state-level indicators have been taken into consideration. The presence of public financing also
increases the likelihood of major party challenger emergence. Such findings suggest that
campaign finance laws do affect the behavior of those thinking of running for office and
therefore influences the choices available to voters on election day.
These results provide insight into the effects of campaign finance laws that were
designed, in part, to produce higher rates of election competition. Contrary to those who believe
low limits might impose a significant burden on challengers, these findings suggest that
restrictions make the prospects of running against an incumbent more attractive to potential
candidates. We believe the causal mechanism responsible for this finding involves the
perceptions on the part of potential challengers in assessing their ability to raise money relative
to the incumbent. Where limits are more stringent, challengers perceive they have a better
chance of keeping pace with an incumbent’s fundraising and are more likely to make a run for
office.
The findings from this analysis are a first, but important, step in understanding the
influence of campaign finance laws. While these legal conditions may ultimately affect the
amounts of money that candidates raise and the degree of competition observed, we find here
that they have a strong influence on this very initial stage in the electoral process – the decision
to run. Future work will want to continue this line of inquiry into how laws affect not only the
likelihood that a candidate emerges, but also the characteristics of those who decide to run. For
example, might low limits result in the emergence of different types of candidates, perhaps those
who have fewer ties to financial and economic power? Do low limits ultimately produce a more
diverse pool of candidates with regard to their occupation and background? In addition to
examining how laws affect aspects of the electoral process, future research should more closely
19
Convention