Abstract

As political campaigns become increasingly expensive and need for financial contributions more imperative, controversial political actions, such as the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court decision, have led to debates over the democratic ethics of money as a form of free speech. To expand upon the current research analyzing effects of Citizens United on democratic practices, this study focuses specifically on the role party control plays as an intervening mechanism; asking if connections between increases from outside campaign spending and variations in levels of alignment between federal legislators and their constituents can be attributed to this causal connection. To answer this research question, the study utilizes a difference-in-differences (DiD) empirical model comparing changes in voter approval rates of legislators within states before and after 2010, with some states having to remove independent spending bans and some not having any in place prior to 2010. By comparing differences between these state treatment and control groups, the analysis aims to isolate the effect of Citizens United on alignment between voters and their representatives. In this study, any variation in effect would be attributed to differing levels of party control from monetary influence, based on the evidence provided from the outlined theories of the principal-agent model, resource-exchange theory, and the actor-network theory. Although the findings prove to be insignificant, most likely due to the violation of the parallel trends assumption, this unprecedented study lays a methodological foundation for utilizing a causal mechanism between independent spending and voter alignment.

Advisor

Long, Melanie

Second Advisor

Kim, Sekwen

Department

Economics; Political Science

Disciplines

Social and Behavioral Sciences

Publication Date

2026

Degree Granted

Bachelor of Arts

Document Type

Senior Independent Study Thesis

Download

Share

COinS
 

© Copyright 2026 Malaina M. Millhouse