Skip to content

An exploratory analysis of relationships between campaign finance trends and election results for U.S. congressional elections

Notifications You must be signed in to change notification settings

kellystroh/Congressional_Campaign_Spending

Folders and files

NameName
Last commit message
Last commit date

Latest commit

 

History

17 Commits
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Repository files navigation

Campaign_Spending_Rematch_Elections

The relationship between campaign spending and votes received is the subject of widespread research and speculation. In the two years leading up to the 2018 elections, congressional campaigns spent over 1.13 billion dollars. Another $3.29 billion dollars was spent by political parties and PACs. Many powerful people would likely spend large quantities of money for the means to accurately measure the impact of these expenditures.

Alas, elections are complex. It is difficult to even identify all of the influencing factors that contribute to election results, let alone quantify said factors. To name a few:

  1. Candidate Appeal
  2. Party Affiliation
  3. World Affairs / Economy
  4. Voter Turnout
  5. Incumbent, Challenger, or Open Seat?
  6. State & District

And yet, we're talking about $4+ billion dollars, so we should probably be able to detect a difference... right?

Detecting a difference may be the easy part; many studies have shown a positive correlation between challenger spending and votes received. The greater challenge lies in controlling for the many variables that could skew the results. Inspired by a study discussed in Freakonomics, I decided to focus specifically on rematch elections. In other words, instances in which the same two leading candidates have competed against each other multiple times. Levitt's paper (cited below) goes into specifics of how this approach controls for several externalities that could introduce bias.

Steven D. Levitt (1994) 'Using Repeat Challengers to Estimate the Effect of Campaign Spending on Election Outcomes in the U.S. House', The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 102: Iss. 4.

Getting the Data

I use Stanford's Database on Ideology, Money in Politics, and Elections (DIME). This is a comprehensive collection that combines campaign finance data, election results, and other relevant information.

Download Data

Download Codebook

Running the Code

This repo is a work in progress. All notebooks are currently functional, but I am still adding commentary to dime_regression & dime_EDA for improved clarity.

  • To replicate the process, start by downloading the data at the link above.
  • Run the file load.py. If the downloaded CSV is placed in sub-directory 'data' within the main repository directory, then you should not need to change any filepaths to run the file.
  • You should have a new file called candidate_df.csv. This is the file needed to run the code in the dime_EDA and dime_regression notebooks. The data_cleaning notebook loads the original data file and describes the steps of data processing used in load.py.

About

An exploratory analysis of relationships between campaign finance trends and election results for U.S. congressional elections

Resources

Stars

Watchers

Forks

Releases

No releases published

Packages

No packages published