Campaign Finance and Political Efficacy:
Evidence From the States
I think it makes a huge difference that the world of soft money has come to an end. The
law took half a billion dollars off the political table, and it makes a whole lot of
difference in the way the process works, and for the confidence the American people
have in the system.
--Don Simon, Common Cause President
The Senator from Kentucky [Mitch McConnell] said the other day that there is no
evidence, no polling data, no indication at all that the people's estrangement from
Congress would be repaired by campaign finance reform. He is correct, there is no such
evidence.
--Senator John McCain (R-AZ) in 1999, before proceeding to explain that he has a “hunch” that
reform would improve citizens’ perceptions of members of Congress
1. Introduction
Do campaign finance regulations affect how citizens view their government? This
question is both theoretically important and policy relevant. A central argument for more
restrictive campaign finance laws at both the state and federal levels is that tighter rules will
restore trust and confidence in the government. Supreme Court decisions upholding the
constitutionality of campaign finance regulations acknowledge that the maintenance of
confidence in government can sometimes override free-speech concerns. Yet the purported link
between campaign finance law and perceptions of government has never been established
systematically, and Primo (2002) and Coleman and Manna (2000) have demonstrated that there
is little or no relationship between campaign spending and trust in government at the national
level.
Given the central role that trust and confidence play in scholarly as well policy
discussions about campaign finance reform, it is surprising that no study has examined the
connection between campaign finance laws and how citizens view their government. Despite
1
Convention