University of Maryland economics researchers Craig Garthwaite and Tim Moore have just released their paper on The Role of Celebrity Endorsements in Politics:
Studying the geographic differences in the sales of Oprah's media properties, (O!, Oprah's Book Club etc.) to determine her influence on the Democratic primary endorsement of Barack Obama the pair determined that Oprah's endorsement provided about a million additional votes to Obama.
Celebrities have long been criticized for their involvement in politics. Why should people be influenced by the famous? Perhaps the low information voter is more influenced by celebrities. Indeed the McCain camp must be wondering why their attempt to use Paris Hilton in their attack ad could go so horribly wrong and how much it might hurt them.
But wait there's more.
Craig Garthwaite, now a PhD student was once criticized for being an unqualified industry shill. See: NPR, media quoted "think tank" without noting industry, GOP ties In 2005 Garthwaite appeared on NPR arguing against the minimum wage saying it hurts the workers.
While Schalch identified Garthwaite generally as representing "business groups," she did not note that EPI receives funding specifically from the fast-food and low-wage hospitality industry or that the institute is run by the public relations firm Berman and Company, which has strong ties to the Republican Party.
A July 8, 1995, National Journal report identified EPI as "[a]nother new think tank with even closer ties to industry," which was "started in 1992 by a group of restaurant companies that wanted an alternative source of research on labor issues." Los Angeles Times business columnist Harvey Bernstein referred to EPI in a September 15, 1992, column as the "recently created business-funded Employment Policies Institute" and as the "conservative EPI, financed mostly by low-wage companies such as hotels and restaurants." Bernstein noted that EPI "has come up with some misleading studies," including one that "hails as a great thing the distressing growth of part-time jobs because they offer 'flexibility' in economic planning for both workers and companies, and say that flexibility is vital 'in the growing and increasingly competitive global economy.'" Bernstein also noted: "Even the name of this new institute is misleading. It calls itself EPI, the same name used for years by the older and much more progressive Economic Policy Institute."
If the EPI brand is ringing a bell for you the link shows that it is wholly owned by Republican lobbyist Richard Berman.
In 1993, Berman donated $25,000 to sponsor a college course taught by then-House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich (R-GA). That contribution and others like it sparked a House ethics investigation into the political goals of the course. The investigation ended in 1997 when the Ethics Committee recommended a reprimand and a $300,000 fine for Gingrich, which the House approved. According to The Washington Post, "Gingrich admitted that he brought discredit to the House and broke its rules by failing to ensure that financing for two projects would not violate federal tax law and by giving the House ethics committee false information."
Over at Marginal Revolution co-author Tim Moore made a comment about Garthwaithe:
I think it is important to provide some information about our affiliations and motivations. Both Craig and I are PhD students in Economics at the University of Maryland. We thought it would be interesting to see if Oprah's endorsement had any effect on the Democratic Primary, and tried to think of ways to do so. We do not really have a view on who it may be good or bad for - hopefully it provides us with more insights into the political process and voting behavior (although it is still a working paper and we are aware of the difficulties in inferring causation).
We have been full time graduate students for the past few years, with no current employment by think tanks or similar (although Craig did work for a think tank before entering grad school). We received no funding or support on this project.
It isn't the first time Oprah's influence in politics has been studied and (once again from the comments at Marginal Revolution) author Angela Jamison says
This is the first time Oprah's made a Presidential endorsement. She's a uniquely powerful celebrity-- previous studies of the limited effects of celebrity endorsements might not tell us everything there is to know about this case. Maybe there is something new under the sun this time.
Today, the International Journal of Press/Politics published online a new article by Pease and Brewer about this same set of questions. They find that in an experimental setting (a not exactly diverse population of undergrads), learning of Oprah's endorsement in the primary led potential voters to support Obama not necessarily because they had a "I like who Oprah likes" response, BUT because the endorsement made them see Obama as a more viable candidate. In other words, the candidate with her backing was simply a better bet in the general. Voters may use the Oprah endorsement as a cue because they're strategic, not because they're mindless followers.
In any case, that she is making an endorsement this time rather than remaining neutral as she has in the past raises all kinds of questions about what's good for democracy.
* emphasis added
Jamison's paper, co-authored with Matthew Baum: The Oprah Effect: How Soft News Helps Inattentive Citizens Vote Consistently Journal of Politics, Nov 2006
Indeed, what is good for democracy?