Joshua L. Mitchell

The march toward marriage equality: Reexamining the diffusion of same-sex marriage among states

The issue of same-sex marriage and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender equality has received considerable attention from policy scholars. This is unsurprising given the issue is one of the defining social policy battles of the last decade. State governments at the forefront of this battle have responded by proposing a multitude of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender-related policies. In this study, we comparatively assess the diffusion of two of these policies across US states: the legal recognition of same-sex marriages and state constitutional amendments defining marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman. While previous studies have examined the diffusion of same-sex marriage bans across states, none have offered a comparative examination of how both sides of this contentious issue have advanced their policy preferences alongside each other. Using event history analysis, we analyze a unique set of covariates to test two diffusion hypotheses: learning and imitation. We find that for both policies, policy learning is the primary mechanism occurring, suggesting that policymakers learn from one another for the same policy area, even if the policies have different motives or objectives. However, the effect of learning is more prominent for anti-gay policies, suggesting there are differences between policies.

Examining media markets’ influence on the diffusion of antismoking legislation in US counties

ABSTRACT This article assesses the role of mass media markets in the diffusion of antismoking legislation in the state of Missouri in the US. Testing multiple diffusion theories, this study finds that media markets can facilitate the diffusion of policies among local jurisdictions by exacerbating intercounty competition. More attention should be given to media markets when assessing policy diffusion mechanisms at the local level. Media markets can be an important source for policy information conveyance among counties over a large geographic area. Furthermore, traditional diffusion studies that rely on geographical contiguity measures may not be completely capturing the existence of diffusion by excluding media markets.

The Political Geography of Campaign Contributions

By all accounts, presidential elections are costly undertakings. Will Rogers once stated, “Politics has got so expensive that it takes lots of money to even get beat with nowadays” (Rogers 1931). While Rogers comically exaggerated the cost of elections nearly a century ago, today campaigns and elections take substantial amounts of money, a reality that is often underestimated in American politics. One estimate of the combined cost of the 2012 presidential nomination and general election was

Exploring the Foundations of US State-Level Anti-Sharia Initiatives

2.6 billion (Choma 2013). This raises the obvious question: Where does this money come from? Surprisingly, even though spending by wealthy individuals and outside groups has risen dramatically in recent years, the majority of the money raised still comes from individual donors (Christenson and Smidt 2012).

Examining the Policy Learning Dynamics of Atypical Policies with an Application to State Preemption of Local Dog Laws

In recent years, measures have been taken to ban the use of international legal principles in state courts. While these international laws vary in terms of the specific restrictions they place on state legal practices, many of these laws have been aimed implicitly or explicitly at banning Sharia law practices. While dozens of states have attempted to pass anti-Sharia policies, thus far, only eight have been successful. In this article, we apply a policy diffusion framework to help explain the agenda placement and adoption of these measures. We find that both internal state determinants and external regional diffusion factors influence the interstate agenda placement and adoption of anti-Sharia practices. However, the regional effect is negative, meaning that these policies follow an atypical diffusion pattern. This study adds to the growing body of literature that examines the diffusion of controversial morality policies.

Conclusion and Discussion

Abstract Most of the literature on policy diffusion focuses on palpable issues such as economic or morality policies. As such, we know little about the mechanisms of diffusion for preemption of atypical policies such as animal regulations that lack a clear economic or ideological motivation. In this article, we propose and test a theory of conditional policy learning to explain the diffusion of atypical policies. We posit that a type of policy learning is occurring here, but that states only look to their neighbors when certain policy specific factors are present in their state. His theory is then applied to examine the dynamics of state adoption of laws preempting local Breed Specific Legislation from 1988 to 2014. Using an exponential model, two policy learning and two conditional learning hypotheses are tested. This study finds that policy learning is occurring through both external and internal pathways. This advances the literature by demonstrating that preemption occurs through the learning mechanism, but this learning effect is conditioned on policy relevant factors within the state.

Median Income: An Alternative Explanation for Campaign Contributions

This book attempts to tackle the complex relationship between geography and individual campaign contributions in the early stages of a presidential race, specifcally the increasingly important preprimary period. Even more than the decision to cast a ballot, giving money to a political campaign is a rare act of political involvement exercised by a minority of citizens in the United States. This type of support becomes even less common when one considers the relatively small percentage of Americans who participate by contributing during the early days of a presidential campaign when organizations are just beginning to be built by candidates and their staffs. The uncommon individual, the “1 in every 1,500,” who participates during the early stage of fundraising by contributing makes this a signifcant decision not only for the donor but also for the candidate. This is because the ability to raise money is a crucial, though not necessarily deterministic, indicator of who will win their respective party’s presidential nomination to contend for the White House.

The Timing of Presidential Campaign Contributions

Scholars have studied political participation in the context of campaigns and elections for decades. Assessing who participates is fundamental to understanding the democratic process, as those who participate have a much stronger voice in the policies and politics of their country than nonparticipants do. Put differently, those who vote and/or donate money to political candidates exhibit an infuence on electoral outcomes, while those who do not participate, by defnition, do not have a voice in the democratic process. Yet, nearly half of eligible voters do not vote, even in presidential general elections (McDonald and Popkin 2001), with far fewer contributing money to political candidates (Brown et al. 1995).

A Tale of Two Parties? Do Republicans and Democratic Contenders Have Different Geographical Fundraising Bases?

Fundraising activities in the year prior to the start of the formal primary season, in other words the preprimary period, play a substantial role in determining presidential nomination outcomes both directly and indirectly.1 First, this fundraising has a direct effect on campaign operations as candidates can either spend these funds on the resources necessary for modern electioneering, such as television advertising, or pay salary for campaign staffers. Second, campaign money indirectly serves as a marker of viability that has the potential to influence other important actors, such as political elites, mass media, and primary voters, and their willingness to consider a presidential bid as legitimate (Adkins and Dowdle 2002; Stewart 2015). Candidates who raise money successfully during this period often do well once the formal contests begin and are often able to weather early losses, or what George W. Bush termed “bumps in the road” after early losses in 2000 to John McCain in New Hampshire and Arizona (Adkins and Dowdle 2004). Candidates who do poorly are often “winnowed” or forced to leave the race (Norrander 2000; Haynes et al. 2004).

Participation in the Early Financing of Presidential Candidates

Campaign donations early on in the electoral process serve as a barometer of citizen enthusiasm and trust; however, they also serve as a benchmark for the strength and cohesion of the political parties. For example, higher campaign donations in the early stages of the election can be an indicator of success for the respective political parties (Damore 1997; Adkins and Dowdle 2002; Norrander 2006). Candidates who are able to secure a substantial amount of money, especially in the primary stage, generally have heightened success in electoral outcomes (Norrander 2006).