Support for campaign spending limitations in the U. S. senate: The role of party,ideology and electoral security |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Departmet of EEE, Vivekanandha College of Engineering for Women, Namakkal, India;2. Departmet of ECE, Dr.Mahalingam College of Engineering and Ttechnology, Pollachi, India;3. Departmet of ECE, Sri Eshwar College of Engineering, Coimbatore, India;4. Department of ECE, PSNA College of Engineering and Technology, Dindigul, India;5. Department of ECE, SSM Institute of Engineering and Technology, Dindigul, India;1. Department of Building, Energy and Environmental Engineering, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden;2. Department of Psychology, University of Gothenburg, Göteborg, Sweden;1. Key Laboratory of Distributed Energy Systems of Guangdong Province, Department of Energy and Chemical Engineering, Dongguan University of Technology, Dongguan 523808, China;2. The University of Nottingham in Malaysia, Faculty of Engineering, Jalan Broga, 43500 Semenyih, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia;1. Department of Applied Chemistry, Graduate School of Engineering, Tohoku University, 6-6-07 Aoba, Aramaki, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Japan;2. Graduate School of Materials Science, Nara Institute of Science and Technology, 8916-5 Takayama, Ikoma, Japan;1. Mines ParisTech, PSL Research University, Centre for Applied Mathematics, 1 rue Claude Daunesse, 06904 Sophia Antipolis CEDEX, France;2. Réseau de Transport d''Electricité, Immeuble Window, 7C place du Dôme, 92073 Paris La Défense CEDEX, France |
| |
| Abstract: | Recent media disclosures of American campaign funding raising practices in the 1996 election have renewed political interest in campaign finance reform. This paper examines senatorial support for the McCain/Feingold measure that would have established voluntary spending limits on senate candidates and banned unlimited campaign contributions through political party organizations. While party affiliation and senator ideology are very important in explaining support for the McCain/Feingold measure, various measures of electoral security are not significant. This is important because the public choice literature emphasizes that electoral security is the primary goal of legislators. Additionally, the electoral self-interest of legislators is probably much more accurately measured by the various electoral security measures used in this study than by the constituency measures typically employed in the public choice literature. Nevertheless, personal legislator electoral security is not a powerful explanatory factor. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
