This study looks at campaign finance statutes and their effect on candidate decisions in a novel way. Using institutional theory as a backdrop, this study uses the language of the campaign finance statutes as measured with plain language utilities to gauge candidates' participation and withdrawals from state legislative races. The rules inherent in the campaign finance statutes may make it difficult for candidates to comply with the statutes and the language in which the statutes are written may make it more difficult for candidates to understand the statutes. This need to comply and difficulty of understanding requires candidates to spend more time, effort, and learning in order to ensure they are following the law. The effect of the language on the candidates' decisions is tested in all 50 states using data from the National Institute on Money in State Politics. The findings indicate difficulty for candidates across the states when confronted with contribution statutes. Some candidates also withdrew from races more often when faced with complex candidacy requirement statutes. Qualitative interviews indicated a possible difference in candidate perceptions. Candidates differentiated between the candidacy stage and the campaign operation stage potentially explaining differences in study results. There is enough evidence of some effects on candidate decisions that it is clear more research should be conducted, perhaps using more state level variables to help better understand the relationship between rules and statutes and candidates decisions.