that hkely colored
finance.
We
analyze the reporting of campaign finance
the election years 1996, 1998
that emerges?
find that
What
is
much
-
newspapers
for
the picture of total campaign spenchng
campaign funding that emerges?
and expenditures by candidates
campaign fmids contributed by
soft
and radio advertising.
tail"
is
the five largest U.S
in
We
newspapers
higher than the actual average. Additionally, campaign finance report-
(PACs), corporations, and as
"upper
What
as contributions to
ing overstates the percentage of
television
2000.
the picture of the sources of
amomits quoted
are generally
and
in
money,
That
is,
as well as the
political action
committees
amount spent by candidates on
newspapers tend to report on cases
in
the the
the most expensive races, highest- spending candidates, largest contributors
and contributions; and so on - rather than the
The
media
case of
"typical'' cases.
campaign finance demonstrates what we beUeve
bias: statistical bias in reporting.
As a
or average events.
the world around
us.
This bias
is
statistically biased
likely
be a more general sort of
Extreme events are more newsworthy than typical
result the picture of the world gleaned
watching evening news presents a
to
from reading newspapers or
sample of the important
facts
about
important beyond campaign finance. Paulos (1995)
presents examples of a wide variety of mathematical
and
statistical biases in reporting.
And.
cognitive psychologists often Unk misperception of risks with excessive media reporting of
particular daiigers
and diseases
(Slovic. Fischoff,
and Lichtenstein 1980). Campaign finance
provides a particularly clean case for comparing the reality of the subject with the reporting
of
it,
because there are a large number of public reports of campaign finance
and because there
is
in the press
a large publicly available database, gathered by the Federal Election
Commission, establishing the reaUty against which the media reports can be compared.
We
begin in section 2 by detaiUng our methodology
from the
press.
The next
for the collection
section presents the statistical picture of
and analysis of data
campaign expenditures
as
they are reported in newspapers. Section 4 takes a similar approach to looking at campaign
contributions and the final section looks at the implications of our findings. Section 5 presents
evidence of public misperception of campaign finance consistent with the statistical biases
in press reporting.
2.
We
extracted
five largest
all articles
U.S. newspapers:
Methodology
reporting campaign expenditures and contributions from the
USA
Today, the Wall Street Journal. The
New
York Times,
the Los Angeles Times, and The Washington Post.^ Sorauf used three of these papers [The
New
York Times, Los Angeles Times and Washington
Post.)
because "They are by general
consensus the three best and most influential general daily newspapers
in the
United States."
Since his writing, the two additional papers we surveyed (the Wall Street Journal and
Today) have grown such that their circulation has eclipsed
all
USA
three papers Sorauf surveyed.
'See http://www.freep.com/jobspage/liiiks/toplOO.htm for circulation figures.
The papers we studied
They
up
are not intended as a representative sample of
are the largest circulation papers in the country. Since
stories that originally
stories
appeared
appear in other papers as
We searched for
in
the top publications,
many
it
is
all
newspapers.
smaller newspapers pick
many
Hkely that
well.
articles in these publications that cited specific dollar
amounts
contributions or expenditures for the calendar years of 1996, 1998 and 2000.^
However, some
articles
of pohtical
Most
citations were references to financial transactions that took place during the
the article was written.
of these
of the
same year
sought to put current contributions and
expenditures in an historical context by using data from past election years.
We
include such historical citations in the data set for the year they were cited, not
choose to
when
the
transactions took place. Since real campaign spending increases over time including citations
of past
amounts hkely creates a downward
Each
citation
is
made up
bias
on the averages
of
amounts
of several elements: the article in which
it
cited.
was found - which
includes a newspaper, a page number, an author and a date - the size of the contribution
or expenditure,
and
its
source and destination.
For each number reported we coded the
detailed information about the Source of an Expenditure or Receipt
Expenditure
or Receipt.
To do
this,
we created two dozen
and Destination
categories that encompassed
of an
all
of
the main distinctions in types of campaign finance transactions, depending on the nature of
the contribution, the nature of the expenditure, the source of the funds, and the recipient of
the funds. For example, a soft
Committee would be
money
advertising expenditure by the Democratic National
classified according to the
advertising, expenditure,
and
soft
DNC
as the source
and the destination
money. These categories are defined in the Appendix.
as
We
could then cross the variables defining source and destination information to characterize
each receipt and each expenditure. All of the statistics reported below were generated using
these categories.
We included
^We
used the
citations that
Dow
had an actual dollar amount attached
to them,
and others that
Jones Interactive, Lexis-Nexis Academic, and ProQuest Databases with the following
query: (congress or house or congressman or senate or senator or senators or congressmen or congress worn en)
and
(election or elections or
campaign
or campaigns)
and
(dollars)
and
(raise or
spend) and (contribution)
An
were implicitly quantitative.
Kronenberg and her
example of such a citation would be "[Duangnet 'Georgie']
sister-in-law,
dreds of thousands of dollars in
zations and candidates."'^
collected,
Thai businesswoman Pauline Kanchanalak, steered huncontributions to various Democratic Party organi-
illegal
In order to
we would change "hundreds
make
compatible with the rest of the data we
tliis
of thousands" to $200,000 - the smallest
could be considered "hundreds of thousands"
.
When
amount that
we picked
a range of values was given,
the lowest one. These two approximations can only bias the data downwards.
If
two articles quoted the same
remove one of the citations or
more than
we used
once,
quoted were accurate.
of the original
slight
bias
One question
only once.
it
if
two newspapers ran the same
However,
articles.
If a correction
and the
downward
figure, or
We
also
was printed
if
the
same
later in the
we
did not
quoted the same figure
article
made no attempt
story,
to verify that
numbers
same paper, we used the lower
correction. This occurred very rarely,
and consequently put only a
on the data.
of particular interest that
age contribution from an individual or
we were unable
to
examine
firm. Unfortunately, there
is
the size of the aver-
is
very
little
information in
the press about specific contributions. Most press stories report contributions from "groups
of individuals" or by the firms in an industry, rather than the specific
amounts given by
particular individuals or particular firms.
3.
If
Reporting of Expenditures by Candidates
a reader were to treat the
numbers reported
in
newspapers as the
reality, he or
she would
carry a very inaccurate picture of campaign spending in America. Expenditures reported in
the papers are approximately 3 to 5 times larger than the reahty.
television advertising are
much, much
Table
reported
1
in
less
than
is
much
smaller than reported.
And
The amounts
spent on
congressional challengers spend
presented in the press.
shows the average
the newspapers
total expenditures for
we
^Fletcher, Michael A., Politics,
House and Senate candidates that was
studied.
Washington
Post.,
July 21, 1998. Page
A06
Table
1:
TotaJ Candidate Expenditures, Reported in Press vs. Actual
Reported
House:
Senate:
The
FEC
Ratio of
Mean
Reported
Expenditure
to Actual
$151,674
7.8
66
83%
68%
$779,031
1.7
5
100%
$318,761
4.2
106
78%
$359,861
3.6
94%
85%
78%
91%
#of
%
Kxpenditure
Citations
Actual
Challenger
$1,178,215
35
Incumbent
$1,330,391
Open Seat
$1,338,561
Total
$1,280,529
Challenger
$12,648,689
71
Incumbent
$11,280,074
34
Open Seat
$14,457,014
45
Total
$12,880,967
150
Above
Mean
$881,238
14.4
$4,404,493
2.6
$1,955,500
7.4
$1,687,108
7.6
averages above excluded third party candidates from the challenger and open
seat categories,
would bias the
ble) in
Actual
in Press
Mean
as they were
FEC
never reported on
We
averages downwards.
the numbers for incumbents.
in
we studied and
the newspapers
included independents (where applica-
In general the
amount spent by independent
in-
cumbents was almost exactly the same as the mean for all other candidates. In this
case, including independents had veiy little eiTect on the reported averages.
All data
from http://www.fec.gov/finance/allsum.htm, http://www.fec.gov/press/allsum98.htm
and http://www.fec.gov/press/051501congfinact/tables/allcong2000.html.
The
table shows two statistical biases.
spent in a typical race by a factor of 4
More than
paigns.
for
The
average amounts reported exceed the amount
U.S. House campaigns and 8 for U.S. Senate cam-
four out of every five citations of total
the real average expenditure.
If
one were to read only one article containing a citation of a
campaign expenditure, there would be an 82% chance that
real
mean. AhxLOst
The skew
challengers.
all
to the
this citation
was higher than the
of the citations in the press were higher than the real world median.
in reporting of total expenditures
The numbers from
spend about as much
campaign expenditures exceeded
as
is
especially
pronounced
for congressional
the press suggest that challengers in congressional campaigns
incumbents. In
fact, the
average challenger
is
outspent, according
numbers from the Federal Election Commission (FEC), by about
researchers have long been concerned about just this discrepancy,
and
it
5 to
is
1.
Academic
something that
a newspaper reader would never pick up on from the facts and figures reported in the press.
The
much
figures reported for actual expenditures in the
Table
of the reporting by these papers concerns national trends
6
reflect
and
national patterns, as
issues.
The papers
also
have a local orientation. The
to
New
York Times and Wall Street Journal would be expected
have more reporting from the states of
New
York,
New
Jersey and Connecticut; the Los
Angeles Times: California and The Washington Post: Maryland and Virginia/
If
we
restrict the actual expenditiues to only those in the local area of each paper, the
conclusions
we draw from Table
remain.
1
local area or region during the years
The
average cost of a House race in the papers'
we surveyed was
Hence, the ratio of reported to actual expenditures
the local area as a baseline.
The
than the national average. This
slightly lower
for
the U.S.
than the national average.
House
is
shghtly higher using
average cost of a Senate Race was about 2.5 times higher
not enough to explain the eight fold difference between
is
the average reported figures and those from the
FEC. Averaging
across the papers, the local
U.S. Senate races were about 1.5 times more expensive than the national average. Hence,
the reported expenditures are about 4 times larger than actual local U.S. House campaign
spending and about
There
report on
is
in a region.
a further bias in reporting expenditures on broadcast advertising.
what
direct mail.
than U.S. Senate campaign spending
5 times higher
We
activities candidates
Some
articles
spend campaign funds, ranging from dry cleaning
divided these into expenditures on television and radio advertising and
other expenditures.
Two-thirds (66%) of the detailed expenditures reported
concern television and radio advertising.
In reality,
in
House candidates spent only
to
all
the press
one-fifth
(22%) of their fimds on advertising.
Campaign expenditures reported by
typical race by 3 to 5 times.
television advertising,
4.
which
the press, then, exceed the
Newspaper accounts
is
far
also suggest
amount spent
a very high dependence on
from the reahty,
Reporting of Contributions
to
Candidates
Donations come from one of three sources: individuals, PACs, or poUtical
from
political
in the
party committees can be either "hard money", which
is
parties.
Money
coordinated with the
"•Only 10% of the citations of Senate races in the Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post were
about local contests. The other papers we studied had much higher rates: 70% for The New York Times,
and 80% for the Los Angeles Times.
candidate
it is
spent on, or "soft money" which can be given in milimited amomits and spent
only indirectly on campaigns.
We
consider only the immediate source of funds as the source,
such as a party contribution to a candidate. This ignores the fact that the ultimate sources
of
PAC money
money comes primarily from
soft
4.1.
and most party hard money are individual donations, and the party money
Individuals
corporations, labor unions and other groups.
and PACs
Individuals and
PACs
are
sional campaigns.
How
compare with the
reality?
by
far the
two most important sources of money
for congres-
does press reporting of the relative importance of these sources
Table 2 isolates contributions to congressional campaigns from Individuals and PACs.
For House and Senate candidates separately, we report the total number of citations and the
PAC
share of individual and
present that actual share of
contributions for each source reported by the press.
money coming from each
1998 to 2002. Referring to the definitions found
from either "Individuals" or "Groups
also
source in congressional campaigns from
in the
of Individuals"
We
appendix, contributions that came
were considered to be from Individuals.
Donations from "Industries" or "Firms or PACs" were considered to be from PACs.
Table
2:
Contributions from Individuals cind PACs,
Reported in Press vs. Actual
Reported
Citations
House:
Individual
PAC
Senate:
Individual
PAC
%
of
Actued
Money
26%
74%
40%
60%
21
129
76
165
%
Monev
63%
37%
80%
20%
of
The
actual numbers ai^e only percentages of total money from individuals and
PACs. This does not imply that 80% of all money contributed to Senate
campaigns comes from individuals, only that 80% of the money that comes
from either individuals or PACs comes fi-om individuals.
The newspapers
individuals in U.S.
in
our study overstate the relative contribution of
House and Senate campaigns. Of press reports of
8
PACs compared
PAC
to
and individual
donations to House candidates,
PACs. Of
PAC
press reports of
from PACs. In
reality only
86% came from PACs.
In reality only
37% came from
and individual donations to Senate candidates, 60% came
20% came from PACs. Many
attributed to individuals are actually soft money.
of the contributions in the press
Filtering out such citations leads to an
even greater discrepancy between press reports and the reality of the relative importance of
group and individual donations.
Table 2
also reveals that there is
much more
reporting of
PAC
and firm contributions
than of individual contributions. The exact number of individual contributors
because contributors who give
less
unknown
is
than $200 to a candidate are not required to report their
donations. However, survey data suggest that individual contributors - perhaps as
10 million people - greatly outnumber the 4000 or so registered PACs.
PAC
4-2.
many
as
But, stories about
contributions are 5 times more numerous than stories about individual donors.
Parties
Table 2 does not include party contributions, because
volved with soft money.
Hard party contributions
been a small amount, and have received
butions exploit a loophole
in the
comphcated accomiting
to congressional
for
showed the
growth of
all
in-
campaigns have always
relatively httle press attention. Soft
money
contri-
administrative code that allows unlimited contributions to
the purpose of state and local "party building." Soft
party committees
fastest
of the
sorts of contributions in the 1990s
money donations
and attracted considerable
attention in the press.
If
we
treat soft
money expenditures
in congressional
campaigns as
direct contributions to
those campaigns, the picture in Table 2 somewhat. Table 3 adds a new category that consists
of reports of contributions
^Since Soft
Money
is
from "National Party Committees" or "Soft Money". ^
not given directly to candidates
it is
difficult to assess liow
much
of
it is
We
ignore
actually spent
on House or Senate Campaigns. We estimated the amount of Soft Money in House and Senate Campaigns
in the following way; "Buying Time" from the Brennan Center (p. 57) gives the estimated amount of money
soft money spent on television ads by parties in House and Senate races. La Raja (2001 p. 100) gives the
uses of Soft Money. We took advertising as a percentage of total expenditures that would be directed at
candidates (Media, Mobilization, and Traditional Party Hoopla). Dividing the advertising expenditures by
the percentage above, we arrived at a number for soft money for House cind Senate races. We combined
donations from other candidates ("Leadership PAC", "Individual Candidate'' and "Group
of Candidates"
and coordinated party expenditures ("Coordinated Party Expenditures'')
)
since there were too few citations of these types.
Table
Contributions Including Soft Money,
in Press vs. Actual
3:
Reported
Reported
% of Money
21
22%
129
62%
12
16%
76
23%
165
34%
44%
33
%
Citations
House:
Individual
PAC
Soft
Senate:
Money
Individual
PAC
Soft
Money
Using figures from the Brennan Center, we estimate that
1998 to 2002 amounted to about
9%
campaigns. The numbers reported
in
newspaper
figures in
23%
of the party,
PAC, and
The
stories, "soft
PAC, and
individual
money
sources of soft
of receipts of
money
56%
35%
9%
64%
19%
13%
soft
money expenditures from
House campaigns and 13% of Senate
the press are a different story. Using the actual dollar
money" and "national party contributions" amounted
individual
in
Actual
of Money
money
in
House campaigns and 44%
are also of interest.
Parties raise hard and soft
One may view them
as
other organizations can give mihmited amounts to soft
campaign committees, as
in
is
soft
money come
the picture that emerges from the numbers reported in the press?
repeated the analysis shown
categories for Individuals
made up
well as
money accounts and they do not
have to contribute through their pohtical action committees. "Where does
same
money from
Indeed, soft party accounts are of concern to regulators because firms and
contributors.
"VVe
of the party,
Senate campaigns.
indivdiduals and organizations.
from? "What
to
in
Table
1
for parties instead of candidates. "VVe
and PACs, and added a third category
of "Individual Candidates"
and "Group of CancUdates." The
-
used the
Other Candidates -
results
aresimimarized
Table 4 below.
this with the
numbers
for total receipts, receipts
calculate the above percentages.
very stable, this
is
from individuals and receipts from
Since the relative percentages of
probably a good estimate
money
for all three years surveyed.
10
raised
in
PACs from
the
campaigns
is
FEC
to
generally
Table
4:
Sources of Soft Money,
vs. Actual
Reported in Press
Reported
% of Money
Actucil
%
Citations
Individuals
222
Corporations
Candidates
10
From La Raja,
Money
28%
72%
of
6%
93%
1%
92
<1%
La Raja only calculated
these percentages for 1994-1998. They were very stable, so we extended them to 2000. We also independently confirmed his numbers for 1998.
2001, p.
89.
money comes
Press reports do mirror the reaUties of where soft
nations
come overwhelmingly from
Commission Figures
72%
La Raja 2001 and
Money comes from
of Soft
money
(see
corporations' treasuries.
Aiisolabehere, de Figueiredo
5.
came from
may
and Snyder 2003),
90%
of the soft
corporations.
Public Perception
of public policy matters, pohtical scientists
importance of the press as the primary source of information
people
money do-
Soft
According to Federal Election
corporations and other organizations. Over
contributions reported in the press
Across a wide range
from.
have demonstrated the
(Zaller,
Of course
1992).
discount information as specific to a particular case, but more likely they store
and aggregate information they learn and form general impressions about the
hand (Lodge, McGraw, and Stoh
pubUc perceptions of
campaign
A
first
finance.
At the beginning of
paper we noted that
Here we consider pubhc perceptions
in
more
realities of
detail.
is
to
map pubUc
perceptions
Similar work has been done in the area of risk assessment (Fischoff, Lichter,
and Slovic 1980).
information,
this
campaign expenditures deviate substantially from the
step in assessing the consequences of press reporting
of a subject.
We
total
1989).
issues at
if
On
the issue of
campaign
finance, the press
is
the
most
likely vector of
not the primary source.
asked a national sample of 1000 people to estimate the amoimts and sources of House
campaign funds.
The question was
located at the end of an unrelated survey conducted
11
over the Internet by Knowledge Networks.
people
who
There are biases
and higher income. These
are better educated
sample of people with higher than average information
distributing
it
and asking
in college classes
interpreted the question as
for
biases,
levels.
We
comments and
we intended. The responses
in
Internet surveys toward
we
expect, will produce a
vaUdated the question by
clarifications.
The students
of the undergraduate and graduate
students were similar to those of the survey respondents.
Our
specific question
U.S. House
and from
member
their
asked respondents to estimate the amount of
raises in
own personal
an election from
wealth.
amount
subjective estimates of the total
comes from each
source.
median estimated
total
Table
5:
From
interest groups,
these answers
raised
the average
from incUviduals, from
parties,
we constructed the respondent's
by U.S. House members and the share that
Table 5 shows the average estimated share and the average and
amounts.
Subjective Estimates of the Sources and Total
of a Typiccd U.S.
Sources;
money
Amount
House Incumbent's Campciign Funds
Knowledge Network Survey, October 2003,
EEC
Reports
Estimated Amount*
Actual Amount
Median
$1,110,000
$406,000
Average
$5,830,000
$785,000
Total Expenditures
Average
Average
Estimated Percent
Actual Percent
Parties
33%
22%
31%
Own Money
14%
42%
51%
06%
01%
Source
PACs
Individuals
trimmed mean, dropping the bottom and top 5 percent, because a
few enormous outliere among survey respondents skew the overall mean.
*VVe use a
The
results are strikingly similar to the patterns in
newspaper reporting. The survey
re-
spondents' estimates of the amounts raised by a tyical incumbent exceed the actual amounts
spent by a factor of three for the medians and a factor of 7
for
the average amounts.
average estimate of a typical House incumbent's expenditure $5.8 milHon,
far in
The
excess of the
$785,000 expenditure of the typical incumbent running for reelection. Because this average
12
is
affected by a few outliers in the data,
person's belief.
The
we
thiiik tfie
median
typical person estimates that U.S.
million each election - almost exactly what
is
there
rely
is
50% more
much more on
tributions
interest
money
House incumbents spend about $1.1
durmg
The median
the elections mider study.
also paralleled figures in the press. People believe that
group money than individual money, when
More
individual donations.
and candidates' own resources were
individuals.
a better measure of the typical
reported on average in the press.
expenditure of House incumbents came to $400,000
Estimates of the sources of
is
strikingly,
as
in fact
incumbents
people estimated that party con-
important as donations from
Personal funds and direct party contributions account for less than
incumbents' campaign money, not
While we carmot measure
best indicators
is
10%
of
half.
directly
where people learn
their information
about
public opinion researchers have identified good markers for "attentive pubhcs."
politics,
One
of the
education. Better educated people are more likely to read newspapers and
pay attention to public
How
PACs and
affairs.
did education of respondents relate to perceptions of campaign finance?
formed regression analyses that use a battery of demographic characteristics
We
per-
to predict per-
ceptions of total expenditures and shares of funds from PACs, individuals, parties, and the
candidates themselves.
income, and age,
The demographic
as well as state
factors are educational attainment, gender, race,
and metropoUtan area in which the respondent
resides.
Education correlates with perceptions of campaign spending and dependence on interest
groups. Better educated people perceived House expenditures to be significantly higher than
less well
educated people.
The median
perceived expenditure by those with grade school
education was $300,000; by those with a high school education, $700,000; by with some
college, $1,005,000;
and by those with a bachelor's degree or higher, $1,625,000. The segment
of the population with the Irighest incidence of
highest estimated expenditures.
incumbent expenditure four
newspaper readership typically had the
The median amoimt among
fold.
amounts with education, income,
We
this
group exceeded the median
also ran a multivariate analysis predicting estimated
age, gender, race,
13
and
state of interview.
Education was
Gender and race
highly significant and the strongest predictor.
women and
whites estimated higher amounts than
non-whites.
also mattered:
men and
Income and age were not
significant predictors.
The same pattern
donors account
for
arises with perceptions of sources. All groups perceive that individual
a smaller fraction of funds than interest groups. Consistent with newspa-
per reporting (see Table
people.
2), this
for
PAC
27%, and candidates
for
college
educated
own funds and party contributions
are very
College educated respondents, on average, estimate
trivial.
contributions account for
pronounced among
especially
is
All groups perceive that candidates
important, but in fact they are
that
perception
41%
of total receipts, individual
donors
11%. Other groups, on average, estimate that
from PACs, 24% from individuals, 32% from
parties,
for
30%
21%, parties
of funds
come
and 16% from candidates themselves.
In short, pubhc perceptions of campaign finance are remarkably consistent with the picture that emerges from newspaper coverage of the topic.
The segment
of the electorate
most
Ukely to read the newspaper shows the greatest biases in their perceptions. The picture in
people's minds
is
of multi-million dollar elections in which individual donors are of secondary
importance. That view
is
among
especially pronounced
the college educated.
Conclusion
6.
Oiu- data analysis provides strong support Sorauf's assertion that the press overstates the
amount
of
money
in U.S.
poUtics and the importance of
PACs and
campign money. The overaU campaign expenditures and
to 2000 were
many
times larger than the average
corporations as a source of
receipts cited
amoimt
by the press from 1996
spent. Readers of the five major
national newspapers are likely to have an inflated estimate of the cost of running for Congress
and how much of that money goes to
presented interest group donations
television
much more
and radio advertising.
Press reports also
often than individual donations, producing a
skewed picture of candidates dependence on corporations, unions, and other organizations
for funds.
The
Newspapers under report the
patterns of reporting that
agenda of most
journalists.
While
role of individuals in
we document may
this
may
play
14
some
funding campaigns.
reflect, as
role,
Sorauf argued, the reform
we do not attribute the patterns
above primarily to ideological
bais.
Ideological bias corresponds to giving
vorable coverage to one sort of political view. There
is little
more
or
We
targeted
is
it is
fa-
evidence that liberal candidates'
campaign expenditures receive more favorable treatment. To the extent that one
ideology
more
interest or
reflected in the exaggerated reporting of corporate contributions.
think the patterns documented can be understood more simply as the tendency of
journalism to report on exceptional events. Corruption, scandals, and high spending races
are news.
What
is
typical or average
exceptional or extreme.
be where one
is
more
It
may
likely to
may
not seem as important or eye-catching as what
even be a public service to report the extremes, as that
uncover
illegal or
tail" -
may
unethical behavior.
Such reporting practices, whatever the motivation, create a strong
JournaUsts focus on cases in the "upper
is
"statistical bias."
the most expensive races, highest-spending
candidates, largest contributors and contributions,
and
so on. Such cases are
deemed
inter-
esting or tantalizing hooks for a story.
Unfortunately, people process quantitative information using a variety of heuristics that
make them
susceptible to misunderstanding an important issue like campaign finance.
neman and Tversky
(1982) discuss the more prominent heuristics that people use in dealing
with data and the biases
here.
Kah-
in their thinking that result.
Giving people different starting points
or
Anchoring
is
of particular concern
extreme numbers fields estimates that are
biased toward the starting point or the piece of data at hand. Specifically, people systematically miss-estimate averages
as the upper
tail of
when they
are given the first few
the distribution or the lower
tail
on the highest numbers
such
in a
sequence
will
under estimate
calculation. Subjects that are led to anchor thier thinking
will overestimate
do not adequately adjust
in a secjuence,
of the distribution. Subjects given infor-
mation that anchors their thinking on the lowest numbers
an average or other quantitative
numbers
(Kahneman and Tversky
1982, page 15).
People
their mental calculations to correct for the incompleteness of the
information or calculation made.
For
its pai't
pubUc opinion echoes the
statistical bias in
campaign finance reporting.
In
the siu"vey data reported here, public perceptions of the amounts spent and the sources of
15
campaign funds mirrored the information
available in the press.
Those with the highest
levels
of education tend to report the largest expenditures and perceive the greatest dependence
on
interest groups.
In
many
ways, this pattern strikes against a basic precept of research and theorizing about
information in a democracy.
will lead to
if
More information and
enlightened preferences.
Much
learning,
it
is
commonly conjectured,
research considers what people would believe
they were "fully informed'' and the contrast
is
usually between a "low interest", non-
newspaper reading person and a "high- interest", newspaper reading person. The
biases evident here raise a
Afterall, in
less
our survey,
education),
it
who had
more fmrdaraental concern:
How
can one become
"fully
statistical
informed?"
was people with lower tendencies to read newspapers (those with
the closest estimates of the
the relative importance of interest groups.
16
amount
of
money spent
in
pohtics and
Appendix
we
In general
author of the
tried to categorize citations according to the discernable intentions of the
The
article.
Advertising
-
This
rules
below
for categorization reflect
tliis:
a type of expenditure, as in "Candidate x spent $30,000 for a 30
is
second spot on the evening news."
Expected, Needed
took
in
-
This was not an actual dollar amount that someone or something
or spent.
$1,000,000 to run an effective campaign." Or 'The
Canchdate X"
for
X
These citations often read something hke "Candidate
or
even
"It is
expected that
RNC
promised to
will
need
raise $2,000,000
this race will cost $10,000,000 in the
primary alone."
Expenditure A candidate spent some money on something
other than television and radio
advertising.
Firm
PAC
or
-
This was a particular organization, firm
race or party. This
and groups
PAC
firm.
do with the intention of the person writing the
article.
For example
wrote 'WorldCom executives gave $100,000 to the DNC,"
would be categorized as a
WorldCom may have
Fundraiser
Group
-
A particular event
of Candidates
that
fits in
an average
-
This
This
last
if
"WorldCom
group has
the author
executives"
firm.
This would cause the data to have a downward bias
given
much more than
to raise funds. For
is
just
what
their executives kicked in.
example "Dinner featuring
a group of candidates that
is
Bill
Clinton."
not organized in some way
above. For example "Congressmen in vulnerable seats."
for
to a
a broad category and includes; Unions, PoUtical interest groups,
with a
since
money
that gave
of people specifically associated
firms,
to
is
or
If it is explicitly
such a class the citation was classified as either "Expected, Needed'' or
"Individual Candidates."
17
Group
of Individuals
to
have some sort
-
A
group of individuals who gave to a campaign that doesn't seem
of overarching organization that
fits
into one of the
above groups.
For example, "Donors outside of Georgia" or "Person X's family'' or "Person
X
and
Person Y"
Coordinated Party Expenditures
Individual
"Bill
A
-
person
Gates"
is
who
A
group of
would be
Data that
not running for
office
-
A
specifically labeled as
who
firms,
PACs
should the tobacco industry or
AFL-CIO
is
not.
office.
"Trial Lawyers"
trial
-
it
is
lawyers but
or similar
hard money.
named. For example,
explicitly
Both of
the following
and "13 Lawyers and
their families
corporations or other groups.
classified as industries:
classify the
is
candidate for a particular
from firms with tobacco cases pending"
we would
is
a person, "Microsoft's Chairman"
Individual Candidate
Industry
is
-
unclear whether the second citation
it
is
certainly an industry
union as a "Firm or
PAG" but
However,
"mrions" or
"labor" as an industry.
Leadership
PAC
National Party
-
These are PAGs associated with a particular candidate.
A
citation of a particular party or group of party committees.
example "Jolm Huang gave $30,000
to the
committees" would have a destination type
National Party Committee
DNG
the
On Hand
-
or the
-
A
up
-
of
and other congressional campaign
"National Party."
particular committee run by the national party such as
NRSG.
These were citations of a candidate or other group having a certain amount
"on hand", "in the bank" or
Partial
DGGC
For
This
is
a citation of an
in their
"war chest."
amount spent
to a particular place in time. For
or recieved during a particular time, or
example "Candidate x spent $30,000,000
18
in
the
primary" would be "Partial" since
If
it
is likely
that the candidate spent
more
overall.
the candidate was eliminated in the primary, such a citation would be classified as
"Total."
Race
-
This refers to a group of candidates that make up an entire race or most of a race.
For example "Clinton and Lazio" or "CUnton, Lazio and Giuliani" or "Newt Gingrich's
race."
Soft
Money
ple, the
-
A
donation or transaction that
is
expUcitly labeled as soft money. For exam-
sentence "Hillary Clinton took in $300 in soft money" would in theory translate
to a source of "soft
money" a destination
,
of "individual candidate"
and an amount
However, the sentence "Hillary Clinton received $300 from the Democratic
of $300.
Party" would have a source of "National Party" even though the contribution
is
most
hkely soft money.
State Party
Total
-
This
firm,
-
A
is
PAC,
state part or organization.
the total
amount given
to a candidate, spent
by a candidate, donated by a
individual, industry, national party committee, etc.
19
References
Iyengar, Shanto. 1992. Is
Iyengar, Shanto,
Anyone
Responsible?. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
and Donald R. Kinder.
1987.
News That Matters. Chicago:
University of
Chicago Press.
Daniel, and Amos Tversky. 1982. "Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics
and Biases." in Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases Daniel Kahneman,
Paul Slovic, and Amos Tversky, editors. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kahneman,
La Raja,
Ray. 2001.
guide
to
What do we
Lubenow, Rowman &
"Sources and Uses of Soft Money:
Campaign Finance,
ed.
Gerald C.
know?", in
A
User's
Littlefield, 2001, pp.
83-108
Mayer, William G. 2001. "Pubhc Attitudes on Campaign Finance", in A User's guide to
Campaign Finance, ed. Gerald C. Lubenow, Rowman & Littlefield, 2001, pp. 47-69
Lodge, Milton, Kathleen M. McGraw, and Patrick Stroh.
Model
of
Candidate Evaluation," American
Paulos, John Allen. 1995.
1989.
Political Science
A Matehmatician Reads
the Newspaper.
"An Impression-Driven
Review
New
83: 399-419.
York: Basic Books.
Popkin, Samuel L. 1991. The Reasoning Voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
and Margaret
York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Robinson, Michael
Slovic, Paul,
J.,
Baruch
Fischoff,
A
Sheehan.
1980.
and Sarah Lichtenstein.
Over the Wire and On TV.
New
"Facts versus fears:
Un-
1982.
derstanding versus Perceived Risk" in Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and
Biases, Daniel
Kahneman, Paul
Slovic,
and Amos Tversky,
editors.
New
York:
Cam-
bridge University Press.
Sorauf, Frank
J.
1987.
Science Quarterly,
Zaller,
John.
1992.
"Campaign Money and the Press: Three Soundings",
Volume 102, Issue 1, 1987, pp. 25-42
The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion.
University Press.
20
New
York:
Political
Cambridge
Date Due
MIT LIBRARIES
3 9080 02617 7326
H^iiifflllllii'iifi:':
9m
lilSi
?iiiiii