Money, Mega-Donors, and Wide-Open Spending

“Money is the mother’s milk of politics.” That old saying seemed quaint in 1971 when Congress enacted the first important campaign-finance laws that regulated and limited how much could be contributed and spent in elections. But so much has changed since then. In recent...

The Problem of Monopolies & Corporate Public Corruption

Defining corruption as the exercise of public power for private, selfish ends, many theorists have argued that individuals can be corrupt even if their actions are legal. This essay explores the knotty question of when legal corporate action is corrupt. It argues that when corporations exercise public power, either through monopolistic control of a market or through campaign contributions and support of governmental actors, they are subject to the same responsibilities of anyone who exercises public power. Therefore, as a theoretical matter, we should call corporations corrupt when they exercise public power selfishly, in a way that puts their own interests over the public's interests. Because they make legal corporate corruption less likely, global anticorruption campaigns should therefore emphasize antimonopoly laws and campaign finance laws.

From the FEC to the Ballot Box: Voter Accountability for Campaign Finance Law Violations

Scholarship suggests the Federal Election Commission lacks adequate enforcement tools to deter those who would violate campaign finance laws. But can and do voters hold political candidates accountable for violating these laws? In this article, we employ two studies to empirically evaluate these questions. The first examines the extent to which media cover campaign finance violations, and how they do so. The second employs an experimental approach to test the effects of such media coverage on evaluations of political candidates, in particular whether knowledge of a candidate’s violation of campaign finance laws erodes voter support. We find that the media are more likely to cover campaign finance impropriety for high-profile offices, when criminal action is alleged, and for most serious violations. We also show that voters care about campaign violations, and certain violations lower voter support similar to other types of political scandal.

Simulated Complexity: A New Classroom Simulation to Teach about Campaign-Finance Laws

ABSTRACTClassroom simulations have become an increasingly popular instructional method in political science to increase student engagement, interest, and learning. This article describes a simulation designed to teach students about the complexities of campaign-finance systems, particularly disclosure requirements. In the simulation, students work in groups to convince others how to vote on a pending ballot measure. After spending more than $200 on materials, groups then must register as ballot-issue committees and comply with state campaign-finance laws, including tracking contributions and expenditures and completing all required forms. The simulation ends with a debrief. Results from several years of debriefs are presented to discuss how students perceive the complexities of campaign-finance laws. Dominant themes include surprise by students in the complexities of these laws and the effects they have on political speech and association.

THE ENFORCEMENT OF VIRTUE

Corruption of public officials is the silent killer of the U.S. economy, and we should reflect carefully on how it might be reined in. That’s the thought behind campaign finance laws. But broad grants of discretion to authorities, which might work in New Zealand, are more likely to be abused in low-trust America, and campaign finance laws are one example of this. First Amendment free speech rights, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, represent its reflection on the American character and the possibility of abuse when Congress tries to restrict political speech. So conservatives are apt to think, and not entirely without reason.