CAMPAIGN FINANCE IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE
17
CAMPAIGN FINANCE IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE Dalson Figueiredo Filho (UFPE) ([email protected]) Enivaldo Carvalho da Rocha (UFPE) ([email protected]) José Antonio Lavareda Filho ([email protected] )
Transcript of CAMPAIGN FINANCE IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE
CAMPAIGN FINANCE IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE
Dalson Figueiredo Filho (UFPE)([email protected])
Enivaldo Carvalho da Rocha (UFPE)([email protected])
José Antonio Lavareda Filho([email protected])
Research Question
How campaign finance regulation varies across countries? Analyze campaign finance in a
comparative perspective, giving special attention to Brazil and the Unites States
Focus on level of regulation on the sources of campaign contributions
Research Design
Nested analysis approach (Lieberman, 2005)
Descriptive and multivariate statistics + documental analysis + case study
Data from Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA)
QOG
Case Selection Why Brazil and USA?
1. Most what we know about campaign finance was produced by U.S. scholars or/and is about U.S. institutions
2. Both Tribunal Superior Eleitoral (TSE) in Brazil and Federal Election Commission (FEC) in the United States provide open data on campaign finance
3. Comparative perspective between Brazil and the United States allows to understand how widely different institutional designs regulate campaign contributions
Case Selection
Feature Brazil United States
Electoral system
Proportional Majoritary
Party system Multiparty BipartisanDistrict magnitude 8-70 1
Buy electioneeri
ng communicatio
n
No Yes
Direct corporation contribution
Yes No
Why Brazil and USA?
Variables description
Variable DescriptionV1 Foreign
entitiesV2 CorporationsV3 Gov contractorsV4 Trade unionsV5 Anonymous
Campaign finance sources:
Variables description
VnALLOWED(0)
PROHIBITED(1)
Results (Regulation) (%)
36.00
18.3023.90
14.80
41.60
Mean = 1.36
Std = 1.57
n = 114
ResultsBan on campaign contributions
Sources Brazil
United States
Foreign entities
X X
Corporations XGov
contractorsX X
Trade unions X XAnonymous X X
4 5
Results (standardized measure)
Regulation (Z)
V1 (Foreign entities) (.561)
V2(Corporations) (.668)
V3 (Gov contractors)(.525)
V4 (Trade unions) (.503)
V5 (Anonymous) (.392)Eigenvalue = 2.65
52.93%
KMO = .736
BTS < .000
Results Cronbach’s Alpha = 0,769 Cronbach’s Alpha (Z) = 0,775 N = 5 Cronbach’s Alpha (if item
deleted)V1 (Foreign entities) (.708)
V2(Corporations) (.694)V3 (Gov contractors)(.729)
V4 (Trade unions) (.739)
V5 (Anonymous) (.759)
Results
Results
Results
Conclusion
Most countries show low levels (1.36) of regulation over the sources of campaign contributions
Both Brazil (4) and the U.S. (5) display high levels of control despite their institutional differences
Appendix (factor loadings)
Z_Regulation
V1 (Foreign entities) (.749)
V2(Corporations) (.817)
V3 (Gov contractors)(.724)
V4 (Trade unions) (.709)
V5 (Anonymous) (.626)
Appendix (correlation)
