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

Author(s):  
Simon Weschle

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.

Author(s):  
Daron R. Shaw ◽  
Brian E. Roberts ◽  
Mijeong Baek

Chapter 3 aims to gauge both the reality of, as well as public opinion on, the central issue of corruption. It investigates public opinion on corruption among elected officials, source of corruption, effectiveness of laws and regulations in mitigating corruption, support for campaign finance reforms, etc. The data strongly suggest that people think corruption is rampant despite limited evidence that quid pro quo corruption is anything more than a minor problem. This fundamental attitude has not changed much in the wake of the Citizens United decision. Furthermore, they believe the problem is mostly intractable and that most of the commonly proposed reforms of the campaign finance system will not work. Nevertheless, they still support these reforms. Moving from simple descriptive data to more associational analyses, this chapter also explores the effect of campaign finance laws on campaign spending and then the effect of both on corruption attitudes. The results are not what the Court would have expected.


2020 ◽  
Vol 163 (2) ◽  
pp. 1107-1108
Author(s):  
Daniel C. Steinberg ◽  
Bryan K. Mignone ◽  
Jordan Macknick ◽  
Yinong Sun ◽  
Kelly Eurek ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Daron R. Shaw ◽  
Brian E. Roberts ◽  
Mijeong Baek

Chapter 2 establishes a baseline by reviewing public opinion concerning money and politics, pre– and post–Citizens United, focusing on what Americans know about money in politics and campaign spending. On the one hand, given that citizens are typically not well informed about politics, it should come as no surprise that they do not know all that much about candidate spending or campaign finance. On the other hand, the public is not completely off base with respect to its sense of money in politics, and this basic intuition is perhaps even sharper in the post–Citizens United era. The data suggest that while Americans know a little bit about campaign finance, there is no systematic correlation between the regulatory environment of the state and how much people in that state know about campaign finance.


2021 ◽  
pp. 24-33
Author(s):  
John Appert ◽  
Ege Can ◽  
Frank M. Fossen

<p xss=removed><span lang="EN-GB" xss=removed>We investigate regional growth regimes in the US states from 1980 to 2014. Based on start-up rates and employment growth as suggested by Audretsch and Fritsch (2002), we classify states into routinized, entrepreneurial, revolving door, and downsizing regimes. The results indicate that there was no significant association between start-up rates and employment growth in the 1980s, but a positive relationship in the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s. Further, we document that the entrepreneurial and the downsizing regimes are attractor regimes that tend to stick, whereas the routinized and revolving door regimes are transitionary regimes. Importantly, states in the routinized regime predominantly move to the downsizing regime, suggesting that an over-reliance on established companies relative to start-ups in the state may threaten employment growth in the long run.</span><br></p>


Author(s):  
Jan Misiuna

The article presents the history of the US campaign finance law. It describes acts passed by the Congress, starting from the Tillman Act of 1907, followed among others by Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and finished with McCain-Feingold Act of 2002. There are also described the most important decisions of the US Supreme Court related to the campaign finance including Newberry vs. United States (256 U. S. 232 (1921)), Buckley v. Valeo (424 U. S. 1 (1976)), McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (540 U. S. 93 (2003)) Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (130 S. Ct. 876 (2010)) of 2010. The paper also how has changed the attitude of the Supreme Court towards campaign finance regulation The article also recalls the historical events, such as Teapot Dome Scandal and Watergate, that were important stimuli for passing new law by the Congress. The background of the Supreme Court decisions is also provided.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document