Abstract

Following the decision by the US Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, questions about the impact of unlimited independent expenditures on state supreme court elections emerged. For those critical of the decision, an area of concern was how elected state courts could be adversely affected by outside group spending. Utilizing data from thirteen states that required disclosure of money spent by outside groups between 2006 and 2016, this research explores patterns of independent expenditures to determine if fears about spending in judicial elections were justified. Using both descriptive and regression analyses, the results indicate that independent expenditures have been on the rise, though important differences exist across the states and by sector. Where states once limited outside groups, their spending activity increased in the post-Citizens United era. Where state laws were not affected, outside group spending declined. The impact of the Supreme Court’s decision therefore is most clearly observed in states that once sought to limit the influence of outside groups.

摘要

根据美国最高法院在“公民联合诉联邦选举委员会”中的裁决2010年，出现了有关无限的独立支出对州最高法院选举产生影响的问题。对于这些关键的决定，值得关注的领域是如何选出的州法院可以通过外部的消费群体产生不利影响。这项研究利用了13个州的数据，这些数据要求披露外部团体在2006年至2016年之间的支出，该研究探索了独立支出的模式，以确定对司法选举支出的担忧是否合理。使用描述性分析和回归分析，结果表明，尽管各州和各部门之间存在重要差异，但独立支出仍在上升。州曾经限制外部团体的地方，其消费活动在后公民联合会中有所增加时代。在不影响州法律的地方，外部团体支出下降了。因此，在曾经试图限制外部团体影响的州中，最高法院的判决的影响最为明显。