IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jleorg/v31y2015i1p127-159..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Citizens United, Independent Expenditures, and Agency Costs: Reexamining the Political Economy of State Antitakeover Statutes

Author

Listed:
  • Timothy Werner
  • John J. Coleman

Abstract

We test the agency theory of corporate political activity by examining the association between the legality of independent expenditures and antitakeover lawmaking in the US states. Exploiting changes in state law regarding the use of corporate independent expenditures in the pre-Citizens United era, we estimate that a state is more likely to pass antitakeover statutes that entrench management when firms are allowed to make independent expenditures. We also find that this relationship is conditional on the competitiveness of a state’s electoral environment, suggesting that the threat of independent expenditures may move vulnerable legislators’ votes on less salient issues, such as corporate governance. These findings are robust to competing public interest and political economy explanations for antitakeover lawmaking, and they reveal that allowing independent expenditures may create additional agency costs for owners through public policy. Finally, these results strongly challenge the claim that state-level antitakeover laws are exogenous to firms’ activities. (JEL D72, G38, K20)

Suggested Citation

  • Timothy Werner & John J. Coleman, 2015. "Citizens United, Independent Expenditures, and Agency Costs: Reexamining the Political Economy of State Antitakeover Statutes," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(1), pages 127-159.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jleorg:v:31:y:2015:i:1:p:127-159.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jleo/ewu009
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. McMichael, Benjamin, 2017. "Beyond Physicians: The Effect of Licensing and Liability Laws on the Supply of Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants," Working Papers 07538, George Mason University, Mercatus Center.
    2. Mayur Choudhary, 2024. "Judicial selection and production efficiency: The role of campaign finance," Discussion Papers 2024-07, Nottingham Interdisciplinary Centre for Economic and Political Research (NICEP).
    3. Boland, Matthew & Godsell, David, 2020. "Local soldier fatalities and war profiteers: New tests of the political cost hypothesis," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(1).
    4. Benjamin J. McMichael, 2017. "The Demand for Healthcare Regulation: The Effect of Political Spending on Occupational Licensing Laws," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 84(1), pages 297-316, July.
    5. Hollis A. Skaife & Timothy Werner, 2020. "Changes in Firms’ Political Investment Opportunities, Managerial Accountability, and Reputational Risk," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 163(2), pages 239-263, May.
    6. Timothy Werner, 2017. "Investor Reaction to Covert Corporate Political Activity," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(12), pages 2424-2443, December.
    7. David Godsell & Ugur Lel & Darius Miller, 2023. "U.S. national security and de-globalization," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 54(8), pages 1471-1494, October.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • G38 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Government Policy and Regulation
    • K20 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - General

    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:oup:jleorg:v:31:y:2015:i:1:p:127-159.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jleo .

    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.