Commitment and the Campaign Contribution Contract
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6230160 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Nolan Mccarty (0000-0002-0538-1928), Lawrence S Rothenberg (0000-0003-2788-5585) |
| Year | 1996 |
| Volume | 40 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 872 |
| Publication date | 1996-08-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | American Journal of Political Science (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0092-5853 • E-ISSN: 1540-5907 |
| Publisher | JSTOR (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.2307/2111799 |
| OpenAlex | W2314497492 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 58 |
| References cited | 16 |
Theory: Commitment problems make establishing long-term relationships between members of Congress and organized interests extremely difficult. Hypothesis: Political action committees whose contribution behavior is unfavorable to an election winner are not forced to pay for their mistakes in the subsequent election to get back into the representative's good graces. In other words, strong punishment strategies are not employed to enforce what we label the campaign contribution contract. Methods: Because theory suggests that campaign contributions involve decisions about whether to make a donation and how much to give, a general econometric framework allowing these two decisions to be either independent or correlated is utilized. This model subsumes both Tobit and the combination of probit and ordinary least squares estimation. A large scale data set designed to uncover any evidence that elected representatives commit themselves ex ante to punish groups for opportunistic behavior is employed. Covering 1977-86, this data set consists of roughly 115,000 campaign contribution decisions made by large corporate, labor, and trade political action committees concerning long-time members of Congress. Ancillary information is incorporated for model specification purposes. Results: The willingness of legislators to punish is marginal, suggesting that evidence for credible commitment is weak. We need to reconsider whether legislators and group leaders can possibly forge long-term relationships. Additional thought must also be given to the motivations for campaign contributions and to what a reasonable enforcement mechanism for commitment might look like
Action (physics · Collective action · Commit · Economics · Enforcement · Ex-ante · Law and economics · Political science · Politics · Public economics · Punishment (psychology · Set (abstract data type · Tobit model · Law · Media Influence and Politics · Merger and Competition Analysis · Political Influence and Corporate Strategies · Psychology · Social Psychology
Policy Challenges and Political Responses
Spatial Models of Parliamentary Voting
Corporate PAC Campaign Contributions in Perspective
The economics of political campaign finance
Political Capital
For Reputation's Sake
Political Liberalization and State Capture by Business Interests
The power dynamics of campaign contributions and legislative rhetoric
Foreign Agents Registration Act
What do campaign contributions buy? Lobbyists’ strategic giving
How interest groups discern serious legislation from position-taking
Lordy Me!’ Can donations buy you a British peerage? A study in the link between party political funding and peerage nominations, 2005–2014
Mind the Gap? Political Advertisements and Congressional Election Results
Capture or Exchange? Business Lobbying in Russia
Immigrant detention be banned? Constituent, subconstituent, and elite influence over House Democrat's decision to cosponsor the Dignity for Detained Immigrants Act
Money and rhetoric
Institutional constraints on legislative lobbying
The political behavior of family firms
Some talk
Soft money and hard choices
Rewarding political supporters
How a firm can induce legislators to adopt a bad policy
Do Donors Punish Extremist Primary Nominees? Evidence from Congress and American State Legislatures
Disclosure and Corruption
The Incidence and Timing of PAC Contributions to Incumbent U.S. House Members, 1993-94
Corporate Influence and the Regulatory Mandate
Money in Exile
Pork Barreling Is Not Credit Claiming or Advertising
The Ecology of Party–Organized Interest Relationships
Choosing Battlegrounds
PAC Contributions and Lobbying Contacts in Congressional Committees
Legislation, Political Context, and Interest Group Behavior
Campaign Contributions and Access to Congressional Offices
Either with Us or Against Us
Friends Don’t Let Friends Vote for Free Trade
More than Mere Access
Analyzing Censored and Sample-Selected Data with Tobit and Heckit Models
An Empirical Spatial Model of Congressional Campaigns
A Selection Model for Panel Data
The Time to Give
Influence without Bribes
The “Israel Lobby” and American Politics
The Punctuated Origins of Senate Polarization
Informational Party Primaries and Strategic Ambiguity
Does Money Matter? Credible Commitments and Campaign Finance in New Democracies
Studying Organizational Advocacy and Influence
A Panel Probit Analysis of Campaign Contributions and Roll-Call Votes
Informational Lobbying and Legislative Voting
Mapping the Ideological Marketplace
Helping Friends or Influencing Foes
Campaign Contributions Facilitate Access to Congressional Officials
Ideology and Interests in the Political Marketplace
Who Lobbies Whom? Special Interest Politics under Alternative Electoral Systems
Interest Groups and Presidential Transitions
Crystal Elephants and Committee Chairs
Don’t Bite The Pac That Feeds You
Signaling with Reform
Lobbying as Legislative Subsidy
Gaining access
Fluctuating fortunes
Congress, keystone of the Washington establishment
Tobit models
Noncooperative Collusion under Imperfect Price Information
Long-Term Investing in Politicians; Or, Give Early, Give Often
Information, access, and contributions
Congress
Money Talks
The Rational Nonpurchase of Long-Term-Care Insurance
Campaign Contributions as Investments
Political Opportunity for Federal Appointment
Electoral Competition with Informed and Uninformed Voters
Candidate Attributes and PAC Contributions
| Unique citing works | 58 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 2 |
| Citation span | 1997 - 2025 (29) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 58 |