Source: https://www.followthemoney.org/research/collaborations-and-outside-research?p=3
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 10:03:02+00:00

Document:
"OVERVIEW: ...This report has two main themes. The first is that Pennsylvania’s democracy is not healthy, as measured by the amount of money in politics, electoral competition (do voters have choices in primary and general elections?), political participation (e.g. voter turnout), and confidence in government. The second is that the citizens of Pennsylvania still have the power to revitalize their democracy. Many are already trying to do that. We applaud their efforts and urge others to join them by making sure they register to vote, show up on election days, and seek out other opportunities to participate and have a voice. Opportunities and movements that can reverse Pennsylvania’s drift towards oligarchy and revitalize democracy do not come along often. We urge Pennsylvanians to grab the chance that exists this year, and over the next several years, before the responsiveness of our state’s government to “the people” and the common good is lost permanently."
"...The corrections industry is big business and has invested effectively to promote its interests. Since 1989, the two biggest for-profit prison companies in the US – Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and the GEO Group – have spent more than $35 million on lobbying and campaign contributions. In 2016, the GEO Group donated $225,000 to a super PAC supporting then-candidate Donald Trump, in violation of the federal prohibition on federal contractors making political contributions. Rather than having to pay a fine or losing its right to do business with the government, GOP was rewarded by the Trump administration with a $110 million contract for construction of an immigrant detention center in Texas, where most of the occupants will be people of color from Mexico and Central America. Through the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), some of the nation’s largest companies – including the private prison industry – invest millions of dollars each year to pass state laws putting corporate interests ahead of the interests of ordinary Americans. ALEC was extremely successful in promoting the private prison industry and helped pioneer some of the toughest sentencing laws on the books today, including mandatory minimums for non-violent drug offenders, “three strikes” laws, and “truth in sentencing” laws designed to curb parole and keep people in prison longer. ALEC’s Truth in Sentencing laws have been signed into law in more than 25 states. In all, the corrections industry contributed $2.5 million during the 2013 and 2014 election cycles to 360 candidates for state office. In 2014 alone, the industry contributed at least $5,000 to each of 30 candidates for governor, lieutenant governor, comptroller, attorney general, or state legislature; 27 of them won. And due to loopholes in campaign finance disclosure laws across the country, we have no way of knowing exactly how much money the corrections industry has funneled into elections through so-called “social welfare” groups and other nonprofits."
ABSTRACT This paper examines the impact of market concentration in the insurance industry on the effective insurance premium sales tax. I use unexpected disasters normalized by the population of the state as a source of exogenous variation in the market concentration. Unexpected disasters lead to the exit of insurance firms from the state leading to higher market concentration. I find empirical evidence that a ten percent increase in market concentration leads to five percent reduction in the effective insurance premium tax rate. This implies a reduction of $84 million in tax revenues. I also show a correlation between market concentration and campaign contributions. This suggests that higher market concentration increases the likelihood of firms coming together as an interest group and lobby for a favorable (tax) policy.
"CONCLUSION As we have shown, small-donor public financing is an effective, flexible, and constitutional way to combat the increasing influence of big money in politics. When designed well, small-donor public financing results in a more inclusive, reflective, and accountable government, where regular people can run for and win office, regardless of their access to wealthy donors. There is a lot to take in and consider in this manual—but you don’t have to go it alone. Rely on the expertise of members of your coalition, sympathetic elected officials, other jurisdictions that have implemented existing policies, local legal and policy experts, and of course, Every Voice Center. We are energized and excited by the increasing numbers of cities, counties, and states taking up the call of small-donor public financing, and we want to ensure that you succeed."
"After placing fair legislative representation in the context of our governmental system, this book shows the anatomy of Pennsylvania’s 2011 Congressional redistricting that was invalidated by the state Supreme Court in 2018. Pennsylvania (and, later, California, the polar opposites of Pennsylvania n its redistricting process) is used as a measuring rod for other states. This is followed by an historical review of gerrymandering in America and the Supreme Court’s role to date in curbing it. The great challenges involved in reforming the redistricting process in states without a ballot referendum process concludes with a description of “dark money” and the virtual impossibility of tracing it in state elections. Seeking reform through the courts is by no means certain and will largely depend on the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the Wisconsin and Maryland cases now before it. A Citizens Toolbox concludes the book with a trove of information to enable citizens to understand the redistricting process in their state and seek appropriate reform. Included are the relevant U.S. Constitutional provisions, contact Information for organizations seeking reform, state-by-state lists of redistricting criteria, states with ballot box referendums, and states with redistricting commissions. It also provides a table showing how each state deals with “dark money” disclosure, and a model for calculating the “efficiency gap” in any state. The “efficiency gap” is a proposed new standard for measuring partisan redistricting now being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court."
"ABSTRACT: The Citizens United v. FEC decision generated immense doubt about the future of state campaign finance regulation. Since the Citizens United v. FEC decision, opponents of campaign finance reform are becoming increasingly successful in challenging state regulations. Among campaign finance regulations, disclosure requirements have traditionally found the most support among the courts. Even though disclosure requirements were upheld in Citizens United v. FEC, they have been placed under pressure by federal district and appeals courts. Indeed, the Eighth Circuit has used Citizens United v. FEC to strike down state disclosure requirements. It does not appear, however, that these decisions are a part of a broader trend. This Article reviews Independence Institute v. Williams, where state disclosure requirements were strongly upheld by the Tenth Circuit under the review standards set in Citizens United v. FEC. The Tenth Circuit reiterated the strong support Citizens United v. FEC gave to disclosure requirements under the exacting scrutiny test, which has been a source of ambiguity in other disclosure decisions. Further, the court signaled that states have leeway in their ability to set campaign finance disclosure laws that match the cost of campaigning in their state."
DESCRIPTION This book is about good government-especially ethical and fair government. Using both theoretical methods and practical political analysis, John Attanasio shows how recent Supreme Court decisions and campaign finance regulations map onto a pernicious and growing inequality in America. He puts forward a novel solution grounded in a new principle of personal autonomy. Looking at the transformation of wealth and political influence in America, this book demonstrates that the defining campaign finance cases such as Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United have created a new constitutional arrangement that correlates with the dramatic rise in U.S. wealth and income inequality since the 1970s. The book goes on to show that this distorted income allocation has adversely affected demand, which may be spawning American economic stagnation. The solution Attanasio proposes is the principle of "distributive autonomy," sharply contrasting it with the individualism of modern libertarian ideas, which have given rise to the radical inequality that reduces, rather than enhances, autonomy. Good governance must be centrally concerned with the distribution of freedom for all: if my autonomy matters, so does yours. Valuing the autonomy of others is authentic autonomy. Distributive autonomy is necessary to ensure that participatory democracy retains its truly democratic elements, which may be a necessary condition for long-term, prosperous capitalism. A profound synthesis of theory and practice, Politics and Capital is crucial to understanding the ominous political and economic problems besetting twenty-first century America."
"...As of November 2016, the National Institute on Money in State Politics reported that a combined total of $3.1 million in campaign contributions came from committees and individuals associated with the non-renewable energy industry. Groups linked with billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, of the conglomerate Koch Industries — which includes oil refineries, pipelines and chemical manufacturing facilities — are said to have contributed $30 million to help Portman defeat Strickland, according to Politifact. This included ads strategically targeted at Appalachian coal-country voters, which urged that Strickland was vehemently “anti-coal.” In contrast, only a combined total of $113,000 in donations for candidates came from groups associated with alternative energy or pro-environmental policies."
January 2010’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United held it unconstitutional to limit donations supporting independent political expenditures, provided that neither the expenditures nor the communications are formally “coordinated” with any particular candidate’s campaign.
Citizens United and related cases enlarged and spurred creation of new organizations to influence politics and research and inform policy. The case is widely considered to have transformed political spending. A question: did it similarly change philanthropic support of traditional public policy organizations, effectively displacing and shifting support from those organizations to Citizens United groups?
The flow of funding to political campaigns actually increased after Citizens United, if measured by comparing total reported receipts of political campaigns during the two full two-year election cycles before the decision (totaling approximately $8.3 billion in 2005-06 and 2007-08) with those during the two full two-year election cycles after it ($8.9 billion in 2011-12 and 2013-14).
The flow of funding to independent groups affected by Citizens United also increased after the decision, of course, measured by comparing total estimated independent expenditures by such groups during the two full two-year election cycles before the decision (about $525.0 million) with those during the two full two-year election cycles after it ($2.0 billion). The total of these expenditures was still much less than contributions spent directly on politics, however, for the entire studied period.
Overall funding of traditional public policy groups like think tanks and advocacy groups experienced a substantial increase during the period, as well, measured by comparing a single-year “snapshot” of revenues before Citizens United (around $6.2 billion in 2006) to a single year afterwards ($9.6 billion in 2014). Instead of Citizens United having the effect of allowing displacement of this kind of policy-oriented giving by increased donations to independent groups’ political spending, there was probably no displacement.
According to these snapshots, funding of liberal policy groups in both 2006 and 2014 far exceeded funding directly to Democratic candidates and to liberal independent groups in both two-year cycles of which they are a part. Funding of conservative policy groups in both years was less than that directly to Republicans and more than that to conservative independent groups in the two-year cycles of which they are a part.
In terms of political outcomes during the 2005-14 period, Republicans generally did better in non-presidential years and at the state level, and Democrats did better in presidential years and at the federal level. In terms of policy outcomes, Republicans probably did better at the state level and Democrats at the federal level, too.
Another question, then, perhaps even more meaningful in the new policy-making context that began in 2017: what is a donor interested in politics and policy to do? One answer: consider a more sophisticated strategy of targeted contributions—focusing on specific places at strategic times—to particular campaigns, issues, and traditional public policy organizations, using all available legal avenues. In terms of issues and policy groups that engage in research and public education, there are many potential strategic grant-making options for innovative donors to explore.
Preliminary draft Jan. 26, 2018: "ABSTRACT This paper examines whether corporate political connections are associated with government awarded subsidies, and how this relation impacts subsidy effectiveness in spurring future economic growth beyond the firm. Subsidies relate to foregone government revenues through tax credits/abatements and to government resource transfers through grants and cost reimbursement programs. Using novel datasets to identify state-awarded corporate subsidies and corporate contributions to state political candidates, we find robust evidence that political contributions increase both the likelihood a company is awarded a state subsidy and the dollar value of subsidy awarded. Companies contributing to a greater number of candidates, to both Republican and Democratic Party candidates, and to both gubernatorial and legislative candidates reap the greatest subsidy benefits. We find some evidence that state subsidies are positively associated with a state’s future intra-industry economic growth, and that subsidies awarded to politically connected companies are associated with lower growth. Our findings suggest quid pro quo behavior in the state subsidy award process results in a less efficient allocation of government resources, consistent with taxpayers being harmed by pay-to-play cronyism."

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.