Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-07T15:46:43.244Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Encouraging Small Donor Contributions: A Field Experiment Testing the Effects of Nonpartisan Messages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2015

Donald P. Green ,
Jonathan S. Krasno ,
Costas Panagopoulos ,
Benjamin Farrer  and
Michael Schwam-Baird
Donald P. Green
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA; e-mail: dpg2110@columbia.edu
Jonathan S. Krasno
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY, USA
Costas Panagopoulos
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Fordham University, Bronx, NY, USA
Benjamin Farrer
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Studies, Knox College, Galesburg, IL, USA
Michael Schwam-Baird
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA; e-mail: dpg2110@columbia.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We report the results of a field experiment conducted in New York City during the 2013 election cycle, examining the impact of nonpartisan messages on donations from small contributors. Using information from voter registration and campaign finance records, we built a forecasting model to identify voters with an above-average probability of donating. A random sample of these voters received one of four messages asking them to donate to a candidate of their choice. Half of these treatments reminded voters that New York City's campaign finance program matches small donations with public funds. Candidates’ financial disclosures to the city's Campaign Finance Board reveal that only the message mentioning policy (in generic terms) increased donations. Surprisingly, reminding voters that matching funds multiplied the value of their contribution had no effect. Our experiment sheds light on the motivations of donors and represents the first attempt to assess nonpartisan appeals to contribute.

Keywords

Campaign financepolitical participationfield experimentsdonationselectoral politics
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Experimental Political Science , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , Winter 2015 , pp. 183 - 191
Copyright
Copyright © The Experimental Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bartels, Larry M. 2010. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Citizens United v. FEC. 558 U.S. 310 (2010).Google Scholar
Eckel, Catherine C. and Grossman, Phillip J.. 2003. “Rebate versus Matching: Does How We Subsidize Charitable Contributions Matter?” Journal of Public Economics 87 (3–4): 681–701.Google Scholar
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. 551 U.S. 449 (2007).Google Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., and Green, Donald P.. 2012. Field Experiments: Design, Analysis, and Interpretation. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Gilens, Martin. 2012. Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Karlan, Dean and List, John A.. 2006. Does Price Matter in Charitable Giving? Evidence from a Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment. NBER working paper 12338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipsitz, Keena and Panagopoulos, Costas. 2011. “Filled Coffers: Campaign Contributions and Contributors in the 2008 Elections.” Journal of Political Marketing 10 (1–2): 43–57.Google Scholar
Magleby, David, Goodliffe, Jay, and Olsen, Joe. 2014. What Motivates Donors to Contribute? Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
McCutcheon v. FEC 572 U.S. ___ (2014).Google Scholar
Meier, S. 2007. “Do Subsidies Increase Charitable Giving in the Long Run? Matching Donations in a Field Experiment.” Journal of the European Economic Association 5: 1203–22.Google Scholar
Panagopoulos, Costas, ed. 2011. Public Financing in American Elections. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Panagopoulos, Costas and Bergan, Daniel. 2006. “Contributions and Contributors in the 2004 Presidential Election Cycle.” Presidential Studies Quarterly, 36 (2): 155–72.Google Scholar
Rondeau, Daniel, and List, John A.. 2008. “Matching and Challenge Gifts to Charity: Evidence from Laboratory and Natural Field Experiments.” Experimental Economics 11 (3): 253–67.Google Scholar
Sorauf, Frank J. 1994. Inside Campaign Finance: Myths and Realities. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Green supplementary material

Appendix

Download Green supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 134 KB