Previous literature demonstrates that potential candidates are rational actors who are affected by
a wide range of stimuli in the electoral environment such as the presence of an incumbent (e.g.,
Jacobson and Kernell 1983; Pritchard 1992), the strength of possible opponents (e.g., Fowler and
McClure 1989; Maisel 1986), the previous district vote for each party (e.g., Bond, et al. 1985;
Krasno and Green 1988), and prevailing economic conditions (e.g., Bianco 1984; Fowler and
McClure 1989), to name but a few prominent features. Even though much of the electoral
literature is couched in terms of actors being constrained by the environment (e.g., presence of an
incumbent, partisanship, etc.), few studies incorporate legal conditions into their frameworks,
especially those related to the financing of elections.
Given that candidacy decisions determine whether or not election competition will occur
at all, it is important to understand the extent to which campaign finance laws have an effect. If
such laws result in many uncontested races, this may pose significant problems for ideals of
representative democracy. More importantly, if the influence of laws is uneven, they may
adversely affect the entrance of some types of candidates while benefiting others. Such a state of
affairs may pose serious challenges to notions of equality and fairness. Knowledge about the
influence of laws on candidacy, therefore, has both theoretical and practical significance.
Effects on Candidacy Decisions
The major candidacy decision examined in this analysis is the choice to challenge a
sitting incumbent. Given the frequency with which incumbents seek to retain their seats, this
type of election would appear to be a logical first step in determining the effects of campaign
finance laws. Indeed a variety of studies have identified a number of factors that affect the
likelihood of challenger emergence ranging from institutional characteristics and district-level
3
Convention