Public campaign financing’s effects on judicial legitimacy: Evidence from a survey experiment

IF 2 3区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Research and Politics Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI:10.1177/20531680231180357
Tiger Bjornlund, Alyx Mark
{"title":"Public campaign financing’s effects on judicial legitimacy: Evidence from a survey experiment","authors":"Tiger Bjornlund, Alyx Mark","doi":"10.1177/20531680231180357","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although judicial elections are considered a method of keeping state courts—otherwise insulated from public pressure—accountable, the private financing of judicial campaigns has been met with significant criticism. In particular, the perception that campaign contributions can buy favorable case outcomes for contributors to judicial candidates may pose problems for judicial legitimacy. While some scholars and advocacy groups have advanced proposals which seek to eliminate private financing from judicial elections, research has yet to demonstrate a link between the public’s evaluations of a court’s legitimacy and the campaign financing system the state employs. In this paper, we present the results of a survey experiment that examines the public’s evaluations of judicial legitimacy under different campaign financing schemes. We find evidence supportive of our core hypothesis: respondents viewed courts with publicly financed elections as more legitimate than those with privately financed elections. This study helps to reinforce the viability of public financing by empirically demonstrating that the public views a state supreme court elected using the public financing model as more legitimate and less susceptible to donor pressure than one selected using privately financed models.","PeriodicalId":37327,"journal":{"name":"Research and Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research and Politics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680231180357","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Although judicial elections are considered a method of keeping state courts—otherwise insulated from public pressure—accountable, the private financing of judicial campaigns has been met with significant criticism. In particular, the perception that campaign contributions can buy favorable case outcomes for contributors to judicial candidates may pose problems for judicial legitimacy. While some scholars and advocacy groups have advanced proposals which seek to eliminate private financing from judicial elections, research has yet to demonstrate a link between the public’s evaluations of a court’s legitimacy and the campaign financing system the state employs. In this paper, we present the results of a survey experiment that examines the public’s evaluations of judicial legitimacy under different campaign financing schemes. We find evidence supportive of our core hypothesis: respondents viewed courts with publicly financed elections as more legitimate than those with privately financed elections. This study helps to reinforce the viability of public financing by empirically demonstrating that the public views a state supreme court elected using the public financing model as more legitimate and less susceptible to donor pressure than one selected using privately financed models.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
公共竞选资金对司法合法性的影响——来自一项调查实验的证据
尽管司法选举被认为是一种让州法院——否则就不会受到公众压力——承担责任的方法,但私人为司法活动提供资金却遭到了严重的批评。特别是,认为竞选捐款可以为司法候选人的捐助者购买有利的案件结果的看法,可能会给司法合法性带来问题。虽然一些学者和倡导团体提出了一些建议,试图消除司法选举中的私人资金,但研究尚未证明公众对法院合法性的评价与国家采用的竞选资金制度之间存在联系。在本文中,我们提出了一项调查实验的结果,该实验考察了公众对不同竞选融资方案下司法合法性的评价。我们发现了支持我们核心假设的证据:受访者认为,由公共资助选举的法院比由私人资助选举的法院更合法。本研究通过实证证明,公众认为使用公共融资模式选出的州最高法院比使用私人融资模式选出的州最高法院更合法,更不容易受到捐助者压力的影响,从而有助于加强公共融资的可行性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Research and Politics
Research and Politics Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
3.70%
发文量
34
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Research & Politics aims to advance systematic peer-reviewed research in political science and related fields through the open access publication of the very best cutting-edge research and policy analysis. The journal provides a venue for scholars to communicate rapidly and succinctly important new insights to the broadest possible audience while maintaining the highest standards of quality control.
期刊最新文献
Voters don’t care too much about policy: How politicians conceive of voting motives Assessing survey mode effects in the 2019 EP elections: A comparison of online and face-to-face-survey data from six European countries Unexpected, but consistent and pre-registered: Experimental evidence on interview language and Latino views of COVID-19 Thinking generically and specifically in International Relations survey experiments Infectious disease and political violence: Evidence from malaria and civil conflicts in Sub-Saharan Africa
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1