Dino P. Christenson

The evolution and formation of amicus curiae networks

Abstract This paper sheds light on two age-old questions of interest group behavior: how have interest group coalition strategies changed over time and which factors determine whether interest groups work together? Through the creation of a new network measure of interest group coalitions based on cosigner status to United States Supreme Court amicus curiae briefs, we illuminate the central players and overall characteristics of this dynamic network from 1930 to 2009. We present evidence of an increasingly transitive network resembling a host of tightly grouped factions and leadership hub organizations employing mixed coalition strategies. We also model the attribute homophily and structure of the present-day network. We find assortative mixing of interest groups based on industry area, budget, sales and membership.

More Bang for the Buck Campaign Spending and Fundraising Success

Can candidates spend their way into financial success? We propose that the 2007 presidential money primary offers unprecedented leverage to evaluate spending’s influence since it allows for sharper controls of confounding factors. Our results demonstrate that greater candidate spending on fundraising-related efforts is associated with significant future financial benefits. We estimate that, prior to the primaries, increases in spending have an equal or larger payoff than increases in a candidate’s viability and find different types of spending are beneficial for frontrunner and long-shot candidates. The results consistently indicate greater early spending works to advantage candidates, suggesting a lack of initial resources is a significant obstacle for candidates who seek to financially benefit from their campaign’s performance.

Quality Over Quantity: Amici Influence and Judicial Decision Making

Interest groups often make their preferences known on cases before the U.S. Supreme Court via amicus curiae briefs. In evaluating the case and related arguments, we posit that judges take into account more than just the number of supporters for the liberal and conservative positions. Specifically, judges’ decisions may also reflect the relative power of the groups. We use network position to measure interest group power in U.S. Supreme Court cases from 1946 to 2001. We find that the effect of interest group power is minimal in times of heavily advantaged cases. However, when the two sides of a case are approximately equal in the number of briefs, such power is a valuable signal to judges. We also show that justice ideology moderates the effect of liberal interest group power. The results corroborate previous findings on the influence of amicus curiae briefs and add a nuanced understanding of the conditions under which the quality and reputation of interest groups matter, not just the quantity.

Deus ex Machina Candidate Web Presence and the Presidential Nomination Campaign

Using data from the 2008 presidential nomination contest, we offer systematic tests of the relationships between traditional campaign factors, the Internet and campaign performance. We find that claims of the Internet’s relevance to modern campaigns are warranted, as it is a unique facet of campaigns and significantly improves candidates’ financial and electoral support. The Internet is especially helpful to candidates in generating small-donor contributions and in maximizing contributions after early primary victories. Overall, these findings suggest that the Internet offers a viable mechanism for long-shot candidates to overcome the resource demands of the current presidential nomination system.

Comparing membership interest group networks across space and time, size, issue and industry

We compare and contrast the network formation of interest groups across industry and issue area. We focus on membership interest groups, which by virtue of representing the interests of voluntary members face particular organizational and maintenance constraints. To reveal their cooperative behavior we build a network dataset based on cosigner status to United States Supreme Court amicus curiae briefs and analyze it with exponential random graph models and multidimensional scaling. Our methodological approach culminates in a clear and compact spatial representation of network similarities and differences. We find that while many of the same factors shape membership networks, religious, labor, and political organizations do not share the same structure as each other or as the business, civic and professional groups.

Riding the Waves of Money: Contribution Dynamics in the 2008 Presidential Nomination Campaign

The 2008 primary was the most nuanced and expensive nomination contest in history. We investigate how this massive battle for contributions played out over 2007 and the first half of 2008 by analyzing the daily dynamics of candidate contributions using the Federal Elections Commissions collection of individual contributions. Not surprisingly, Giuliani and Clinton were the leaders in contribution momentum during the latter parts of the so-called money primary. This pattern abruptly changed in 2008 as both parties experienced a structural change in contribution flows. While Iowa and New Hampshire placements helped their causes, the South Carolina primary was by far the most rewarding early contest for Obama and McCain. Furthermore, primary victories do not benefit all candidates equally, as Clinton and Huckabee gained far less than their counterparts in response to their early victories.

Role analysis using the ego-ERGM: A look at environmental interest group coalitions

Abstract Interest groups coordinate to achieve political goals. However, these groups are heterogeneous, and the division of labor within these coalitions varies. We explore the presence of distinct roles in coalitions of environmental interest groups, and analyse which factors predict if an organization takes on a particular role. To model these latent dynamics, we introduce the ego-ERGM. We find that a groups budget, member size, staff size, and degree centrality are influential in distinguishing between three role assignments. These results provide insight into the roles adopted in carrying out coalition tasks. This approach shows promise for understanding a host of networks.

Why Amicus Curiae Cosigners Come and Go: A Dynamic Model of Interest Group Networks

Interest groups use coalition strategies to exert influence, yet, like other political actors, they also withdraw from partnerships in the pursuit of other policy goals. We explore how interest group coalition strategies have changed over time and which factors determine whether interest groups relationships form and dissolve. Utilizing dynamic networks of a panel of interest groups derived from cosigner status to United States Supreme Court amicus curiae briefs, we illuminate the evolution of the social networks of frequent signers from the 1970s to the present day. A separable temporal exponential random graph model (STERGM) shows that the number of partners is important for formation but not dissolution, while industrial homophily helps both to make and maintain connections. In addition, statistical trends suggest that while networks change, a few players have acted continuously as coordination hubs for the bulk of the decades. However, a number of other key players in particular decades would be missed without a dynamic perspective.

Mass Preferences on Shared Representation and the Composition of Legislative Districts

Scholars of redistricting often discuss “communities of interest” as a guideline for drawing districts, but scholarship offers little guidance on how citizens construe communities and interests in the context of representation. In this article, we seek to better understand how citizens’ perceptions of people and places affect preferences regarding representation. Using an original survey conducted in 15 Massachusetts communities, we explore whether citizens have meaningful preferences about the communities with whom they share the same representative. To the extent they do, we test whether these preferences are driven by geographic considerations or other factors such as partisanship, race, and socioeconomic status. Our findings not only offer the opportunity to refine the concept of “communities of interest” to account for voter preferences but also more broadly speak to the literature on the increasingly political nature of residential preferences and their impact on political attitudes, participation, and voting behavior.

Reassessing the Supreme Court: How Decisions and Negativity Bias Affect Legitimacy

While the Supreme Court’s legitimacy is generally considered essential to its influence, scholars continue to debate whether the Court’s decisions affect individuals’ assessments of it. The last week of the 2013 term provides an unusual opportunity to evaluate these issues because the Court made a conservative decision concerning the Voting Rights Act (VRA) only one day before it made a liberal one about same-sex marriage. We use original panel data of individuals’ views throughout this period, including a wave collected on the day between the two decisions, to investigate the links among decisions and legitimacy. We find that diffuse support for the Court is sensitive to decisions in these two salient cases conditional on individuals’ ideological distance to the Court and their policy support. Moreover, the negative effects of an unfavorable decision are stronger than the positive effects of a favorable one.