INDEX
abortion policy as an election issue, 59, 192–93nn1–4
ads. See attack ads and political ads
Alaska, 144
Alaska Right to Life Political Action Comm. v. Feldman, 144
Alito, Samuel, 16, 26, 68, 108, 203n4
American Association for Justice, 2
American National Election Study, 29
Ansolabehere, Stephen, 27, 184n18
Arkansas, 144
Aronson, Elliot, 189n20
attack ads and political ads: campaign activity’s influence on citizens’ opinions, 23–24, 27, 187nn6–8; evidence that attack ads have few consequences, 49, 53–54, 135; in experimental vignettes, 34; impact on court and legislative legitimacy, 41, 54; nature of, 27–28; reaction to ads politicized by interest groups, 63; respondents’ assessments of broadcasted ads, 62–63, 193nn6–7; text of ads, 61–62
authority versus legitimacy, 10, 86, 88, 183n8
Baird, Vanessa, 7–8, 197n15, 199–200n7, 201n18
Baum, Lawrence, 183n4, 183n7
Benesh, Sara, 14, 81, 90, 184n19, 185n27, 191n36, 191n38, 199n4
Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), 29
Bonneau, Chris, 128, 140, 187n9, 199n3, 199n5, 199n6, 203n6, 204n8
Bopp, James, 143, 144, 186n32
Bowler, Shaun, 184n19
Boyea, Brent, 188n16
Brace, Paul, 188n16
Brandenburg, Bert, 88
Brehm, John, 110
Brennan Center, NYU, 2, 107
Brooks, Deborah Jordan, 23–24
Bush v. Gore, 6, 9, 16, 26, 108
Bybee, Keith, 91, 199n12
Caldeira, Gregory, 5, 7–8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 35, 63, 68, 96, 108, 183n9, 185nn26–27, 186n30, 188n15, 196n12, 197n14, 198n5, 198n8, 199n1, 201n18, 203n4, 204n9
campaign activity crossing the line study: activities represented, 59–60, 192–93nn1–4; attack ads’ influence on citizens, 27–28, 187nn6–8; campaign content experiment, 64–69, 194nn8–11; campaign contributions’ influence on citizens, 28–29, 187–88nn9–15; conventional wisdom about, 23–24; hypothesis about the impact of politicized campaign activity, 27; hypothetical vignettes use, 58; impact of a candidate making a specific policy promise, 60–61, 193n5; policy commitments and prejudgments’ influence on citizens, 29; reaction to politicized ads by interest groups, 63; respondents’ assessments of broadcasted ads, 62–63, 193nn6–7; study design, 57–58; text of ads, 61–62; threats to impartiality from campaign activity, 58–61
campaign content appropriateness experiment: differences in judged appropriateness according to the importance of the issue, 66–67, 194n10; relevance of a particular institution on judgments of appropriateness, 67–68, 194n11; study design, 63–64, 194n8; study findings, 68; views of appropriateness of any candidate making policy promises, 64–66; why citizens object to policy promises, 64–66, 194n9
campaign contributions: appearance of corruption and, 28–29, 187–88nn9–15; belief in a connection to decisions, 28; evidence of negative consequences from, 135–36; in experimental vignettes, 31; impact on court legitimacy, 53; legal developments since the White decision, 143–45
Campaign Media Analysis Group (CMAG), 112, 183n6, 200n8, 201n19
Campbell, Donald, 189n18, 193n5
Cann, Damon, 14, 199n4
Canon 5B(1)(c), Kentucky Code of Judicial Conduct, 186n32
Carlson, Neil, 110
Caufield, Rachel Paine, 105, 144
Choi, Stephen, 139, 199n5
Citizens United, 107
CMAG (Campaign Media Analysis Group), 112, 183n6, 200n8, 201n19
Coleman, John, 188n14
commitment to an in...