The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections: New Evidence for Old Arguments
Abstract
The question of how campaign spending affects election results remains open because the simultaneity problem has proven so intractable. Green and Krasno's (1988) recent attempt to solve the problem-and to demonstrate that marginal returns on spending are as great for incumbents as for challengers-again comes up short. A panel feature of the ABC NewslWashington Post Congressional District Poll conducted during the 1986 elections offers a fresh perspective on the question. Analysis of changes in voting intentions during the final six weeks of the campaign shows that, as the tainted OLS studies have invariably suggested, the amount spent by the challenger is far more important in accounting for voter's decisions than is the amount spent by the incumbent.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Levitt, S. D. (1994) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/261954 · Cited by 441
Causes and Consequences of Polarization
Barber, M. J., & McCarty, N. (2015) · Solutions to Political Polarization in America · doi:10.1017/cbo9781316091906.002 · Cited by 375
Is Vote Buying Effective? Evidence from a Field Experiment in West Africa
Vicente, P. C. (2014) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.1111/ecoj.12086 · Cited by 365
Metadata
- Authors
- Jacobson, G. C.
- Venue
- American Journal of Political Science
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1990-05
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 334
- ISSN
- 0092-5853 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3125266207
- Cited by
- 481
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 38.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections: New Evidence for Old Arguments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2111450
- The paper
- Jacobson, G. C. (1990). The Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections: New Evidence for Old Arguments. American Journal of Political Science. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111450
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
