IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v79y1985i02p400-414_22.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

PACs, Contributions, and Roll Calls: An Organizational Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Wright, John R.

Abstract

This study uses information about the organizational arrangements of five major political action committees to develop an explanation for the extent to which PAC contributions are capable of influencing congressional voting decisions. The explanation claims that the processes by which PACs raise and allocate money must be understood before the impact of money on roll call decisions can be appreciated. In contrast to some previous studies, this analysis demonstrates with marked clarity the limited nature of PAC influence.

Suggested Citation

  • Wright, John R., 1985. "PACs, Contributions, and Roll Calls: An Organizational Perspective," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 79(2), pages 400-414, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:79:y:1985:i:02:p:400-414_22
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400226567/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. David Lowery & Virginia Gray, 2004. "Bias in the Heavenly Chorus," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 16(1), pages 5-29, January.
    2. Ansolabehere, Stephen & De Figueiredo, John M. & Snyder, James M., 2003. "Are Campaign Contributions Investment in the Political Marketplace or Individual Consumption? Or "Why Is There So Little Money in Politics?"," Working papers 4272-02, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    3. Dana L. Hoag & Thomas G. Field, 1999. "Political and Economic Factors Affecting Agricultural PAC Contribution Strategies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(2), pages 397-407.
    4. De Figueiredo, John M. & Silverman, Brian S., 2002. "Academic Earmarks and the Returns to Lobbying," Working papers 4245-02, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    5. Balles, Patrick & Matter, Ulrich & Stutzer, Alois, 2018. "Special Interest Groups Versus Voters and the Political Economics of Attention," Economics Working Paper Series 1813, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    6. Allen Wilhite & John Theilmann, 1987. "Labor PAC contributions and labor legislation: A simultaneous logit approach," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 53(3), pages 267-276, January.
    7. Brian Kelleher Richter & Krislert Samphantharak & Jeffrey F. Timmons, 2009. "Lobbying and Taxes," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(4), pages 893-909, October.
    8. Apollonio, Dorie E. & Glantz, Stanton A. & Bero, Lisa A., 2014. "Term limits and the tobacco industry," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 1-5.
    9. Lake, James, 2015. "Revisiting the link between PAC contributions and lobbying expenditures," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 86-101.
    10. McKay Amy, 2010. "The Effects of Interest Groups' Ideology on Their PAC and Lobbying Expenditures," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(2), pages 1-23, August.
    11. Robert Florence, 1999. "An analysis of PAC contributions and legislator quality," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 27(1), pages 59-73, March.
    12. Tovar, Patricia, 2011. "Lobbying costs and trade policy," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 126-136, March.
    13. David Adamany, 1986. "The New Faces of American Politics," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 486(1), pages 12-33, July.
    14. Potters, Jan & Sloof, Randolph, 1996. "Interest groups: A survey of empirical models that try to assess their influence," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 403-442, November.
    15. Joseph P. McGarrity & Daniel Sutter, 2000. "A Test of the Structure of PAC Contracts: An Analysis of House Gun Control Votes in the 1980s," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 67(1), pages 41-63, July.
    16. Stephen Ansolabehere & John M. de Figueiredo & James M. Snyder Jr, 2003. "Why is There so Little Money in U.S. Politics?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 17(1), pages 105-130, Winter.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:79:y:1985:i:02:p:400-414_22. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.