Home⇛Journal of Interdisciplinary Perspectives⇛vol. 2 no. 7 (2024)

Campaign Spending and Its Effect during the 2013 and 2016 Elections in the Province of Cebu

Patrick Boniao

Discipline: Politics

 

Abstract:

Elections play a crucial role in legitimizing authority in democratic societies, yet the impact of campaign spending necessitates further investigation. This research delves into the influence of campaign expenditures on election outcomes in Cebu province between 2013 and 2016. Analysis of the Statement of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE), this study explores how candidates make decisions regarding the allocation of campaign funds. Employing a mixed-method research approach, quantitative techniques like regression analysis are utilized to examine the relationship between spending and election results, while qualitative methods including scrutinizing SOCE documents and conducting interviews with candidates and COMELEC officials shed light on spending patterns and offer recommendations for policy enhancements. Cebu Provincial data elections spanning 2013 and 2016 reveal a strong positive correlation between election spending and votes. Travel expenses, compensating campaigners, and communication demonstrate statistically insignificant correlations with voting outcomes (p-values of 0.842, 0.771, and 0.811, respectively). Similarly, printed materials and the employment of watchers’ expenditures display slightly positive correlations but lack statistical significance (p-values of 0.239 and 0.984). Moreover, campaign headquarters, meetings, and rallies show no significant correlations (p-values of 0.841 and 0.458). Advertising expenses emerged as the sole statistically significant factor in 2013 (p = 0.000), indicating a substantial 22.6 increase in votes for every 55,895 pesos spent. In the 2013 elections, only campaign paraphernalia and media spending correlated with votes; conversely, media spending was the sole positive correlation in 2016. Findings suggest that wealth played a significant role in the 2013 election, undermining the democratic principle of meritocracy where the most deserving candidate should prevail. Proposed policy changes include criminalizing campaign malpractices, ensuring candidate qualifications are rigorously vetted, and enhancing voter education programs spearheaded by academia. These measures are essential to mitigate the undue influence of money in politics and uphold the integrity of our electoral system.



References:

  1. A Bardwell, K. (2003). Campaign finance laws and the competition for spending in gubernatorial elections. Social Science Quarterly, 84(4), 811–825.
  2. Bardwell, K. (2003). Not all money is equal: The differential effect of spending by incumbents and challengers in gubernatorial primaries. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 3(3), 294–308.
  3. Besley, T. (2005). Political selection. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(3), 43-60.
  4. Brady, H. E., Johnston, R., & Sides, J. (2006). Do political campaigns matter? Capturing campaign effects. Retrieved February 21, 2018, from https://home.gwu.edu/~jsides/study.pdf
  5. Bueza, M. (2016). Fast Facts: What you ought to know about Cebu and elections. Retrieved March 23, 2018, from Rappler: https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/126256-fast-facts-cebu-elections
  6. Cage, J. (2018). Even in France, Money Rules Politics. Retrieved February 16, 2018, from Institute for New Economic Thinking: https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/even-in-france-money-rules-politics
  7. Chang, C. P., & Lee, C. C. (2009). Does candidates' advertising spending help them win? Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 12(3), 201–218.
  8. Coates, D. (1999). The effects of campaign spending on electoral outcomes: A data envelopment analysis. Public Choice, 99(1-2), pp. 15–37.
  9. Donovan, T. (2007). Effects of Campaign Spending in Local Nonpartisan Elections. Retrieved on. Retrieved February 14, 2018, from http://www.faculty.wwu.edu/~donovat/wpsa07_spend.pdf
  10. Eagles, M. (1993). Money and votes in Canada: Campaign spending and parliamentary election outcomes, 1984 and 1988. Canadian Public Policy/Analyse de Politiques,432-449.
  11. Eagles, M. (2004). The effectiveness of local campaign spending in Canada's 1993 and 1997 federal elections. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique, 37(1), 117-136.
  12. Erikson, R. S., & Palfrey, T. R. (2000). Equilibria in campaign spending games: Theory and data. American Political Science Review, 94(3), 595-609.
  13. Facts and Figures. (2017). Retrieved March 4, 2018, from the Republic of the Philippines, Province of Cebu: http://www.cebu.gov.ph/about-cebu/facts-and-figures/
  14. Figueiredo Filho, D. B. (2014). Is the effect of campaign spending higher in poorer electoral districts? Retrieved February 15, 2018, from https://ostromworkshop.indiana.edu/pdf/seriespapers/2014f_c/filhopaper.pdf
  15. Gius, M. (2009). The Effects of Campaign Expenditures on Congressional Elections. American Review of Political Economy, 7(1/2), 51.
  16. Hicken, A., Aspinall, E., & Weiss, M. (Eds.). (2019). Electoral Dynamics in the Philippines: Money Politics, Patronage and Clientelism at the Grassroots. NUS Press
  17. Hogan, R. E. (2013). Campaign spending and voter participation in state legislative elections. Social Science Quarterly, 94(3).
  18. Holmes, R. D. (2016). The dark side of electoralism: Opinion polls and voting in the 2016 Philippine presidential election. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 35(3), 15-38.
  19. Jacobson, G. C. (1990). The effects of campaign spending in House elections: New evidence for old arguments. American Journal of Political Science, pp. 334–362.
  20. Jacobson, G. C. (2015). How do campaigns matter? Annual Review of Political Science, pp. 18, 31–47.
  21. Loewen, P. J. (2005). How Do Local Candidates Spend Their Money? Moreover, Does it Matter? In Canadian Political Science Association Annual Meeting.
  22. Republic Act No. 7166.. (1991). An act providing for synchronized national and local elections and electoral reforms, authorizing appropriations therefor, http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1991/ra_7166_1991.html
  23. Orndorff III, H. (2017). Campaign Spending and the 2014 Florida’s Gubernatorial Race: A Research Note. Journal of Florida Studies, Vol. 1 Issue 6, p1-13. 13p. .
  24. Put, G. J., Maddens, B., & Smulders, J. (2014). Are you buying local votes? Campaign spending effects in Belgian local elections. Retrieved February 16, 2018, from https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/123456789/464438/1/inlogov.pdf
  25. Rekkas, M. (2007). The impact of campaign spending on votes in multiparty elections. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(3), 573–585.
  26. Rokkan, S. (2009). Citizens, elections, parties: Approaches to the comparative study of the processes of development. ECPR Press.
  27. Samuels, D. (2001). Incumbents and challengers on a level playing field: assessing the impact of campaign finance in Brazil. Journal of Politics, 63(2), 569–584.
  28. Sobari, W. (2017). Patronage driven democracy: Emerging local politics in the Post-Soeharto Indonesia. Airlangga University Press.
  29. Stratmann, T. (2006). Contribution limits and the effectiveness of campaign spending. Public Choice, 129(3-4), 461-474.
  30. Sudulich, M. L., & Wall, M. (2011). How do candidates spend their money? Objects of campaign spending and the effectiveness of diversification. Electoral Studies, 30(1), 91-101.
  31. SunStar, P. (2017, November 14). Cebu is the fifth most populous province, according to the census. Retrieved March 4, 201

Tools


Copyright © 2024  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic