A central demand of the Occupy Wall Street protests—and among Americans generally—is to ‘take the money out of politics‘. This week Josh Tucker interviewed political scientists Adam Bonica and Andrew Therriault about campaign donations and the effect of campaign spending on electoral outcomes. Here is some other political science research about money in politics.
THE MEDIA, MISPERCEPTIONS, AND MONEY. In a 2005 article (gated), political scientists Stephen Ansolabahere, James Snyder, and Erik Snowberg found that the news media vastly overstates campaign expenditures, contributions, or receipts by focusing on competitive races where there is a larger amount of money being spent. In turn, public perceptions about the amount of money in politics are distorted to a similar degree. The news media also exaggerates the percentage of funding that comes from PACs as opposed to individuals.
More educated respondents were more likely to overstate the amount of money in politics because they pay more attention to the news. Ansolabehere and colleagues find it particularly disconcerting that the media’s exaggerations can sway even the most informed citizens. The authors state:
In short, public perceptions of campaign finance are remarkably consistent with the picture that emerges from newspaper coverage of the topic. The segment of the electorate most likely to read the newspaper shows the greatest biases in their perceptions. The picture in people’s minds is of multimillion dollar elections in which individual donors are of secondary importance. That view is especially pronounced among the college-educated.
LOBBYING. Most lobbying does not change public policy. That is the crux of Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why (project website here), a book by political scientists Frank Baumgartner, Jeffrey Berry, Marie Hojnacki, David Kimball, and Beth Leech. They argue that there is much more inertia in public policy than is often thought, making it difficult to shift policies. This is even more true when two sides are putting substantial resources on both sides of an issue. Ultimately, resources explain less than five percent of the difference between successful and unsuccessful efforts. Money can matter, but more important are the constraints that governing institutions place on policy change.
BUYING LEGISLATIVE CAPACITY. In a 2007 paper (ungated), political scientist Kevin Esterling describes a very different way of thinking about money and politics than is portrayed in the news media. Esterling writes:
I demonstrate that groups and their political action committees tend to give contributions to “workhorse” committee members who have higher capacities to engage in analytical discourse at hearings, and hence a greater demand for analytical information in their legislative work.
For Esterling, lobbyists do not donate to people in order to influence or persuade them, but to reward important and prominent members of committees. Esterling looked at what kinds of activity in committee made for a powerful member besides just seniority or chairmanship and found that PACs donated more money to those politicians. Looking at Medicare hearings from 2000-2003, Esterling finds:
Members with a higher analytical capacity to work on policies receive more contributions from groups and at the same time are more likely to ask analytical questions regarding the conditions, internal mechanics, or the current or likely future effects of policies at Medicare hearings…The aggregate pattern of contributions does give members a strong incentive to increase their analytical capacity in the long run. In addition, assuming greater contributions increase the probability that a member gets reelected, the electoral process may tend to select high capacity legislators across election cycles.
A LITTLE HELP FOR YOUR FRIENDS. A working paper (that is part of a book project) by political scientist Eleanor Neff Powell focuses on giving by members of Congress to the campaigns of fellow members of their party. Her results suggest that giving money to colleagues promotes career advancement in Congress, specifically promotion to a leadership position of some kind, although this effect seems to have declined in more recent Congresses. She concludes:
…party leaders are creating incentives to encourage their members’ contribution behavior with the goal of maximizing the party’s electoral success. To achieve that end party leaders have incentivized and encouraged their members to take actions that maximize the party’s success, not just their own personal success. This effort to encourage contributions has met with tremendous success, leading to dramatic increases in the scope and scale of contribution activity by members of Congress. In fact, it has been so successful, that there is now relatively little variation in the contribution activity, which is consistent with the diminishing size of the effects over time.
Same old stuff. Would folks please relook at Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson’s “Winner take all politics” ? Can one honestly say after the deregulatory carnival that led to the financial collapse still believe that monied interests do not have a disproportionate influence on politics? That monied interests had nothing to do with the change in the political climate and the regulatory environment that blew the top off of executive compensation? That monied interests had nothing to do with the multiple transformations since the early 1980s of the tax code favoring upper income groups? Where O where is political science?
Ed: If you read the Esterling and Powell pieces, you will see that they *are* suggesting that money matters. And Baumgartner et al. is not actually inconsistent with Hacker and Pierson if you read them closely, in particular because the time horizon for public policy change in Baumgartner et al. is fairly short and Hacker and Pierson are talking more about the long haul. See also Lee Drutman’s post: http://www.progressivefix.com/lobbying-yields-nothing.
Has anyone ever made a list of elections that they claim would have had a different outcome if the two main candidates had spent the same amount of money?
Is this what public opinion research is saying? Taking the money out of politics is a central demand of your typical American? My understanding was that Americans tend to be supportive of finance reform, but it is not an issue that is on most people’s radar.
JRieil: Yes, lots of polling suggests that people take a dim view of money in politics. Here is one: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/09/cnn-poll-two-thirds-say-elections-are-usually-for-sale/.
But you’re absolutely correct that this doesn’t make campaign finance reform a high priority for most Americans. Indeed, Americans are quite ambivalent about perhaps the best way to get money out of politics: public financing.
This is the opposite of those studies where researchers spend $100,000 to show that kids like ice cream. So, all that money and expertise smart rich people apply to influencing policy and elections is just wasted. Right. Say, do men like to look at naked women? Let me know.
So test it out! Star ends her maternity leave as she returns to work for a nude foto family shoot five months after welcoming son Bear Essex marks the spot! Real Taboo Family Photos. My Daughter Photo Gallery 12 G.
Shamed Jess Woodley cuts a downcast figure Last Jump to page: Share this article Share. However, on closer inspection, their father has a rather serious look on his face - and is, for reasons unexplained - holding a plunger.
In the dozen years since the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse released its first report on substance abuse among the nation’s prison population, no progress has been made in reducing the numbers of inmates with substance abuse problems crowding the nation’s prisons and jails, according to a new report. In fact, 65 percent of the nation’s inmates meet certain medical criteria for substance abuse and addiction, but only 11 percent received treatment for their addictions.
Released in February, the center’s second report on the topic found that of the 2.3 million U.S. inmates, 1.5 million suffer from substance abuse addiction and another 458,000 inmates either had histories of substance abuse, were under the influence of alcohol or other drugs at the time of committing their crimes; committed their offenses to get money to buy drugs; were incarcerated for an alcohol or drug violation. Combined, the two groups make up 85 percent of the U.S. prison population, according to the report, “Behind Bars II, Substance Abuse and America’s Prison Population.”
The report also found that alcohol and other drugs are significant factors in all crimes, including 78 percent of violent crimes, 83 percent of property crimes and 77 percent of public order, immigration or weapons offenses as well as probation and parole violations.
Calling the nation’s current prison policies “inane and inhuman,” Joseph Califano Jr., chair and president of the Columbia University-based National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, said that despite increased recognition of the problem and its potential solutions, the nation has made no progress in reducing the number of inmates with substance abuse problems crowding prisons and jails.
“The United States has less than five percent of the world’s population and we consume two-thirds of the world’s illegal drugs and incarcerate almost a quarter of the world’s prisoners, more than eight of 10 of whom have some substance involvement,” said Califano, who served as U.S. health secretary from 1977 to 1979.
The report also found that, compared to inmates who do not suffer with substance abuse issues, inmates with substance abuse problems are more likely to be incarcerated again, begin their criminal careers at an early age and have more contacts with the criminal justice system. Additionally, inmates with substance abuse problems are four times more likely to receive income through illegal activities and twice as likely to have had at least one parent who abused alcohol or other drugs.
The report found that only 11 percent of inmates with substance abuse and addiction disorders receive any treatment during their incarcerations. However, if all inmates in need of treatment received such services, the nation would see economic benefits in just one year — even if only 10 percent of the inmates treated remained sober, crime-free and employed, the report found. For each inmate who remained sober, employed and crime-free, the nation would save $91,000 per year, the report found.
According to the report, federal, state and local governments spent $74 billion on incarceration, court proceedings, probation and parole for adults with substance abuse problems and juvenile offenders in 2005, but less than 1 percent of that amount, or $632 million, was spent on prevention and treatment.
“States complain mightily about their rising prison costs, yet they continue to hemorrhage public funds that could be saved if they provided treatment to inmates with alcohol and other drug problems and stepped up use of drug courts and prosecutorial drug treatment alternative programs,” said Susan E. Foster, vice president and director of policy research and analysis at the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse.
Specific recommendations in the report for reducing the number of inmates with substance abuse problems, improving their health and reducing crime include using trained health care professionals to screen, assess and treat substance-involved offenders; providing care for co-occurring physical and mental health problems; providing comprehensive pre-release planning and after-care to continue treatment services for inmates with substance-use disorders; requiring addiction treatment for inmates; expanding the use of treatment-based alternatives to jail and prison; and requiring accreditation for prison and jail-based treatment programs and providers.
You are sending the following Online only: Report finds most U.S. inmates suffer from substance abuse or addiction