This study examines challenger, incumbent and open-seat spending in congressional races. It addresses the need for sufficient campaign funds early on, incumbent advantages, and the diminishing returns of campaign spending after reaching a certain threshold. The paper concludes that while the need for money is important to all candidates, it is especially so for challengers and notes that reforms aimed at limiting candidate spending or restricting access to funds are like to have an adverse effect on challengers, and may even harden the incumbency advantage to the detriment of competition.
This paper concludes that the Scarcity Rationale for regulating traditional broadcasting is no longer valid. The Scarcity Rationale is based on fundamental misunderstandings of physics and economics, efficient resource allocation, recent field measurements, and technology. It is outmoded in today’s media marketplace. Perhaps in recognition of the Rationale’s flaws, many variations of it have been attempted, but none fares much better under sensible, factual analysis.
Case Study No. 1: Philadelphia’s (Predictable) Unintended Consequences: The Failure of Contribution Limits in the 2007 Mayor’s Race
CCP study on the effect of contribution limits on Philadelphia’s 2007 mayoral race.
Filed Under: Contribution Limits, Contribution Limits, Contribution Limits State, Contributions & Limits, External Relations Sub-Pages, Research, campaign contributions, Center for Competitive Politics, Contribution limits, Michael Nutter, Mike Schrimpf, Philadelphia, Philadelphia Daily News, Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia Mayor, Tom Knox, Contribution Limits, Contributions & Limits, Pennsylvania