Ulric B. and Evelyn L. Bray Social Sciences Seminar

Abstract: Reformers argue that small-donor matching programs counteract large-donor influence, thereby making candidates more responsive to voters. We examine this claim in a model of two-candidate electoral competition with a strategic influence donor and expressive small donors. Candidates are office-seeking, and also value raising campaign contributions. On the one hand, amplifying small-donor voice can harm voter welfare even when the average small donor is less ideologically biased than the influence donor. On the other hand, small donors can improve welfare even when the small-donor base is more biased than the influence donor. Policies intended to amplify small donor voices—such as public matching funds—can have a non-monotonic impact on voter welfare.

Joint with Peter Buisseret and Richard Van Weelden