Search

Public financing has been implemented in many jurisdictions as part of an effort to increase competitiveness, make the campaign finance system more democratic, and reduce money raised from private sources. But does it accomplish these goals? Even though some research has been done on public financing in state elections, we know little about its impact in municipal elections. This paper analyzes the impact of partial public financing programs in New York and Los Angeles City Council races. I find that its effect on competitiveness, fundraising, and the cost of elections is minor and does not accomplish the goals desired by reformers. Even though it may have some positive impact, partial public financing programs do not fundamentally alter the dynamics of city council elections. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mayoral candidates need to assemble a fundraising coalition so they can raise sufficient funds to be competitive. What is the nature of those coalitions? Are they narrow coalitions of like minded interests, or are they broad coalitions encompassing many different groups? Further, are the coalitions assembled by opposing candidates fundamentally different, or do most candidates receive their funds from the same sources? This article explores these questions through an analysis of five open seat mayoral elections in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle. The results show that mayoral elections are not characterized by competing coalitions of donors. Most candidates assemble broad coalitions of many different groups and because of this breadth, candidates often have internally inconsistent coalitions. Further, the fundraising coalitions of opposing candidates are usually quite similar. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]