ABSTRACT Objectives Does providing arguments for or against campaign finance reform during an in‐person conversation alter attitudes toward campaign finance regulation or increase the salience of campaign finance reform? Methods We examine these questions with a pre‐registered field experiment combining canvassing conducted following the 2016 election and a three‐wave panel study to measure outcomes. We recruited a panel of registered voters in Broome County, NY, to participate in a series of online surveys. Those who responded to the baseline survey were randomly assigned to be canvassed at their homes with a gently supportive or oppositional message about campaign finance regulations or a placebo about hydraulic fracturing. Two waves of follow‐up surveys—the first 10–15 days after canvassing and the second 4–7 months later—were used to gauge the effect of canvassing on the direction of attitudes on campaign financing and the salience of the issue. Results We find anti‐reform canvassing may have produced a backlash, strengthening voters’ support for reforming campaign finance. We find clear evidence that counter‐attitudinal canvassing increased the salience of the issue both in the short and long terms. Conclusion These results about salience suggest that canvassing may evoke policy threat and boost interest in the role of money in politics.
Panagopoulos et al. (Sat,) studied this question.