[EL] Contributions and bias (was Breaking News: Summary Reversal in Montana)

Tue Jun 26 10:05:03 PDT 2012

I'm playing around with the idea that self-interested campaign
contributions are merely intended to support candidates who share the views
of the donor, rather than to purchase the candidate's favor. For example,
if a corn PAC makes campaign contributions to a politician in another state
and the politician later supports sugar tariffs, are we concerned that the
politician's stance on sugar tariffs may have been motivated by the desire
for further donations from the PAC? Or do we confidently presume that the
corn PAC was exercising their right to support candidates throughout the
country with whom they agree on the issues of the day, and had no intent to
purchase the politician's opinion? It's not so hypothetical when you're
paying an extra $10 a
year<http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/01/sugar-tariffs-cost-americans-386.html>for
sugar -- the question matters.

(This is in response to a few recent comments, e.g.:

When I have contributed I have done so in the hope that my they would
> advance the interests I support rather than those of the Forces of Evil
> ... I presume those who supported the Forces of Evil have done so in Pretty
> Good faith, just as I have.

But [politicians] do serve particular viewpoints, because they have
> particular viewpoints. And that is why people who agree with them try to
> get them elected.

Elected officials may well "act in a manner that benefits their campaign
> contributors (or those who make IEs on their behalf) over other
> constituents," but perhaps they would have done it anyway.

)

So to refract the issue, I have this brainteaser. Consider a case
where the same
individual gives $4,000 to George W. Bush and to John Kerry in the 2004
election<http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/j-merkin.asp?cycle=04>.
The individual happens to earn a great deal of money by bending or breaking
the rules in a heavily regulated
industry<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Ezra_Merkin>.
Presume that his donations constitute speech. What message are they
intended to convey? Literally try typing out his message -- I'd be
interested in your interpretation.

My broader concern is this: I don't think that donations can change
politicians' minds on the issues they care about, but I strongly suspect
they can change politicians' minds on the issues they don't care about.

For example: let's say that the US budget constitutes, oh, 100,000 policy
decisions. For any given representative, her constituency will hold her
directly responsible for, say, 100 of those decisions.[1] The
representative herself has a strongly held personal belief as to, say,
10,000 of the budget's policy decisions. As to the remaining 90,000, the
representative is both indifferent and unaccountable. Her only goal is to
work in her constituents' best interests.

Now let's say that a given PAC consistently gives $50,000 to
representatives who come down a given way on one of those 90,000 issues.[2]
This representative spends roughly half of her productive hours fundraising
for her next election. If she gets that $50,000, she'll have an extra
couple of weeks this term to work on the issues that matter to her. Can we
expect that she's making an unbiased decision?

This line of reasoning has led me to the intuitive assumption that, for any
given policy decision where a particular industry has a strong interest in
the outcome and voters show little interest in the outcome, politicians'
stances are likely influenced by their need to seek contributions from that
industry. This strikes me as a suboptimal decision-making process. I'd be
interested to know what strategies are left to try to improve it.

-Jack

[1] I.e., the electorate may care about the overall military budget, but
they'll have no opinion on 99% of the line items within it.
[2] Incidentally, $50,000 per national politician is roughly what the
pharma industry gave in
2008<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/01/08/GR2009010800559.html>,
evenly split between Democrats and Republicans.

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:36 PM, <john.k.tanner at gmail.com> wrote:

> **
> When I have contributed I have done so in the hope that my they would
> advance the interests I support rather than those of the Forces of Evil -
> or why contribute?
>
> There are winners and losers in every election, as I frequently have found
> to my chagrin. Honoring formerly universal principals, I presume those who
> supported the Forces of Evil have done so in Pretty Good faith, just as I
> have.
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
> ------------------------------
> *From: * Daniel Abramson <danielkabramson at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Mon, 25 Jun 2012 20:26:30 -0700
> *To: *<john.k.tanner at gmail.com>
> *Cc: *<law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>; <JBoppjr at aol.com>;
> <law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject: *Re: [EL] Breaking News: Summary Reversal in Montana
>
> Do you believe it is acceptable for elected officials to act in a manner
> that benefits their campaign contributors (or those who make IEs on their
> behalf) over other constituents?
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 3:37 PM, <john.k.tanner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Judges, uniquely among elected officials, are supposed to be neutral
>> arbiters.  Other officials are elected to serve particular viewpoints
>> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Daniel Abramson <danielkabramson at gmail.com>
>> Sender: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 14:57:31
>> To: <JBoppjr at aol.com>
>> Cc: <law-election at uci.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [EL] Breaking News: Summary Reversal in Montana
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120626/de201de0/attachment.html>