Campaign spending and Senate elections, 1978–84

This paper uses a sample of recent Senate election results and estimates vote equations that show challenger spending hurts, and incumbent spending helps, incumbent re-election. While both types of spending have diminishing returns, the effects are asymmetrical. Challenger spending is more productive at lower levels of spending, but incumbents can spend greater amounts more profitably than can challengers. These results can explain why Senate incumbents spend money, why they typically outspend their challenger, and why incumbents who can outspend their challenger would tend to be against spending limits or public financing.However, the results do not explain why incumbent spending does not work in House election equations. Jacobson and others have run countless linear and quadratic specifications that persistently show perverse effects for incumbent spending. These results are not affected by the procedural problem of logging observations that have a value of zero, and pose a genuine puzzle. There are other empirical results suggesting the idea that there are basic differences in the nature of elections between the House and Senate. For example, Grier and Carlson (1988) find that state-level economic conditions have a strong effect on individual Senate elections, while Owens and Olson (1980) find that district-level economic conditions have no effect on House elections. Since I show that there are a significant number of elections where incumbent spending does matter, and that simultaneity bias may not be a tenable explanation for results where incumbent expenditures do not matter, it may be time to take a new look at the House data or to develop a testable theory that can explain persistant empirical differences in the determinants of elections in the House and Senate.     

Journal Publishing, Journal Reputation, and the United Kingdom's Research Assessment Exercise

Many academic lawyers believe that the Research Assessment Exercise has encouraged writing for academic journals, often at the expense of other forms of scholarly discourse. Moreover, it is widely perceived that the reputation of the journal in which research is published affects how that research is assessed in connection with the RAE. In this article, the authors report data gathered from a large-scale study measuring the perceptions of academic lawyers concerning the journal publishing process, how the RAE has affected journal quality generally, and how specific journals rank in terms of academic quality and their perceived importance to the RAE process.     

Right to die,euthanasia, and community sentiment

Three questions guide this research: Would nullifications occur in active euthanasia cases where the right to die is asserted? What sentiments would the community express, and how would those sentiments relate to nullifications? What variables would best predict verdict? Mock jurors offered reasons for their verdicts for four cases where all elements of first degree murder appeared to be satisfied. The cases varied thecompetency of the patient, theintent of the patient—if the wish to die was expressed, and whether a living will was present, and whether the defendant soughtcourt approval. Sizable nullifications (25% not guilty verdicts) and partial nullifications (39% guilty to lesser offenses) resulted. Some subjects viewed this as not a legal matter, but a private matter; others acknowledged the law's place, but viewed the law's position as wrong; still others nullified by using a common sense rather than a legal definition ofmalice. In this life-and-death matter, black letter law and common sense justice were not only far apart, but, in the eyes of some, irreconcilably so.     

On the (mis)measurement of legislator ideology and shirking

In this paper, we show that current statistical measures of legislator's shirking are implicitly based on the electoral concept of a unique majority rule equilibrium point in the policy space where elections are contested. We note that such equilibria do not exist generically and present statistical results showing that cross-sectional regressions where legislators' voting indices are predicted by district average demograhic and economic data are mis-specified. We also discuss a weaker equilibrium construct, the uncovered set, and present statistical evidence showing that differences in voting behavior between Senators from the same state are positively related to the heterogeneity of the electorate. We argue that current evidence alleged to show shirking by Senators is equally consistent with Senators who perfectly represent an idiosyncratic constituency that cannot be represented by district average data.     

Comprehending disclosure: must patients understand the risks they run?

It is well known that competent patients must be told about the risks of proposed medical procedures. This paper argues that recent professional guidelines and the law of negligence now take matters further by requiring doctors to take reasonable steps in an attempt to ensure that patients understand the risks they are being invited to run, so facilitating meaningful choices and the opportunity to give a properly informed consent.