Through a series of experiments embedded in a national survey, J. Tobin Grant and Thomas J. Rudolph systematically examine attitudes toward campaign finance reform in a very interesting and compelling manner. In a thorough analysis, they examine the commitment citizens have to the competing democratic values of political equality and political expression, finding that opinion varies depending upon perceptions of whose rights are being threatened. The central thesis of the research, which is well established with a comprehensive literature review and theoretical analysis, is that public opinion on campaign finance reform is group-centric, a function of the views individuals have toward groups that are thought to be affected by the proposed reform. If individuals feel positively about a group that is seen as being threatened by the reform, they will be negatively inclined toward the reform. Conversely, if individuals view the group with suspicion or negativity, they will favor the reforms. The research represents a systematic analysis of public opinion on campaign finance reform on a nation level, examining the factors that impact opinions and the dynamic manner in which opinions are formed and maintained.

The authors designed and implemented a national survey to examine what the public thinks about campaign finance, how much the public knows about current campaign finance regulations (and how this information shapes attitudes toward reform proposals), the relative saliency of campaign finance reform, and how opinions on groups and issues impact opinion on campaign finance reform. The examination of the dynamic involved with the competition of two strongly supported democratic ideals (political equality and expression) provides a very interesting framework for the analysis. The book is logically organized in a manner that allows the reader to follow the development of the authors' theories and clearly evaluate their research methods and findings. In Chapter 2, they provide a clear and detailed discussion regarding the competing manner in which campaign finance reforms are framed. The thorough summary of the framing of campaign finance reform as either political speech or political equality would be especially helpful for readers who are not familiar with the complexity of these issues. The authors clearly and succinctly detail the root of each frame and discuss the implications of each, providing nice groundwork for the research presented in subsequent chapters. As with many complex and controversial issues, the manner in which the issue of campaign finance reform is framed is central to the opinion of the public. As they note, the two manners in which the issue has been framed often lead to opposing political preferences, with the “political equality” frame lending support to reform and the “political speech” frame leading to opposition to reform.

To test their theory of group-centrism forming attitudes toward campaign finance, Grant and Rudolph perform a three-step experiment (embedded in a national survey). On the first step, they relied upon work that has been done in measuring political tolerance to create content-controlled measures for the attitudes. By dividing their respondents into three groups, the authors are able to create self-anchored measures of group affect to test the theory that public opinion toward group rights, group influence, and consequently campaign finance reform is group-centered. After establishing “self-anchors” (in which the researchers determine the most favored and least favored interest groups of the respondents), they then examine if individuals' beliefs about group rights and influence are linked to feelings about the groups in question. Bivariate and multivariate analyses demonstrate that there is an empirical link between the manner in which the public envisions campaign finance and their opinions. The public, along with elites, makes distinctions between issues of group rights (political expression) and group influence (political equality and equal representation). One important element of this research is that respondents are provided contextual information that forces them to state their opinions on concrete political circumstances, rather than simply allowing respondents to agree with abstract democratic principles. As such, the research design provides a good opportunity to assess the respondents' true views of campaign finance reform. The authors find that the public is more supportive, in general, of group rights (even for groups that they do not like), while attitudes toward group influence are more group-centered.

With regard to campaign finance reform, Grant and Rudolph found that citizen attitudes are group-centered, with individuals' opinions of the groups impacted by the reforms significantly influencing their views of proposed reforms. However, they also found that political tolerance and political sophistication can both temper group-centrism, thus promoting more principled calculations that are less influenced by situational considerations. The authors find that citizens act in a rational manner in using group-centered decision calculations—they support reforms that are likely to help groups they view positively and oppose reforms that are thought to harm their preferred group. Moreover, they alter their calculations and standards when evaluating reform proposals that will impact groups they view negatively. While this is not an ideal manner in which to negotiate the conflict between the competing democratic values of expression and equality, it certainly is rational and reasonable. Both proponents and opponents of reform should read the concluding chapter as important practical implications of the authors' findings are discussed.

On the whole, Expression vs. Equality is an interesting and thorough analysis of a complex phenomenon that advances our understanding of the dynamic nature of this area of public opinion. The research is succinctly presented, written in an accessible and straightforward manner. The work is appropriate for practitioners and students alike as it provides solid analysis of the literature in the area, issues underlying the debate and a systematic analysis of the factors impacting opinions on campaign finance. Perhaps the most compelling aspect of the research is the manner in which the authors framed the analysis—the dynamic involved when the public is presented with compelling democratic values that compete with one another. This theme ties the book together, adding depth to a fascinating concept.