Money in Politics

Trade-Offs of Money in Politics

no limits on lobbying and spending: consistent with liberalism and free flow of info between gov. and the public

restrictive system of rules on lobbying and spending: stops liberalism from undermining individual liberty and incentives for evasion

Pay-for-Policy

you can’t buy “official” functions of gov like, attempting or successfully exchanging something of value for favors, or accepting or soliciting something of value with the promise of favors

Official Act

Legislators: votes, bill sponsorship, speech, travel

Bureaucrats: rule making, inside info, litigation, inspections, investigations, etc.

Judges: decisions

Executives: hiring, promotions, policy decisions

Limits on Campaign Contributions

can’t make direct campaign contributions: corporations, labor unions, gov. contractors, foreigners, straw contributors

can contribute indirectly though: non-profits that raise unlimited money and don’t disclose their donors or super PACs which raise unlimited money and can accept money and can accept money from nonprofits

Lobbying Disclosure Act

requires lobbyists to register and disclose who they’re lobbying

defines a lobbyist as anyone who spends more than 20% of their working time on lobbying but the person who makes the call about what counts as 20% is the lobbyist

Foreign Agents Registration Act

requirement to register and disclose who they’re lobbying for, to whom, and about

Lobbying and Campaign Contributions

money is easier to track

there are no caps on lobbying activity

the scale of both make near perfect compliance enforcement impossible

Bribery

money buys politicians and other officials

the view of the public

implications: money and lobbying should target opposed officials, moderates should cost less,  and the people with the most money get what they want

implications false therefore bribery is uncommon

Subsidy

money buys access to politicians and other officials and access leads to info subsidies for officials

implications: officials should meet more regulated interests and donors and lobbyists should target both sides of the isle

implications true therefore subsidy is common

Subsidy Traits

officials are careful about who they talk to because of info asymmetry

they work under the assumption that they have shared goals with the lobbyist/contributor

if they don’t have shared goals then they’ve been influenced in the classic bribery sense