Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T03:19:13.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2019

Simon Weschle Open the ORCID record for Simon Weschle [Opens in a new window]
Simon Weschle*
Affiliation:
Syracuse University, Syracuse, USA
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: swweschl@maxwell.syr.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Keywords

American politicscomparative politics: political institutionslegislative politics
Type
Original Article
Information
Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , April 2021 , pp. 365 - 379
Copyright
Copyright © The European Political Science Association 2019

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.)

References

Abdul-Razzak, N, Prato, C and Wolton, S (2018) After Citizens United: How outside spending shapes American democracy. Unpublished manuscript; https://ssrn.com/abstract=2823778.Google Scholar
Angrist, JD and Pischke, J-S (2009) Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, MJ (2016) Ideological donors, contribution limits, and the polarization of state legislatures. Journal of Politics 78, 296–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baturo, A and Arlow, J (2018) Is there a “Revolving Door” to the private sector in Irish politics? Irish Political Studies 33, 381–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennedsen, M and Feldmann, SE (2006) Informational lobbying and political contributions. Journal of Public Economics 90, 631–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanes i Vidal, J, Draca, M and Fons-Rosen, C (2012) Revolving door lobbyists. American Economic Review 102, 3731–3748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campos, NF and Giovannoni, F (2007) Lobbying, corruption and political influence. Public Choice, 131, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawood, Y (2015) Campaign finance and American democracy. Annual Review of Political Science 18, 329–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Figueiredo, JM and Richter, BK (2014) Advancing the empirical research on lobbying. Annual Review of Political Science 17, 163–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggers, AC and Hainmueller, J (2009) MPs for sale? Returns to office in postwar British politics. American Political Science Review 103, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esterling, KM (2004) The Political Economy of Expertise: Information and Efficiency in American National Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faccio, M (2006) Politically connected firms. American Economic Review 96, 369–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fouirnaies, A (2018) How do campaign spending limits affect electoral competition? Evidence from Great Britain 1885–2010. Unpublished manuscript; https://www.dropbox.com/s/t96hcfls5a1g3ss/SpendingLimits.pdf?dl=0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fouirnaies, A and Hall, AB (2014) The financial incumbency advantage: causes and consequences. Journal of Politics 76, 711–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fouirnaies, A and Hall, AB (2018) How do interest groups seek access to committees? American Journal of Political Science 62, 132–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 850–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groseclose, T and Krehbiel, K (1994) Golden parachutes, rubber checks, and strategic retirements from the 102nd house. American Journal of Political Science 38, 75–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, AB (2016) Systemic effects of campaign spending: evidence from corporate contribution bans in US state legislatures. Political Science Research and Methods 4, 343–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 305–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 535–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harstad, B and Svensson, J (2011) Bribes, lobbying, and development. American Political Science Review 105, 46–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillman, AJ (2005) Politicians on the board of directors: do connections affect the bottom line? Journal of Management 31, 464–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, RE (2000) The costs of representation in state legislatures: explaining variations in campaign spending. Social Science Quarterly 81, 941–956.Google Scholar
Issacharoff, S and Karlan, PS (1998) The hydraulics of campaign finance reform. Texas Law Review 77, 1705–1738.Google Scholar
Jacobson, GC (2015) How do campaigns matter? Annual Review of Political Science 18, 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, GC and Carson, JL (2016) The Politics of Congressional Elections (9th ed.). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Klarner, CE (2013) State Legislative Election Returns Data, 2011–2012. Harvard Dataverse.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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, 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krasno, JS, Green, DP and Cowden, JA (1994) The dynamics of campaign fundraising in house elections. Journal of Politics 56, 459–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaPira, TM and Thomas III, HF (2014) Revolving door lobbyists and interest representation. Interest Groups & Advocacy 3, 4–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 102–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Raja, RJ and Schaffner, BF (2015) Campaign Finance and Political Polarization: When Purists Prevail. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
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, 82–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 999–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luechinger, S and Moser, C (2014) The value of the revolving door: political appointees and the stock market. Journal of Public Economics 119, 93–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magee, CSP (2012) The incumbent spending puzzle. Social Science Quarterly 93, 932–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, DR (1974) Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Milligan, K and Rekkas, M (2008) Campaign spending limits, incumbent spending, and election outcomes. Canadian Journal of Economics 41, 1351–1374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naoi, M and Krauss, E (2009) Who lobbies whom? Special interest politics under alternative electoral systems. American Journal of Political Science 53, 874–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyblade, B and Reed, SR (2008) Who cheats? Who loots? Political competition and corruption in Japan, 1947–1993. American Journal of Political Science 52, 926–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, M and Schneer, B (2016) Capitol gains: the returns to elected office from corporate board directorships. Journal of Politics 78, 181–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, GR (2008) Capital Investments. The Marketability of Political Skills. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrova, M, Simonov, A and Snyder, JM Jr (2019) The effect of Citizen United on U.S. state and federal elections. Unpublished manuscript; https://0ec87679-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/mariapetrovaphd/Citizens%20United%20draft.pdf.Google Scholar
Potter, JD and Tavits, M (2015) The impact of campaign finance laws on party competition. British Journal of Political Science 45, 73–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuels, D (2003) Ambition, Federalism, and Legislative Politics in Brazil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, DM and Wood, AK (2014) Citizens United, states divided: an empirical analysis of independent political spending. Indiana Law Journal 89, 315–372.Google Scholar
Stratmann, T (2006) Contribution limits and the effectiveness of campaign spending. Public Choice 129, 461–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werner, T (2011) The sound, the fury, and the nonevent: business power and market reactions to the Citizens United decision. American Politics Research 39, 118–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
You, HY (2017) Ex post lobbying. Journal of Politics 79, 1162–1176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Weschle Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/RX1BGN
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Weschle supplementary material

Weschle supplementary material

Download Weschle supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 1 MB