Publication Date
2026
Presentation Length
15 minutes
College
College of Liberal Arts & Social Sciences
Department
Political Science, Department of
Student Level
Undergraduate
Faculty Mentor
Dr. Nathan Griffith
Metadata/Fulltext
Fulltext
Presentation Type
Talk/Oral
Summary
This study investigates the relationship between campaign fundraising and electoral success in the United States House of Representatives, with a specific focus on the period surrounding the Citizens United v. FEC (2010) Supreme Court decision. Using a robust dataset of 30,539 observations from 2002 to 2024, I analyze the ability of total candidate receipts and individual contributions on the probability of victory. Using a Difference-in-Differences (DiD) framework and logistic regression models, the results demonstrate that while fundraising remains a highly significant predictor of winning ($p < 0.001$), the "return on investment" for direct candidate fundraising has significantly decreased in the post-Citizens United era. Specifically, the advantage held by "High Funders" decreased by 8.1% after 2010, suggesting a financial saturation effect where direct receipts are increasingly diluted by the increase of outside expenditures. Partisan disaggregation reveals a "Partisan Efficacy Gap," where Democratic candidates experienced a statistically significant decline in the effectiveness of their fundraising post-2010, while Republican candidates' effectiveness remained relatively stable. These findings suggest that the deregulation of campaign finance has not only increased the total volume of money in politics but has fundamentally altered the marginal utility of a candidate’s campaign war chest, shifting the levers of electoral influence toward outside spending and institutional actors.
Recommended Citation
Broadhead, Marc J., "From Candidates to Coalitions: How Citizens United Changed Electoral Influence" (2026). SPARK Symposium Presentations. 913.
https://repository.belmont.edu/spark_presentations/913
