Skip to main content Accessibility help

Campaign finance legislation and the supply-side of the revolving door

  • Simon Weschle (a1)


Existing research on the revolving door examines why employers hire former politicians. I complement this demand-side approach by demonstrating the importance of the supply-side. In particular, I argue that one important institutional factor that shapes politicians' willingness to leave office for a private sector job is campaign finance legislation. Less restrictive rules increase campaign spending for incumbents, which makes revolving door employment less attractive. Empirically, I use novel data from the US states and a difference-in-differences design to show that the exogenous removal of campaign finance legislation through Citizens United reduced the probability that incumbents left office to work as lobbyists. The supply-side approach provides insights into comparative differences in the prevalence of the revolving door.


Corresponding author

*Corresponding author. E-mail:


Hide All
Abdul-Razzak, N, Prato, C and Wolton, S (2018) After Citizens United: How outside spending shapes American democracy. Unpublished manuscript;
Angrist, JD and Pischke, J-S (2009) Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Avis, E, Ferraz, C, Finan, F and Varjão, C (2017) Money and politics: The effects of campaign spending limits on political competition and incumbency advantage. NBER Working Paper No. 23508.
Barber, MJ (2016) Ideological donors, contribution limits, and the polarization of state legislatures. Journal of Politics 78, 296310.
Baturo, A and Arlow, J (2018) Is there a “Revolving Door” to the private sector in Irish politics? Irish Political Studies 33, 381406.
Baumgartner, FR, Berry, JM, Hojnacki, M, Kimball, DC and Leech, BL (2009) Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bennedsen, M and Feldmann, SE (2006) Informational lobbying and political contributions. Journal of Public Economics 90, 631656.
Blanes i Vidal, J, Draca, M and Fons-Rosen, C (2012) Revolving door lobbyists. American Economic Review 102, 37313748.
Campos, NF and Giovannoni, F (2007) Lobbying, corruption and political influence. Public Choice, 131, 121.
Dawood, Y (2015) Campaign finance and American democracy. Annual Review of Political Science 18, 329348.
de Figueiredo, JM and Richter, BK (2014) Advancing the empirical research on lobbying. Annual Review of Political Science 17, 163185.
Eggers, AC and Hainmueller, J (2009) MPs for sale? Returns to office in postwar British politics. American Political Science Review 103, 121.
Esterling, KM (2004) The Political Economy of Expertise: Information and Efficiency in American National Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Faccio, M (2006) Politically connected firms. American Economic Review 96, 369386.
Fouirnaies, A (2018) How do campaign spending limits affect electoral competition? Evidence from Great Britain 1885–2010. Unpublished manuscript;
Fouirnaies, A and Hall, AB (2014) The financial incumbency advantage: causes and consequences. Journal of Politics 76, 711724.
Fouirnaies, A and Hall, AB (2018) How do interest groups seek access to committees? American Journal of Political Science 62, 132147.
González-Bailon, S, Jennings, W and Lodge, M (2013) Politics in the boardroom: corporate pay, networks and recruitment of former parliamentarians, ministers and civil servants in Britain. Political Studies 61, 850873.
Groseclose, T and Krehbiel, K (1994) Golden parachutes, rubber checks, and strategic retirements from the 102nd house. American Journal of Political Science 38, 7599.
Hall, AB (2016) Systemic effects of campaign spending: evidence from corporate contribution bans in US state legislatures. Political Science Research and Methods 4, 343359.
Hamm, KE, Malbin, MJ, Kettler, J and Glavin, JB (2014) Independent spending in state elections, 2006–2010: vertically networked political parties were the real story, not business. The Forum 12, 305328.
Hansen, WL, Rocca, MS and Ortiz, BL (2015) The effects of Citizens United on corporate spending in the 2012 presidential election. Journal of Politics 77, 535545.
Harstad, B and Svensson, J (2011) Bribes, lobbying, and development. American Political Science Review 105, 4663.
Hillman, AJ (2005) Politicians on the board of directors: do connections affect the bottom line? Journal of Management 31, 464481.
Hogan, RE (2000) The costs of representation in state legislatures: explaining variations in campaign spending. Social Science Quarterly 81, 941956.
Issacharoff, S and Karlan, PS (1998) The hydraulics of campaign finance reform. Texas Law Review 77, 17051738.
Jacobson, GC (2015) How do campaigns matter? Annual Review of Political Science 18, 3147.
Jacobson, GC and Carson, JL (2016) The Politics of Congressional Elections (9th ed.). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Klarner, CE (2013) State Legislative Election Returns Data, 2011–2012. Harvard Dataverse.
Klarner, CE, Berry, WD, Carsey, TM, Jewell, M, Niemi, RG, Powell, LW and Snyder, JM Jr (2013) State Legislative Election Returns (1967–2010). Ann Arbor: ICPSR.
Klumpp, T, Mialon, HM and Williams, MA (2016) The business of American democracy: Citizens United, independent spending, and elections. Journal of Law and Economics 59, 143.
Krasno, JS, Green, DP and Cowden, JA (1994) The dynamics of campaign fundraising in house elections. Journal of Politics 56, 459474.
LaPira, TM and Thomas III, HF (2014) Revolving door lobbyists and interest representation. Interest Groups & Advocacy 3, 429.
La Raja, RJ and Schaffner, BF (2014) The effects of campaign finance spending bans on electoral outcomes: evidence from the states about the potential impact of Citizens United v. FEC. Electoral Studies 33, 102114.
La Raja, RJ and Schaffner, BF (2015) Campaign Finance and Political Polarization: When Purists Prevail. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Lazarus, J, McKay, A and Herbel, L (2016) Who walks through the revolving door? Examining the lobbying activity of former members of Congress. Interest Groups & Advocacy 5, 82100.
Lester, RH, Hillman, AJ, Zardkoohi, A and Cannella, AA Jr (2008) Former government officials as outside directors: the role of human and social capital. Academy of Management Journal 51, 9991013.
Luechinger, S and Moser, C (2014) The value of the revolving door: political appointees and the stock market. Journal of Public Economics 119, 93107.
Magee, CSP (2012) The incumbent spending puzzle. Social Science Quarterly 93, 932949.
Mayhew, DR (1974) Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Milligan, K and Rekkas, M (2008) Campaign spending limits, incumbent spending, and election outcomes. Canadian Journal of Economics 41, 13511374.
Naoi, M and Krauss, E (2009) Who lobbies whom? Special interest politics under alternative electoral systems. American Journal of Political Science 53, 874892.
Nyblade, B and Reed, SR (2008) Who cheats? Who loots? Political competition and corruption in Japan, 1947–1993. American Journal of Political Science 52, 926941.
Palmer, M and Schneer, B (2016) Capitol gains: the returns to elected office from corporate board directorships. Journal of Politics 78, 181196.
Parker, GR (2008) Capital Investments. The Marketability of Political Skills. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Petrova, M, Simonov, A and Snyder, JM Jr (2019) The effect of Citizen United on U.S. state and federal elections. Unpublished manuscript;
Potter, JD and Tavits, M (2015) The impact of campaign finance laws on party competition. British Journal of Political Science 45, 7395.
Rohde, DW (1979) Risk-bearing and progressive ambition: the case of members of the United States House of Representatives. American Journal of Political Science 23, 126.
Samuels, D (2003) Ambition, Federalism, and Legislative Politics in Brazil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spencer, DM and Wood, AK (2014) Citizens United, states divided: an empirical analysis of independent political spending. Indiana Law Journal 89, 315372.
Stratmann, T (2006) Contribution limits and the effectiveness of campaign spending. Public Choice 129, 461474.
Werner, T (2011) The sound, the fury, and the nonevent: business power and market reactions to the Citizens United decision. American Politics Research 39, 118141.
You, HY (2017) Ex post lobbying. Journal of Politics 79, 11621176.


Type Description Title
Supplementary materials

Weschle Dataset

Supplementary materials

Weschle supplementary material
Weschle supplementary material

 PDF (1.0 MB)
1.0 MB

Campaign finance legislation and the supply-side of the revolving door

  • Simon Weschle (a1)


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed