Journal of Labor Research

, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp 349–361 | Cite as

The impact of legislator attributes on interest-group campaign contributions

  • Kevin B. Grier
  • Michael C. Munger


Legislators possess political assets that economic interest groups may find valuable in pursuing their goals. This paper examines the effect these legislative assets have on the campaign contributions made by two large and easily identifiable interest groups: corporations and labor unions. Committee assignment, voting record, and electoral security are significant predictors of both corporate and union contributions to House incumbents, while party affiliation and years in office also influence the behavior of union political action committees.


Interest Group Public Choice Election Cycle Campaign Contribution Party Affiliation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abrams, Burton A. and Russell Settle. “The Economic Theory of Regulation and Public Financing of Presidential Elections,”Journal of Political Economy 86 (April 1978): 245–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amemiya, Takeshi. “Regression Analysis When the Dependent Variable Is Truncated Normal,”Econometrica 41 (November 1973): 997–1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barro, Robert J. “The Control of Politicians: An Economic Model,”Public Choice 17 (Spring 1973): 19–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker, Gary S. “A Theory of Competition Among Pressure Groups for Political Influence,”Quarterly Journal of Economics 98 (August 1983): 371–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ben-Zion, Uri and Zeev Eytan. “On Money, Votes and Policy in a Democratic Society,”Public Choice 21 (Spring 1974): 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Almanac. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Inc., various issues.Google Scholar
  7. Crain, W. Mark, Thomas Deaton, and Robert Tollison. “Legislators as Taxicabs: On the Value of Seats in the U.S. House of Representatives,”Economic Inquiry 15 (April 1977): 298–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crain, W. Mark and Robert Tollison. “Campaign Expenditures and Political Competition,”Journal of Law and Economics 19 (April 1976): 177–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Denzau, Arthur T. and Robert Mackay. “Gatekeeping and Monopoly Power of Committees: An Analysis of Sincere and Sophisticated Behavior,”American Journal of Political Science 27 (November 1983): 740–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Denzau, Arthur T. and Michael C. Munger. “Legislators and Interest Groups: How Unorganized Interests Get Represented,”American Political Science Review (March 1986).Google Scholar
  11. Dougan, William and Michael C. Munger. “The Rationality of Ideology,” University of Chicago Working Paper, May 1986.Google Scholar
  12. Glazer, A. and M. Robbins. “How Elections Matter: A Study of U.S. Senators,”Public Choice 46 (Spring 1985): 163–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grier, Kevin B. “Congressional Preference and Federal Reserve Policy: A Principal — Agent Approach,”Center for the Study of American Business Working Paper Series, October 1985.Google Scholar
  14. Heckman, James. “The Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation, Sample Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for Such Models,”Annals of Economic and Social Measurement 5 (Fall 1976): 475–92.Google Scholar
  15. Jacobson, Gary C.Money in Congressional Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  16. Kau, James and Paul Rubin.Congressmen, Constituents and Contributors. Boston: Nijhoff, 1982.Google Scholar
  17. Mayhew, David R.Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  18. Peltzman, Sam. “Toward a More General Theory of Regulation,”Journal of Law and Economics 19 (June 1976): 211–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Poole, Keith T. and Thomas Romer. “Patterns of Political Action Committee Contributions to the 1980 Campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives,”Public Choice 47 (1985): 63–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tobin, James. “Estimation of Relationships for Limited Dependent Variabljs,”Econometrica 26 (January 1958): 24–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Weingast, Barry R. “The Congressional-Bureaucratic System: A Principal-Agent Perspective,”Public Choice 44 (1984): 147–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. — and Mark Moran. “Bureaucratic Discretion or Congressional Oversight? Regulatory Policy-making by the Federal Trade Commission,”Journal of Political Economy 91 (October 1983): 765–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Welch, W. P. “The Economics of Campaign Funds,”Public Choice 20 (Winter 1974): 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. —. “The Allocation of Political Monies: Economic Interest Groups,”Public Choice 35 (Spring 1980): 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin B. Grier
    • 1
  • Michael C. Munger
    • 2
  1. 1.George Mason UniversityFairfax
  2. 2.University of TexasAustin

Personalised recommendations