Contributor Influence in Congress: Social Ties and PAC Effects on U.S. House Policymaking

Abstract

Knowing how campaign contributors influence policymaking is important for understanding political power, but the existing literature—much of it outside sociology—has mixed findings. Using data on Political Action Committee (PAC) contributors and roll call voting in eight U.S. Houses, 1991–2006, I approach the issue using a novel, sociological approach that focuses on social ties between lawmakers and mutually shared contributors. The findings show consistent, statistically significant contributor influence via these ties in seven of the eight Houses. I discuss the implications of these findings for contributor‐lawmaker reciprocal exchange, the social embeddedness of policymaking, and political power.

Campaign Finance and Policymaking: PACs, Campaign Contributions, and Interest Group Influence in Congress

“…Clawson et al () argue that lawmakers can help defend controversial contributor‐sponsored provisions via “lining up other members who will support the provision…” (p. 83). Peoples () agrees, suggesting,…”

“…This may help answer a conundrum identified by Ansolabehere et al (): despite all the money contributed to campaigns (again, 100s of millions, as in Table ), most PACs donate much less than the maximum allowed. This might be because they have discovered that, as the social model predicts and the Peoples () study confirms that the relationship matters more than the amount of money…”

“…Peoples () uses social network analysis to examine how contributors affect voting across 16 years of policymaking in the US House (eight Houses) and finds significant influence in all but one House during the period. This suggests that contributor‐lawmaker relationships matter greatly for Congressional voting – perhaps even more than money, per se.…”

“…This suggests that contributor‐lawmaker relationships matter greatly for Congressional voting – perhaps even more than money, per se. One of the fascinating things about the Peoples study is that measures of lawmaker‐contributor ties predicted voting just as well as more sophisticated measures that accounted for dollar amounts (p. 663). This may help answer a conundrum identified by Ansolabehere et al (): despite all the money contributed to campaigns (again, 100s of millions, as in Table ), most PACs donate much less than the maximum allowed.…”

“…It may seem like a minor difference, but it is actually profound in its ramifications, as it requires a very different orientation focused on actors and the social ties among thema sociological (or social networks) approach. Peoples (2010) uses social network analysis to examine how contributors affect voting across 16 years of policymaking in the US House (eight Houses) and finds significant influence in all but one House during the period. This suggests that contributor-lawmaker relationships matter greatly for Congressional votingperhaps even more than money, per se.…”