Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-8hm5d Total loading time: 0.568 Render date: 2022-05-29T12:05:49.912Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

How Internal Constraints Shape Interest Group Activities: Evidence from Access-Seeking PACs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 August 2018

ZHAO LI*
Affiliation:
Stanford Graduate School of Business
*
Zhao Li is a Ph.D. candidate in political economics, Stanford Graduate School of Business (zli19@stanford.edu).

Abstract

Interest groups contribute much less to campaigns than legally allowed. Consequently, prevailing theories infer these contributions must yield minimal returns. I argue constraints on PAC fundraising may also explain why interest groups give little. I illuminate one such constraint: access-seeking PACs rely on voluntary donations from affiliated individuals (e.g., employees), and these PACs alienate donors with partisan preferences when giving to the opposite party. First, difference-in-differences analysis of real giving shows donors withhold donations to access-seeking PACs when PACs contribute to out-partisan politicians. Next, an original survey of corporate PAC donors demonstrates they know how their PACs allocate contributions across parties, and replicates the observational study in an experiment. Donors’ partisanship thus limits access-seeking PACs’ fundraising and influence. This provides a new perspective on why there is little interest group money in elections, and has broad implications for how partisan preferences and other internal constraints shape interest group strategy.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This paper has benefited from excellent feedback from the editor and three anonymous reviewers. In addition, I am grateful for continued guidance from Adam Bonica, David Broockman, Neil Malhotra, and Ken Shotts. I am also thankful for many helpful comments from Michael Barber, Dave Baron, Jon Bendor, Kate Casey, Richard DiSalvo, Alex Hertel-Fernandez, Keith Krehbiel, Jon Krosnick, Ellie Powell, Dave Primo, Larry Rothenberg, and poster session attendees at the Yale Center for American Politics Summer Conference as well as the Conference of the Society for Political Methodologists. The survey experiment in this paper was preregistered with Evidence in Governance and Politics (EGAP) (Registration No. 20170413AC) and approved by Stanford University’s Institutional Review Board (Protocol No. 39512). Special thanks to the PhD program at Stanford Graduate School of Business for providing funding for my experiment; Adam Bonica for sharing version 3 of the Database on Ideology, Money in Politics, and Elections; and George Thampy for suggestions that enhanced the ecological validity of the experimental treatment conditions. All errors are my own. Replication files are available at the American Political Science Review Dataverse: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/T1TELH.

References

Aggarwal, Rajesh K., Meschke, Felix, and Wang, Tracy Yue. 2012. “Corporate Political Donations: Investment or Agency?Business and Politics 14 (1): Article 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akey, Pat. 2015. “Valuing Changes in Political Networks: Evidence from Campaign Contributions to Close Congressional Elections.” Review of Financial Studies 28 (11): 3188–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, de Figueiredo, John M., and Snyder, James M.. 2003. “Why is There So Little Money in U.S. Politics?Journal of Economic Perspectives 17 (1): 105–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Snyder, James M. Jr., and Ueda, Michiko. 2004. “Did Firms Profit from Soft Money?Election Law Journal 3 (2): 193–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ban, Pamela, Moskowitz, Daniel J., and Snyder, James M.. 2016. “Leadership Power in Congress, 1890–2014: Evidence from PAC Contributions and Newspaper Coverage.” https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2765092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, Michael J., Canes-Wrone, Brandice, and Thrower, Sharece. 2017. “Ideologically Sophisticated Donors: Which Candidates Do Individual Contributors Finance?American Journal of Political Science 61 (2): 271–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berman, Jilian. 2014. “Walmart’s Plan to Encourage Political Donations Violate Election Law, Groups Claim.” Huffington Post, September 22, 2014. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/22/walmart-pac-complaint_n_5851304.html.Google Scholar
Bonica, Adam. 2013. “Ideology and Interests in the Political Marketplace.” American Journal of Political Science 57 (2): 294311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonica, Adam. 2014. “Mapping the Ideological Marketplace.” American Journal of Political Science 58 (2): 367–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonica, Adam. 2016a. “Avenues of Influence: On the Political Expenditures of Corporations and their Directors and Executives.” Business and Politics 18 (4): 367–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonica, Adam. 2016b. Database on Ideology, Money in Politics, and Elections: Public version 2.0 [Computer file]. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Libraries. https://data.stanford.edu/dime.Google Scholar
Catan, Thomas, and Mullins, Brody. 2014. “Google Broadens Its Outreach to GOP.” Wall Street Journal, January 23, 2014. https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-broadens-its-outreach-to-gop-1390524988.Google Scholar
Center for Responsive Politics. 2018. Retrieved from Center for Responsive Politics’ OpenData Initiative. https://www.opensecrets.org/bulk-data.Google Scholar
Clark, Peter B., and Wilson, James Q.. 1961. “Incentive Systems: A Theory of Organizations.” Administrative Science Quarterly 6 (2): 129–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coates, John C. 2012. “Corporate Politics, Governance, and Value Before and After Citizens United.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 9 (4): 657–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Compustat North America [Fundamentals Annual]. 2017. Retrieved from Wharton Research Data Services. Retrieved January 31, 2017. https://wrds-web.wharton.upenn.edu/wrds/.Google Scholar
Correia, Sergio. 2017. “REGHDFE: Stata Module to Perform Linear or Instrumental-variable Regression Absorbing Any Number of High-Dimensional Fixed Effects” Statistical Software Components S457874, Boston College Department of Economics. https://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s457874.html.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and Magar, Eric. 1999. “How Much is Majority Status in the U. S. Congress Worth?American Political Science Review 93 (2): 299309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cyert, Richard Michael, and March, James G.. 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1959. “Business and Politics: A Critical Appraisal of Political Science.” American Political Science Review 53 (1): 134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Figueiredo, Rui J. P., and Edwards, Geoff. 2007. “Does Private Money Buy Public Policy? Campaign Contributions and Regulatory Outcomes in Telecommunications.” Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 16 (3): 547–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denzau, Arthur T., and Munger, Michael C.. 1986. “Legislators and Interest Groups: How Unorganized Interests Get Represented.” American Political Science Review 80 (1): 89106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drutman, Lee. 2015. The Business of America is Lobbying: How Corporations Become Politicized and Politics Become More Corporate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggen, Dan. 2010. “Poll: Large Majority Opposes Supreme Court’s Decision on Campaign Financing.” Washington Post, February 17, 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/17/AR2010021701151.html.Google Scholar
Esterling, Kevin M. 2007. “Buying Expertise: Campaign Contributions and Attention to Policy Analysis in Congressional Committees.” American Political Science Review 101 (01): 93109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fouirnaies, Alexander, and Hall, Andrew B.. 2014. “The Financial Incumbency Advantage: Causes and Consequences.” Journal of Politics 76 (3): 711–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fouirnaies, Alexander, and Hall, Andrew B.. 2018. “How Do Interest Groups Seek Access to Committees?American Journal of Political Science 62 (1): 132–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, Anthony, Garro, Haritz, and Spenkuch, Jörg L.. 2017. “Quid Pro Quo? Corporate Returns to Campaign Contributions.” http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/spenkuch/research/qpq.pdf.Google Scholar
Gilens, Martin, and Page, Benjamin I.. 2014. “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens.” Perspectives on Politics 12 (3): 564–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gimpel, James G., Lee, Frances E., and Parrott, Michael. 2014. “Business Interests and the Party Coalitions: Industry Sector Contributions to U.S. Congressional Campaigns.” American Politics Research 42 (6): 1034–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Sanford C., and Hafer, Catherine. 2005. “Flexing Muscle: Corporate Political Expenditures as Signals to the Bureaucracy.” American Political Science Review 99 (02): 245– 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, Virginia, and Lowery, David. 1997. “Reconceptualizing PAC Formation: It’s Not A Collective Action Problem, and It May Be an Arms Race.” American Politics Quarterly 25 (3): 319– 46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grier, Kevin B., Munger, Michael C., and Roberts, Brian E.. 1994. “The Determinants of Industry Political Activity, 1978–1986.” American Political Science Review 88 (4): 911–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, Gene M., and Helpman, Elhanan. 1996. “Electoral Competition and Special Interest Politics.” Review of Economic Studies 63 (2): 265–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grumbach, Jake M., and Pierson, Paul. 2017. “Are Large Corporations Politically Moderate? Using Money in Politics to Infer the Preferences of Business.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago. https://www.dropbox.com/s/agdkrclq9cissp4/Grumbach%20and%20Pierson%20MPSA%202017%20-%20Are%20Corporations%20Moderate.pdf?dl=0.Google Scholar
Hacker, Jacob S., and Paul Pierson. 2002. “Business Power and Social Policy: Employers and the Formation of the American Welfare State.” Politics and Society 30 (2): 277–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Richard L., and Wayman, Frank W.. 1990. “Buying Time: Moneyed Interests and the Mobilization of Bias in Congressional Committees.” The American Political Science Review 84 (3): 797820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halper, Evan. 2014. “Google Pulls Out of Conservative Group Amid Environmentalist Pressure.” Los Angeles Times, September 23, 2014. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-google-gop-20140924-story.html.Google Scholar
Hansen, Wendy L., Mitchell, Neil J., and Drope, Jeffrey M.. 2005. “The Logic of Private and Collective Action.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (1): 150–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, David M. 2001. “Why Do Some Firms Give? Why Do Some Give a Lot? High-Tech PACs, 1977-1996.” Journal of Politics 63 (4): 1230–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, David M. 2004. “’Business’ Is Not an Interest Group: On the Study of Companies in American National Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science 7: 4769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heberlig, Eric, Hetherington, Marc, and Larson, Bruce. 2006. “The Price of Leadership: Campaign Money and the Polarization of Congressional Parties.” Journal of Politics 68 (4): 9921005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hertel-Fernandez, Alexander. 2016. “How Employers Recruit Their Workers into Politics—And Why Political Scientists Should Care.” Perspectives on Politics 14 (02): 410–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hertel-Fernandez, Alexander. 2017. “American Employers as Political Machines.” Journal of Politics 79 (1): 105–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, and Westwood, Sean J.. 2015. “Fear and Loathing across Partisan Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (3): 690707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jayachandran, Seema. 2006. “The Jeffords Effect.” Journal of Law and Economics 49 (2): 397425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalla, Joshua L. and Broockman, David E.. 2016. “Campaign Contributions Facilitate Access to Congressional Officials: A Randomized Field Experiment.” American Journal of Political Science 60 (3): 545–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroszner, Randall S., and Stratmann, Thomas. 1998. “Interest-Group Competition and the Organization of Congress: Theory and Evidence from Financial Services’ Political Action Committees.” American Economic Review 88 (5): 1163–87.Google Scholar
Langbein, Laura I. 1986. “Money and Access: Some Empirical Evidence.” Journal of Politics 48 (4): 1052–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Raja, Raymond J., and Schaffner, Brian F.. 2015. Campaign Finance and Political Polarization: When Purists Prevail. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Charles E. 1977. Politics and Markets: The World’s Political Economic Systems. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lowry, Robert C. 2013. “Mobilizing Money.” American Politics Research 41 (5): 839–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2016. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches (2nd ed). Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
McConnell, Christopher, Margalit, Yotam, Malhotra, Neil, and Levendusky, Matthew. 2018. “The Economic Consequences of Partisanship in a Polarized Era.” American Journal of Political Science 62 (1): 518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milyo, Jeffrey, Primo, David, and Groseclose, Timothy. 2000. “Corporate PAC Campaign Contributions in Perspective.” Business and Politics 2 (1): 7588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Min, Geeyoung, and You, Hye Young. 2015. “Political Origins of Shareholder Activism: Corporate Political Spending and Shareholder Proposals.” Virginia Law and Economics Research Paper No. 15; Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 28. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2601181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moe, Terry M. 1980. “A Calculus of Group Membership.” American Journal of Political Science 24 (4): 593632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mummolo, Jonathan, and Peterson, Erik. 2018. “Improving the Interpretation of Fixed Effects Regression Results.” Political Science Research and Methods. Published ahead of print, January 11, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2017.44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Panagopoulos, Costas, Green, Donald P., Krasno, Jonathan, Schwam-Baird, Michael, Moore, Eric, and Endres, Kyle. 2016. “Risky Business: Does Corporate Political Giving Affect Consumer Behavior?” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia. http://rubenson.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Panagopoulos-etal.pdf.Google Scholar
Pew Research Center. 2017. “The Partisan Divide on Political Values Grows Even Wider.” News Release. October 5, 2017. http://www.people-press.org/2017/10/05/the-partisan-divide-on-political-values-grows-even-wider/.Google Scholar
Powell, Lynda W. 2012. The Influence of Campaign Contributions in State Legislatures: The Effects of Institutions and Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, Eleanor Neff, and Grimmer, Justin. 2016. “Money in Exile: Campaign Contributions and Committee Access.” The Journal of Politics 78 (4): 974–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romer, Thomas, and Snyder, James M.. 1994. “An Empirical Investigation of the Dynamics of PAC Contributions.” American Journal of Political Science 38 (3): 745–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudolph, Thomas J. 1999. “Corporate and Labor PAC Contributions in House Elections: Measuring the Effects of Majority Party Status.” Journal of Politics 61 (1): 195206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabato, Larry. 1985. PAC Power: Inside the World of Political Action Committees. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E. 1960. The Semi-Sovereign People. New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Sorauf, Frank J. 1984. “Who’s in Charge? Accountability in Political Action Committees.” Political Science Quarterly 99 (4): 591614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tullock, Gordon. 1972. “The Purchase of Politicians.” Western Economic Journal 10: 354–8.Google Scholar
Werner, Timothy, and Coleman, John J.. 2015. “Citizens United, Independent Expenditures, and Agency Costs: Reexamining the Political Economy of State Antitakeover Statutes.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 31 (1): 127–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, James Q. 1973. Political Organizations. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Li supplementary material

Li supplementary material 1

Download Li supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 1 MB
Link
12
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

How Internal Constraints Shape Interest Group Activities: Evidence from Access-Seeking PACs
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

How Internal Constraints Shape Interest Group Activities: Evidence from Access-Seeking PACs
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

How Internal Constraints Shape Interest Group Activities: Evidence from Access-Seeking PACs
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *