January 2010
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Authors' Committee


Matt Blackwell (Gov)


Martin Andersen (HealthPol)
Kevin Bartz (Stats)
Deirdre Bloome (Social Policy)
John Graves (HealthPol)
Rich Nielsen (Gov)
Maya Sen (Gov)
Gary King (Gov)

Weekly Research Workshop Sponsors

Alberto Abadie, Lee Fleming, Adam Glynn, Guido Imbens, Gary King, Arthur Spirling, Jamie Robins, Don Rubin, Chris Winship

Weekly Workshop Schedule

Recent Comments

Recent Entries



SMR Blog
Brad DeLong
Cognitive Daily
Complexity & Social Networks
Developing Intelligence
The Education Wonks
Empirical Legal Studies
Free Exchange
Health Care Economist
Junk Charts
Language Log
Law & Econ Prof Blog
Machine Learning (Theory)
Marginal Revolution
Mixing Memory
Mystery Pollster
New Economist
Political Arithmetik
Political Science Methods
Pure Pedantry
Science & Law Blog
Simon Jackman
Social Science++
Statistical modeling, causal inference, and social science



Powered by
Movable Type 4.24-en

« Bike helmet laws | Main | Voter Outrage over Health Care »

21 January 2010

visualizing the campaign finance case

My colleague, Brandon Stewart, oriented me to this neat webpage, manyeyes.alphaworks.ibm.com, an IBM-developed web site that allows you to upload data quickly and visualize it using a variety of techniques.

Many Eyes lets you use textual data, so I just tried it out using the majority and dissenting opinions from Citizens United v. FEC, today's Supreme Court's decision striking down existing campaign finance law. (Note: Let's just say it's not a bad idea to use publicly available, non-copyrighted data.)

The resulting visualizations are just terrific, and they actually go far in illustrating the substantive differences between the conservative and liberal Justices on the campaign finance issue.

The first figure represents the majority opinion (written by Justice Kennedy, a moderate-conservative), with the larger words representing phrases used most frequently in the course of the opinion. Obviously, what we see is a strong consideration of "speech" interests -- no doubt discussed in the context of First Amendment issues.


By contrast, take a look at the dissenting/concurring opinion (written by Justice Stevens, a liberal). The most frequently used words here are "corporate," "corporation," "corruption," etc. The actual phrase "speech" is much less frequent, suggesting that the liberal Justices were more concerned with corporations influencing elections than free speech issues.


It's amazing how much information we can glean from these visualizations, even without having perused either opinion. If anybody has thoughts on this, I'd be keen to hear them.

Posted by Maya Sen at January 21, 2010 1:16 PM