IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v34y1979i3p435-461.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Some aspects of the political economy of election campaign contribution laws

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Aranson
  • Melvin Hinich

Abstract

This essay constructs a very general model of an election campaign contributor's decision problem. This model permits one to assess the effects of three variables on the campaign contribution decision in two-candidate elections. These variables are: first, the level of the statutory contribution limit; second, the presence of a statute enforcing disclosure of the source and amount of each contribution; and third, the contributor's subjectively estimated probability that each of the two candidates wins. The findings from the model lead to the conclusions that statutory limits and disclosure work against the candidate whom the contributor believes to be trailing. Moreover, as the statutory contribution limit becomes smaller, the leading candidate's perceived electoral margin needed to receive all of the contributor's budget diminishes to zero. Hence, the Supreme Court majority's decision in Buckley v. Valeo, that the 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act does not discriminate invidiously against challengers of incumbents, as well as minor party candidates, is brought into serious question. Copyright Martinus Nijhoff Publishers b.v. 1979

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Aranson & Melvin Hinich, 1979. "Some aspects of the political economy of election campaign contribution laws," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 435-461, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:34:y:1979:i:3:p:435-461
    DOI: 10.1007/BF00225679
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF00225679
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF00225679?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Russell Pittman, 1977. "Market structure and campaign contributions," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 37-52, September.
    2. Dennis Mueller & Robert Tollison & Thomas Willett, 1972. "Representative democracy via random selection," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 57-68, March.
    3. William Welch, 1974. "The economics of campaign funds," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 83-97, December.
    4. Burton Abrams & Russell Settle, 1976. "A modest proposal for election reform," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 37-53, December.
    5. Uri Ben-Zion & Zeev Eytan, 1974. "On money, votes, and policy in a democratic society," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 1-10, March.
    6. Russell Pittman, 1976. "The effects of industry concentration and regulation on contributions in three 1972 U. S. senate campaigns," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 71-80, September.
    7. Adamany, David, 1977. "Money, Politics, and Democracy: A Review Essay," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 71(1), pages 289-304, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Dmitry Shapiro & Arthur Zillante, 2017. "Contribution Limits and Transparency in a Campaign Finance Experiment," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 84(1), pages 98-119, July.
    2. Timothy Lambie-Hanson, 2013. "Campaign contributions as valence," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 157(1), pages 3-24, October.
    3. Susan A. Edelman, 1992. "Two Politicians, A Pac, And How They Interact: Two Extensive Form Games," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 4(3), pages 289-306, November.
    4. Ulrich Matter & Alois Stutzer, 2019. "Does Public Attention Reduce The Influence Of Moneyed Interests? Policy Positions On Sopa/Pipa Before And After The Internet Blackout," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 57(4), pages 1879-1895, October.
    5. Keith Poole & Thomas Romer, 1985. "Patterns of political action committee contributions to the 1980 campaigns for the United States House of Representatives," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 63-111, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. 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.
    2. Richard B. McKenzie & Bruce Yandle, 1980. "The Logic of "Irrational" Politics: Nixon's Reelection Committee," Public Finance Review, , vol. 8(1), pages 39-55, January.
    3. Russell Pittman, 1988. "Rent-seeking and market structure: Comment," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 58(2), pages 173-185, August.
    4. W. Welch, 1980. "The allocation of political monies: Economic interest groups," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 97-120, January.
    5. W. Welch, 1981. "Money and votes: A simultaneous equation model," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 209-234, January.
    6. Stuart Nagel, 1981. "Optimally allocating campaign expenditures," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 159-164, January.
    7. Susie Lee & Ingmar Schumacher, 2011. "When does financial sector (in)stability induce financial reforms?," Working Papers hal-00637954, HAL.
    8. Michael Munger, 1988. "On the political participation of the firm in the electoral process: An update," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 295-298, March.
    9. Eric Dunaway & Felix Munoz-Garcia, 2020. "Campaign contributions and policy convergence: asymmetric agents and donations constraints," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 184(3), pages 429-461, September.
    10. David Austen-Smith, 1987. "Interest groups, campaign contributions, and probabilistic voting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 123-139, January.
    11. Henry Chappell, 1981. "Campaign contributions and voting on the cargo preference bill: A comparison of simultaneous models," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 301-312, January.
    12. John Beck, 1978. "An alternative campaign finance reform: public “laundries” for secret cash contributions," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 125-127, January.
    13. Jens GroЯer & Ernesto Reuben & Agnieszka Tymula, 2010. "Tacit Lobbying Agreements: An Experimental Study," Working Paper Series in Economics 50, University of Cologne, Department of Economics.
    14. Kevin Grier & Michael Munger, 1986. "The impact of legislator attributes on interest-group campaign contributions," Journal of Labor Research, Springer, vol. 7(4), pages 349-361, September.
    15. Beneish, Messod D. & Jansen, Ivo Ph. & Lewis, Melissa F. & Stuart, Nathan V., 2008. "Diversification to mitigate expropriation in the tobacco industry," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 136-157, July.
    16. Susan A. Edelman, 1992. "Two Politicians, A Pac, And How They Interact: Two Extensive Form Games," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 4(3), pages 289-306, November.
    17. Jonathan Silberman & Gilbert Yochum, 1980. "The market for special interest campaign funds: An exploratory approach," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 75-83, January.
    18. Alexander Fink, 2017. "Donations to Political Parties: Investing Corporations and Consuming Individuals?," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(2), pages 220-255, May.
    19. Michael Munger, 1989. "A simple test of the thesis that committee jurisdictions shape corporate PAC contributions," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 62(2), pages 181-186, August.
    20. Stutzer Alois & Frey Bruno S., 2006. "Making International Organizations More Democratic," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 1(3), pages 305-330, January.

    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:kap:pubcho:v:34:y:1979:i:3:p:435-461. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.