IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/apl/wpaper/18-11.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Campaign Contributions Made by Farmers: Does Geography Affect Behavior?

Author

Listed:
  • Scott Callahan

Abstract

This essay contains a reduced form analysis of campaign contributions made by subsidy receiving farmers, in order to better understand if contribution strategies for campaigns in the House of Representatives by individual farmers differ based on whether or not the candidate represents their local congressional district, a non-local congressional district within the donor?s state, or an out of state congressional district. This is accomplished by applying a Tobit model to a panel of contributions, recording zero values of farmers in a given congressional district contribute nothing to a given legislator. Results indicate that farmers appear to contribute heavily to local campaigns regardless of the power of the legislator to influence agricultural legislation, while the ability of legislators to influence agricultural legislation becomes a more important driver of campaign contributions in more distant elections. Key Words: Agricultural Policy, Lobbying, Rent Seeking, Campaign Finance

Suggested Citation

  • Scott Callahan, 2018. "Campaign Contributions Made by Farmers: Does Geography Affect Behavior?," Working Papers 18-11, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    • Handle: RePEc:apl:wpaper:18-11
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://econ.appstate.edu/RePEc/pdf/wp1811.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James G. Gimpel & Frances E. Lee & Shanna Pearson‐Merkowitz, 2008. "The Check Is in the Mail: Interdistrict Funding Flows in Congressional Elections," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(2), pages 373-394, April.
    2. Stratmann, Thomas, 1998. "The Market for Congressional Votes: Is Timing of Contributions Everything?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(1), pages 85-113, April.
    3. 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.
    4. Jeffrey M Wooldridge, 2010. "Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 2, volume 1, number 0262232588, December.
    5. Chappell, Henry W, Jr, 1982. "Campaign Contributions and Congressional Voting: A Simultaneous Probit-Tobit Model," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 64(1), pages 77-83, February.
    6. Jonathan C. Brooks & A. Colin Cameron & Colin A. Carter, 1998. "Political Action Committee Contributions and U.S. Congressional Voting on Sugar Legislation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(3), pages 441-454.
    7. Wright, John R., 1990. "Contributions, Lobbying, and Committee Voting in the U.S. House of Representatives," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 84(2), pages 417-438, June.
    8. Gardner, Bruce L, 1987. "Causes of U.S. Farm Commodity Programs," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 95(2), pages 290-310, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Hoyong Jung, 2022. "Examining the relationship between political spending and legislative activities," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(2), pages 539-568, April.
    2. 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.
    3. Callahan, Scott, 2016. "The Impact of Agricultural Political Action Committee Donations on Repeated Farm Bill Votes," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235558, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Thomas Stratmann, 2005. "Some talk: Money in politics. A (partial) review of the literature," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 124(1), pages 135-156, July.
    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. Gawande, Kishore, 2005. "The structure of lobbying and protection in U.S. agriculture," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3722, The World Bank.
    7. Daniel E. Bergan, 2010. "Estimating the Effect of Tobacco Contributions on Legislative Behavior Using Panel Data," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 91(3), pages 635-648, September.
    8. Adelino, Manuel & Dinc, I. Serdar, 2014. "Corporate distress and lobbying: Evidence from the Stimulus Act," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(2), pages 256-272.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Aggey Semenov & Hector Perez Saiz, 2014. "The Effect Of Campaign Contributions On State Banking Regulation And Bank Expansion In U.S," 2014 Meeting Papers 1265, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    12. Cotton, Christopher, 2012. "Pay-to-play politics: Informational lobbying and contribution limits when money buys access," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(3), pages 369-386.
    13. Matthias Dahm & Robert Dur & Amihai Glazer, 2009. "Lobbying of Firms by Voters," Working Papers 080926, University of California-Irvine, Department of Economics.
    14. Laurent Bouton & Julia Cagé & Edgard Dewitte & Vincent Pons, 2021. "Small Campaign Donors," Working Papers hal-03878175, HAL.
    15. Benjamin H. Liebman & Kara M. Reynolds, 2006. "The returns from rent-seeking: campaign contributions, firm subsidies and the Byrd Amendment," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 39(4), pages 1345-1369, November.
    16. John M. de Figueiredo, 2004. "The Timing, Intensity, and Composition of Interest Group Lobbying: An Analysis of Structural Policy Windows in the States," NBER Working Papers 10588, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Garrett, Thomas A. & Marsh, Thomas L. & Marshall, Maria I., 2006. "Political allocation of US agriculture disaster payments in the 1990s," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 143-161, June.
    18. 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.
    19. Ovtchinnikov, Alexei V. & Pantaleoni, Eva, 2012. "Individual political contributions and firm performance," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 367-392.
    20. repec:smu:ecowpa:1405 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Jiao, Anqi & Lu, Juntai, 2024. "Buffing firm innovation by lobbying," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    agricultural policy; lobbying; rent seeking; campaign finance;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:apl:wpaper:18-11. 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: O. Ashton Morgan (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deappus.html .

    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.