HOME / BLOG /

Yes, Contributions Really Matter. But How? And Whatare their Broader Impacts?

by Clayton D. PeoplesDespite the fact that the public continues to believe that campaign contributions have anoutsize influence on policymaking, a growing number of scholars have begun to argue thatcontributions don’t have much impact on policy, if any.1 Jumping on the bandwagon, somecommentators have also chimed in, contending that contributions don’t really matter.2 But isthis true? Does research really suggest that contributions don’t have much impact? (And, byextension, does it imply that contributions don’t matter?) Put simply: No.For those who argue that contributions don’t matter, the basic argument they present is asfollows: The research literature on contribution influence is mixed; some studies showinfluence, but some do not. As such, the evidence is “thin,” at best.3 This means that (logicalleap) contributions don’t really matter, and those who argue otherwise risk being derided as“dishonest scholars” (as lamented by Lawrence Lessig).4

Yet as I discovered in a critical review I recently wrote for Sociology Compass,5 the researchliterature in fact shows quite conclusively that contributions do influence policy. Probably thestrongest evidence is found in two recent meta­analyses—one by Roscoe and Jenkins, andone by Stratmann.6 (Meta­analysis involves conducting analysis on data or results fromalready­published studies in a field to determine if there is a consensus.) Both meta­analyseslooked at dozens of studies—nearly the entirety of the existing research literature—andreached the same conclusion: contributions significantly influence policy. To quote from thestudies, Roscoe and Jenkins say that “a reasonable conclusion” from their analysis “is thatone in three roll call votes exhibits the impact of campaign contributions.”7 Stratmann stateshis conclusion more strongly: “This meta­analysis reverses the finding reported in existingstudies that campaign contributions have no effect on legislative voting behavior. The meta­analysis performed here suggests that money does indeed influence votes.”8

So, there you have it. The literature that purportedly shows that contributions don’t matteractually shows that contributions significantly influence legislative voting (which, by the way, isthe last step in the policymaking process, and, thus, is likely a conservative measure of theactual impact of contributions).Where do we go from here?I think first and foremost we should finally put to rest the notion that contributions don’tmatter. It was a logical leap to begin with, and the literature simply doesn’t support it. As theabove­referenced meta­analyses make clear, when the literature is put to analytical scrutiny, itreveals that contributions do, indeed, influence policy (and, thus, matter).

February 10, 2014

Once we put to rest the notion that contributions don’t matter, I think we should begin movingon to other important questions, such as how contributions influence policy and what are theirbroader impacts.How do contributions influence policy? Some possible answers to this question have begun toemerge. First, contributions provide access to contributors,9 which, in turn, opens the door tolobbying, etc. The importance of lobbying as an extension of contributing probably can’t beoverstated, as research suggests that social ties,10 as well as the “mobilization of bias,”11 arecritical, both of which are likely linked (no pun intended) to contributions and lobbying. Onceaccess is obtained and lobbying begins, lawmakers may ultimately feel compelled to “returnthe favor” of a contribution because of a social­psychological pull we’re all subject to—reciprocity.12 This could occur at virtually any stage of the legislative process, from agendasetting and the drafting of legislation to committee votes and, ultimately, final roll call votes.What is the broader impact of contributions? Here, too, we have the beginnings of someanswers. For business PACs, contributions provide tax benefits.13 They also aid in thepassage of regulatory changes beneficial to these businesses.14 Additionally, businesslobbyists frequently ask for “help in obtaining government contracts . . . and governmentsubsidies for the lobbyist’s corporation.”15 In the grander scheme of things, contributions maywell be related to the rise in income inequality we’ve seen in the U.S. over the past fewdecades. If so, as Lessig puts it, “This isn’t the rich getting richer because they’re . . .working harder; . . . it’s because their lobbyists are working harder.”16

In conclusion, the literature shows very clearly that contributions influence policy; contributionsreally do matter. We should consider this settled. What we should do now is focus ourattention on other questions, such as how contributions influence policy as well as theirbroader impacts. Early answers suggest that contributions affect policy via social ties andlobbying, and result in tax benefits, regulatory favors, and possibly even government contractsand subsidies for contributors. This, in turn, may be hurting the majority of the populace, as itis likely increasing inequality. Future work should continue to examine these themes—with aneye toward reform.Note: This post is related to an article by Clayton D. Peoples, "Campaign Finance andPolicymaking: PACs, Campaign Contributions, and Interest Group Influence inCongress," Sociology Compass 7.11 (2013): 900­913. 1. E.g. Paul Burstein, “Is Congress Really for Sale?” Contexts: Understanding People in theirSocial Worlds 2.3 (2003): 19­25; Frank J. Sorauf, Inside Campaign Finance: Myths andRealities (Yale University Press, 1992).2. E.g. David Brooks, “Don’t Follow the Money,” New York Times, October 18, 2010,http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/opinion/19brooks.html?_r=0; George Will, “Why isThere So Little Money in U.S. Politics?” Jewish World Review, December 30, 2002,http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will123002.asp.3. Stephen Ansolabehere, John M. de Figueiredo, and James M. Snyder, Jr., “Why is ThereSo Little Money in U.S. Politics?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 17.1 (2003): 105­130,116.

4. Lawrence Lessig, Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It(Twelve, 2011), 125.5. Clayton D. Peoples, “Campaign Finance and Policymaking: PACs, Campaign Contributions,and Interest Group Influence in Congress,” Sociology Compass 7 (2013): 900­13.6. Douglas D. Roscoe and Shannon Jenkins, “A Meta­Analysis of Campaign Contributions’Impact on Roll Call Voting,” Social Science Quarterly 86.1 (2005): 52­68 and ThomasStratmann, “Some Talk: Money in Politics. A (Partial) Review of the Literature,” Public Choice124.1/2 (2005): 135­156.7. Roscoe and Jenkins, “A Meta­ Analysis of Campaign Contributions’ Impact on Roll CallVoting,” 64.8. Stratmann, “Some Talk: Money in Politics,” 146.9. Martin Schram, Speaking Freely: Former Members of Congress Talk about Money inPolitics (Center for Responsive Politics, 1995).10. Clayton D. Peoples, “Contributor Influence in Congress: Social Ties and PAC Effects onU.S. House Policymaking,” Sociological Quarterly 51.4 (2010): 649­77.11. Richard L. Hall and Frank W. Wayman, “Buying Time: Moneyed Interests and theMobilization of Bias in Congressional Committees,” American Political Science Review 84.3(1990): 797­820.12. Robert B. Cialdini, Influence: Science and Practice, 4th ed. (Allyn & Bacon, 2001).13. Dan Clawson, Alan Neustadtl, and Mark Weller, Dollars and Votes: How BusinessCampaign Contributions Subvert Democracy (Temple University Press, 1998).14. Matthew C. Fellowes, and Patrick J. Wolf, “Funding Mechanisms and Policy Instruments:How Business Campaign Contributions Influence Congressional Votes,” Political ResearchQuarterly 57.2 (2004): 315­24.15. R. Kenneth Godwin and Barry J. Seldon, “What Corporations Really Want fromGovernment: The Public Provision of Private Goods,” in Allan J. Cigler and Burdett A. Loomis,eds., Interest Group Politics, 6th ed. (Congressional Quarterly Press, 2002), 205­224, 205.16. Lessig, Republic, Lost, 157.See also: Government & Law, Clayton D. Peoples