(Page 2 of 28) - Campaign Finance in Municipal Elections: Evidence from Three Cities authored by Van Vechten, Renee. and Adams, Brian.

Campaign Finance in Municipal Elections: Evidence from Three Cities

The literature on campaign finance in national elections is substantial: we know a

great deal about the role of money, patterns of fundraising, and the characteristics of
contributors to presidential and congressional campaigns (Jacobson 2004; Goidel and
Shields 1999; Gross and Goidel 2003; Thompson and Moncrief 1998). Yet our
knowledge of campaign finance in local elections in thin. Are local elections simply
smaller versions of national and state elections, or do they exhibit unique characteristics
in how candidates raise and spend money?

In this exploratory study, we focus on one particular aspect of local campaign

finance: what does it take to win a local election? Using data from city council races in
three Western U.S. cities—Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle—we examine how
much money candidates need to raise in order to win a city council seat and, more
generally, the relationship between fundraising and electoral success.

The three cities exhibited significantly different patterns of campaign finance, due

in part to divergent electoral rules, size of cities and districts, and the number of city
council seats. The number and nature of our data place inherent limitations on the
conclusions we can draw, yet our analysis suggests that the differences in district size and
rules governing runoff elections influence both the cost of elections and the safety of
incumbents. The strength of incumbency also varied among cities, although all
incumbents usually won re-election, a pattern similar to that found in national and state
elections [REPHRASE?]. Open seat races, where no incumbent ran, presented the
greatest opportunity for competitive elections. Elections were the most expensive in Los
Angeles, featuring incumbents who are prolific fundraisers and the safest among all three
cities. San Francisco elections were less expensive and incumbents were less secure than
in Los Angeles, while Seattle’s city council races were the least expensive and seats were
the most accessible to challengers. In general, Los Angeles more closely resembled races
on the state and national levels, while San Francisco and Seattle did not. This suggests
the hypothesis that while elections in large cities are similar to national and state
elections, as cities get smaller they develop unique characteristics that separate them from
elections in other jurisdictions.

Literature Review

One strand in the literature on campaign finance in local elections has explored

patterns of contributions to local candidates. Similar to state and federal elections,
incumbents have a significant advantage in fundraising at the local level (Krebs 2001;
Fleishmann and Stein 1998; Strachan 2003, 77-78). Part of this incumbency advantage
may be the result of the likelihood of incumbent re-election. Fuchs, Adler and Mitchell
(2000), based on a study of the 1989 New York City mayoral election, found as the race
tightened (and the outcome became less certain) contributions increased to both
candidates. They conclude that contributors are more likely to contribute to a candidate
that has a good chance of winning, and thus a candidate’s ability to raise money is related
to his or her probability of victory.