IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v62y2018i1p132-147.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Do Interest Groups Seek Access to Committees?

Author

Listed:
  • Alexander Fouirnaies
  • Andrew B. Hall

Abstract

Concerns that interest groups use their financial resources to distort the democratic process are long‐standing. Surprisingly, though, firms spend little money on political campaigns, and roughly 95% of publicly traded firms in the United States have never contributed to a political campaign. Do interest groups seek political access through their modest contributions, or are these contributions only a minor and forgettable part of the political process? In this article, we present comprehensive evidence that interest groups are extremely sophisticated in the way they make campaign contributions. We collect a new data set on U.S. state legislative committee assignments and legislator procedural powers from 1988 to 2014, merged with campaign finance data, in order to analyze over 440,000 candidate–committee observations across 99 legislatures. Using a series of difference‐in‐differences designs based on changes in individual legislators' positions in the legislature, we not only show that interest groups seek out committee members, but we also show that they value what we call indirect access. When a legislator gains procedural powers, interest groups reallocate considerable amounts of money to her. The results reveal how interest groups in a wide range of democratic settings seek to influence the policy process not only by seeking direct access to policy makers but by seeking indirect access to legislative procedure as well.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexander Fouirnaies & Andrew B. Hall, 2018. "How Do Interest Groups Seek Access to Committees?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 62(1), pages 132-147, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:62:y:2018:i:1:p:132-147
    DOI: 10.1111/ajps.12323
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12323
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ajps.12323?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Monica Martinez-Bravo & Leonard Wantchekon, 2021. "Political Economy and Structural Transformation: Democracy, Regulation and Public Investment," Working Papers wp2021_2110, CEMFI.
    2. Matilde Bombardini & Francesco Trebbi, 2020. "Empirical Models of Lobbying," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 12(1), pages 391-413, August.
    3. Larcinese, Valentino & Parmigiani, Alberto, 2023. "Income inequality and campaign contributions: evidence from the Reagan tax cut," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 118456, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Awad, Emiel & Minaudier, Clement, 2023. "Persuasive Lobbying and the Value of Connections," SocArXiv 8z4ax, Center for Open Science.
    5. Titl, Vitezslav & Geys, Benny, 2019. "Political donations and the allocation of public procurement contracts," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 443-458.
    6. Robert A. Lawson & Ryan Murphy & Benjamin Powell, 2020. "The Determinants Of Economic Freedom: A Survey," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 38(4), pages 622-642, October.
    7. Matsusaka, John G., 2018. "Special Interest Influence under Direct versus Representative Democracy," Working Papers 278, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State.
    8. Schnakenberg, Keith & Turner, Ian R, 2023. "Dark Money and Politician Learning," SocArXiv 3bzex, Center for Open Science.
    9. Albert Chiu & Xingchen Lan & Ziyi Liu & Yiqing Xu, 2023. "What To Do (and Not to Do) with Causal Panel Analysis under Parallel Trends: Lessons from A Large Reanalysis Study," Papers 2309.15983, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2024.
    10. James Rockey & Nadia Zakir, 2021. "Power and the money, money and the power: A network analysis of donations from American corporate to political leaders," Discussion Papers 21-03, Department of Economics, University of Birmingham.

    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:wly:amposc:v:62:y:2018:i:1:p:132-147. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5907 .

    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.