Bonica

Adam Bonica

Associate Professor of Political Science, Stanford University
Chapter Member: Bay Area SSN, California SSN
Areas of Expertise:
  • Law & Courts
  • Public Sector Reforms
  • Revitalizing U.S. Democracy

About Adam

Bonica’s research focuses on ideology, campaign finance and interest groups politics. His main dissertation project developed a new methodology for measuring the ideology of political actors using campaign finance records. He is currently examining the extent to which recent developments in campaign finance have contributed to partisan polarization. Before joining the Stanford faculty, he was a fellow at the Center for the Study of Democratic Politics at Princeton University.

Contributions

No Jargon Podcast

In the News

"Want Americans to Vote? Give Them the Day Off," Adam Bonica, Washington Post, October 10, 2018.
"What’s Good for Democracy Is Also Good for Democrats," Adam Bonica, The New York Times, July 26, 2018.
Adam Bonica quoted on donors and liberal candidates in Kevin Schaul and Kevin Uhrmacher, "First-Time, Liberal Candidates are Flooding the Democratic Primaries" The Washington Post, April 11, 2018.
Howard Rosenthal's research on Jake Miller, "Party Lines," Harvard Medical School, April 11, 2018.
Adam Bonica quoted in Jamie Carson and Ryan Williamson, "Why Taking Moderate Positions May Help the Democrats to Retake the House This Fall" London School of Economics American Politics and Policy, February 2, 2018.
"The Political Donations Made by Robert Mueller's Team are Not Evidence of Bias," Adam Bonica (with Adam Chilton and Maya Sen), July 28, 2017.
Adam Bonica's research on political donations discussed in Margot Sanger-Katz, "Your Surgeon Is Probably a Republican, Your Psychiatrist Probably a Democrat," New York Times, October 6, 2016.
"The Rich are Dominating Campaigns. Here’s Why That’s about to Get Worse," Adam Bonica (with Jenny Shen), Washington Post, April 23, 2016.
"New Data Show How liberal Merrick Garland Really Is," Adam Bonica (with Adam Chilton, Jacob Goldin, Kyle Rozema, and Maya Sen), Washington Post, March 30, 2016.
Adam Bonica quoted on political giving of the Forbes 400 in Gregory Ferenstein, "A Lot of Billionaires Are Giving To Democrats. Here's A Data-Driven Look At Their Agenda" Forbes, February 26, 2016.
Adam Bonica quoted on political contributions of wealthy Democrats in Thomas B. Edsall, "How Did the Democrats Become Favorites of the Rich?" New York Times, October 7, 2015.
Adam Bonica quoted on selection of conservative courts in Adam Liptak, "Why Judges Tilt to the Right" New York Times, January 31, 2015.
"How Wealthy Campaign Donors May Reduce Political Polarization and Weaken the Tea Party," Adam Bonica (with Jenny Shen), Washington Post, April 24, 2014.
"A History (and Future) of Congressional Polarization," Howard Rosenthal (with Adam Bonica), Reuters, February 4, 2013.
"Forum on Campaign Finance Reform: Responding to Governor Charles ‘Buddy’ Roemer," Adam Bonica, Boston Review, Boston Review, July 22, 2011.

Publications

"The Politics of Selecting the Bench from the Bar: The Legal Profession and Partisan Incentives to Introduce Ideology Into Judicial Selection," (with Maya Sen), The Journal of Law and Economics, 2017.

Presents evidence showing how ideology affects the selection of judges across federal and state judiciaries. Documents that the higher the court, the more it deviates ideologically from the ideology of attorneys, suggesting ideology plays a strong role in judicial selection. Shows ideology plays stronger roles in jurisdictions where judges are selected via political appointments or partisan elections. Suggests that ideology is an important component of judicial selection primarily where using ideology leads to expected benefits to politicians, when the jurisdiction's selection process allows ideology to be used, and where it concerns the most important courts.

"Institutions and Ideology in the Presidential Appointment of Public Bureaucrats" (with Jowei Chen and Timothy Johnson). Quarterly Journal of Political Science 10, no. 1 (2015): 5-40.

Discusses Senate gate-keeping, presidential staffing of "Inferior Offices," and the ideological composition of appointments to the public bureaucracy. Argues that the investigative procedures of Senate committees allow chairs to block ideologically disparate nominations, compelling presidents to nominate moderates to Senate-confirmed posts while placing extremists in Schedule C positions.

"The Politcal Ideologies of American Lawyers" (with Adam Chilton and Maya Sen). Journal of Legal Analysis (2015).

Presents a comprehensive mapping and analysis of American lawyers’ ideologies. Explores the questions of ideological leanings of the profession as a whole, as well as categorized by geographical area, educational background, across and within firms and practice area.

"A Common-Space Measure of State Supreme Court Ideology" (with Michael Woodruff). Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 31, no. 3 (2015): 472-498.

Introduces a new method to measure the ideology of state Supreme Court justices using campaign finance records, and finds that the ideological preferences of justices play an important role in explaining state Supreme Court decision-making.

"The Punctuated Origins of Senate Polarization" Legislative Studies Quarterly 39, no. 1 (2014): 5-26.

Argues that the Senate polarized in two distinct phases. Examines how member replacement accounts for nearly all of the increase from the early 1970s through the mid-1990s after which ideological adaptation emerges as the dominant force behind polarization. Argues that a few brief periods of intensified partisanship account for most of the increase in polarization since the mid-1990s, suggesting that these episodes have had significant and lasting effects.

"The Political Polarization of Physicians in the United States: An Analysis of Campaign Contributions to Federal Elections, 1991-2012" (with Adam Bonica and David Rothman). JAMA Internal Medicine 174, no. 8 (2014): 1308-1317.

Argues that between 1991 and 2012, the political alignment of U.S. physicians shifted from predominantly Republican toward the Democrats. Discusses how variables driving this change, including the increasing percentage of female physicians and the decreasing percentage of physicians in solo and small practices, are likely to drive further changes.

"Mapping the Ideological Marketplace" American Journal of Political Science 58, no. 2 (2014): 367-387.

Measures the ideology of candidates and contributors using campaign finance data. Recovers a unified set of ideological measures for members of Congress, the president and executive branch, state legislators, governors, and other state officials, as well as the interest groups and individuals who make political donations. 

"Ideology and Interests in the Political Marketplace" American Journal of Political Science 57, no. 2 (2013): 294-311.

Introduces a statistical method measuring ideology and political action committee contribution data. 

"Breaching the Biennial Limit: Why the FEC Has Failed to Enforce Aggregate Hard-Money Limits and How Record Linkage Technology Can Help" (with Jenny Shen). Willamette Law Review 49 (2013): 563.

Argues that the FEC’s failure to enforce limits are due in part to inadequate disclosure practices, and in part to its flawed regulatory model and broken enforcement program. Proposes two solutions to this problem: an automated system for monitoring contribution records, and mandatory donor registration with the FEC. 

"Why Hasn’t Democracy Slowed Rising Inequality" (with Adam Bonica, Nolan McCarty, and Keith T. Poole). Journal of Economic Perspectives 27, no. 3 (2012): 103-124.

Explores five possible reasons why the U.S. political system has failed to counterbalance rising inequality.