[EL] Donors' demands to Sen. Sinema

[Milyo, Jeffrey D.]

Would it be corrupt for Sinema to cave to donor (or party) demands? If you ask her constituents, the answer would be likely be yes:

Assuming Sinema is motivated by re-election, so representing her constituents with her current stance, then voting in a contrary manner because of a promise to a donor is viewed as corrupt by 75% of the public (Primo and Milyo, Table 5.5 on p. 86<https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/C/bo51203857.html>).  Caving to pressure from party leaders in this circumstance is seen as corrupt by 63% of the public, while just doing it to gain favorable media coverage is also viewed as corrupt by 63% of respondents in our nationally representative survey.

If instead you posit that Sinema's constituents do not support her stance, but that she is acting out of what she believes is in the best interest of the country, then only 22% would call that corrupt, as well...

We find a lot more interesting stuff about public views on corruption and trust in government in the book, but that's enough of a plug for now...

Jeff Milyo
Chairman and Professor of Economics
Department of Economics
University of Missouri
https://economics.missouri.edu/people/milyo

From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 1:30 AM
To: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: [EL] Donors' demands to Sen. Sinema

WARNING: This message has originated from an External Source. This may be a phishing expedition that can result in unauthorized access to our IT System. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
>From the donors' letter<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com%2Ff%2F%3Fid%3D0000017e-7431-dbc8-a1ff-75310e2a0000&data=04%7C01%7Cmilyoj%40missouri.edu%7C872f5afe52ad455f980408d9dd79117a%7Ce3fefdbef7e9401ba51a355e01b05a89%7C0%7C0%7C637784334918775159%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=BItdKY5B6LVmeRrXgepkjlhTVzDs4bQUBPF%2FpNh0Dcw%3D&reserved=0> to Sen. Sinema:

We must draw a line. We cannot in good conscience support you if you refuse to use your office to protect our fundamental rights to vote, and we will be obliged to back alternatives for your seat who will do the right thing for our country. Further, we are in agreement that, should your ultimate decision be to prioritize the veneer of bipartisanship, in the form of an arcane senate rule, over the voting rights that John Lewis put his life on the line to defend, your campaign should return each of our 2018 Senate campaign donations.

Any thoughts on whether this crosses the line from permissible demand (and a permissible threat of political retaliation) into an impermissible implicit quid pro quo?  Not a rhetorical question:  I'd love to know the answer, if there is a clear answer.  Many thanks,

Eugene


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20220122/94e29a94/attachment.html>