IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlawec/doi10.1086-722391.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is Direct Democracy Good or Bad for Corporations and Unions?

Author

Listed:
  • John G. Matsusaka

Abstract

The initiative and referendum were intended to curtail the power of organized interest groups, yet business groups account for more spending on ballot measures than any other group by far. Does this mean that direct democracy has become a tool for corporations to buy favorable legislation? This paper reports four types of evidence suggesting that the answer is no: analysis of the content of the universe of state-level initiatives in the United States from 1904 to 2021 shows that antibusiness initiatives were more common than probusiness initiatives, analysis of contribution patterns for California ballot measures from 2000 to 2020 shows that business groups more often opposed than supported initiatives, abnormal stock returns on election days show that corporate contributors earned positive abnormal returns when initiatives failed and negative abnormal returns when they passed, and for all three types of evidence business groups fared better with ballot measures proposed by legislatures. I find similar results for unions.

Suggested Citation

  • John G. Matsusaka, 2023. "Is Direct Democracy Good or Bad for Corporations and Unions?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 66(1), pages 83-110.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlawec:doi:10.1086/722391
    DOI: 10.1086/722391
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/722391
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/722391
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/722391?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:ucp:jlawec:doi:10.1086/722391. 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: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLE .

    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.