{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014096185737976783, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009950248756218905, 'mean_word_length': 5.454545454545454, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Citizens United and Independent Expenditures in State Supreme Court Elections

Abstract Following the decision by the US Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, questions about the impact of unlimited independent expenditures on state supreme court elections emerged. For those critical of the decision, an area of concern was how elected state courts could be adversely affected by outside group spending. Utilizing data from thirteen states that required disclosure of money spent by outside groups between 2006 and 2016, this research explores patterns of independent expenditures to determine if fears about spending in judicial elections were justified. Using both descriptive and regression analyses, the results indicate that independent expenditures have been on the rise, though important differences exist across the states and by sector. Where states once limited outside groups, their spending activity increased in the post-Citizens United era. Where state laws were not affected, outside group spending declined. The impact of the Supreme Court’s decision therefore is most clearly observed in states that once sought to limit the influence of outside groups.