Campaign fundraising in state supreme court elections

Objective. What factors affect the ability of candidates for state supreme courts to raise money? In this article, I test (and expand) existing theories of political fundraising (taken largely from legislative studies) in the context of judicial elections. Methods. I examine the determinants of campaign contributions to all candidates running for the state supreme court from 1990-2000 in states that have competitive judicial elections. Most basically, I hypothesize that a candidate's ability to raise money is dependent on characteristics of the candidate, the state electoral and supreme court context, and institutional arrangements. Results. The results suggest that candidates who have a greater probability of success than their opponents are better able to raise money. Yet, all is not within the control of the candidates, as the electoral context of the state and the court as well as the institutional arrangements of the election and the court are also relevant. Conclusions. Campaign fundraising by state supreme court candidates, much like fundraising by legislative candidates, can be understood in systematic and predictable ways. Candidates have some control over the amount of money that they are able to raise (and thus their electoral viability), although there is little they can do about the electoral and supreme court context. Additionally, institutional arrangements play a large role in raising campaign funds, suggesting that there is not much reformers can do to limit the amount of money involved in elections short of eradicating elections altogether.