Estimating the Effect of Issues among Contributors: Experiments on Extreme Issues

• In Event: Experiments on Public Opinion

Abstract

This project investigates to what extent candidates are held accountable for their policy positions among a highly active and influential subset of the American electorate: campaign contributors. Although recent research has categorized their donation habits and demographic backgrounds, very little is known about what issue positions influence whether or not a contributor will donate to a candidate. Are candidates staking out more extreme positions because of contributor preferences? Or do successful candidates tend to stay within a narrow range of mainstream party positions because of contributors? Using survey experiments and a unique sampling frame of campaign contributors (respondents must have contributed in two of the last three Congressional election cycles via FEC data), we estimate how contributors evaluate candidates that hold 1) mainstream issue positions for their party, 2) issue positions that are too extreme for their own party, 3) a mix of mainstream liberal and conservative positions (bipartisan), and 4) ideologically unusual issue positions that do not align with contemporary politics. We estimate how these different issue position combinations influence contributing, voting, turnout, and a variety of valence measures that tap into legislative and leadership competencies (i.e., how likely is this candidate to pass legislation, bring benefits to her home district, come up with important ideas, be a strong leader, etc.). We also show how these results differ from identical experiments run among a general population sample.

Authors

• Andrew Gooch, Yale University

• Gregory Huber, Yale University