A draft paper published this week on the Social Science Research Network explores what, if any, there is to campaign spending.
In the report, titled, “Rhetoric and Reality: Testing the Harm of Campaign Spending,” the authors collaborated to design a survey experiment aimed at testing some of the factual claims made by the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC.
“The paper shows that there is a demonstrable harm to the electorate’s faith in democracy, and argues that these findings supply a government interest, separate from prevention of corruption, in regulating campaign spending, ” according to the abstract.
Here’s an excerpt:
Recent studies have shown that, as a group, affluent Americans have different interests from those of lower-income Americans. Thus, statistically, the assurances occasioned by a requirement of a communion of interests are lost when representatives are systematically diverted to consider the interests of their funders rather than their constituents in making policy judgments.
Want to read more? Here is the link.