Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T05:19:58.549Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Avenues of influence: on the political expenditures of corporations and their directors and executives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2017

Adam Bonica*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Stanford University, Encina Hall West, 616 Serra Street, Room 307, Stanford, CA 94305-6044, USA
*
Corresponding author: Adam Bonica, e-mail: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The literature on corporate political influence has primarily focused on expenditures made by corporations and their PACs but has largely ignored the political activities of the individuals who lead these firms. To better understand the role of corporate elites in political advocacy, I introduce a new database of campaign contributions made by corporate directors and executives of Fortune 500 firms. Donating to political campaigns is nearly universal among corporate elites. When compared to corporate PACs, corporate elites are more ideological, more willing to support non-incumbents, and less likely to target powerful legislators. The results also reveal substantial heterogeneity in the political preferences of directors both across and within firms. In addition to challenging widely held beliefs about the political leanings of corporate elites, the prevalence of bipartisan boardrooms has important implications for how the preferences of key decision-makers within a firm shape its political activities.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston 

Footnotes

a Replication data is available for download at http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/6R1HAS.

References

Ansolabehere, Stephen, de Figueiredo, John M., and Snyder, James M. 2003. “Why is There so Little Money in U.S. Politics?Journal of Economic Perspectives 17: 105130.Google Scholar
Anzia, Sarah F., and Moe, Terry M. 2014. “Public Sector Unions and the Costs of Government.” Journal of Politics, Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Bonica, Adam. 2013a. “Database on Ideology, Money in Politics, and Elections: Public Version 1.0 [computer File].”.Google Scholar
Bonica, Adam. 2013b. “Ideology and Interests in the Political Marketplace.” American Journal of Political Science 57 (2): 294311.Google Scholar
Bonica, Adam. 2014. “Mapping the Ideological Marketplace.” American Journal of Political Science 58 (2): 367387.Google Scholar
Bonica, Adam, McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2013. “Why Hasn'T Democracy Slowed Rising Inequality?The Journal of Economic Perspectives 27 (3): 103123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burris, Val. 2001. “The Two Faces of Capital: Corporations and Individual Capitalists as Political Actors.” American Sociological Review 66 (3): 361381.Google Scholar
Busch, Marc L., and Reinhardt, Eric. 2000. “Geography, International Trade, and Political Mobilization in U.S. Industries.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (4): 703719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Adrian C., and Windmeijer, Frank A. G. 1996. “R-Squared Measures for Count Data Regression Models with Applications to Health-Care Utilization.” Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 14: 209220.Google Scholar
Chin, M. K., Hambrick, Donald C., and Treviño, Linda K. 2013. “Political Ideologies of Ceos the Influence of Executives' Values on Corporate Social Responsibility.” Administrative Science Quarterly 58 (2): 197232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and Magar, Eric. 1999. “How Much is Majority Status in the U.S. Congress Worth?The American Political Science Review 93 (2): 299309.Google Scholar
de Figueiredo, John M., and Silverman, Brian S. 2006. “Academic Earmarks and the Returns to Lobbying.” Journal of Law and Economics 49 (2): 597625.Google Scholar
Denzau, Arthur T., and Munger, Michael C. 1986. “Legislators and Interest Groups: How Unorganized Interests Get Represented.” American Political Science Review 80 (1): 89106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fremeth, Adam, Schaufele, Brandon, and Richter, Brian. 2013. “Campaign Contributions over Ceos Careers.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 5 (3): 170188.Google Scholar
Gordon, Sanford C., Hafer, Catherine, and Landa, Dimitri. 2007. “Consumption or Investment? On Motivations for Political Giving.” Journal of Politics 69 (4): 10571072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Richard L., and Wayman, Frank W. 1990. “Buying Time: Moneyed Interests and the Mobilization of Bian in Congressional Committees.” American Political Science Review 84: 797820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koger, Gregory, and Nicoll Victor, Jennifer. 2009. “Polarized Agents: Campaign Contributions by Lobbyists.” PS: Political Science and Politics 42: 485488.Google Scholar
Langbein, Laura I. 1986. “Money and Access: Some Empirical Evidence.” The Journal of Politics 48 (4): 10521062.Google Scholar
Milyo, J., Primo, D., and Groseclose, T. 2000. “Corporate PAC Campaign Contributions in Perspective.” Business and Politics 2 (1): 7588.Google Scholar
Ovtchinnikov, Alexei V., and Pantaleoni, Eva. 2012. “Individual Political Contributions and Firm Performance.” Journal of Financial Economics 105 (2): 367392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Maxwell, and Schneer, Benjamin. 2016. “Capitol Gains: The Returns to Elected Office from Corporate Board Directorships.” The Journal of Politics 78 (1): 181196.Google Scholar
Snyder, James M. Jr. 1990. “Campaign Contributions as Investments: The U.S. House of Representatives, 1980–1986.” Journal of Political Economy 98 (6): 11951227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, James M. Jr. 1992. “Long-Term Investing in Politicians; or, Give Early, Give Often.” Journal of Law and Economics 35 (1): 1543.Google Scholar
Tullock, Gordon. 1972. “The Purchase of Politicians.” Western Economic Journal 10 (3): 354355.Google Scholar
Welch, W. P. 1980. “The Allocation of Political Monies: Economic Interest Groups.” Public Choice 35 (1): 97120.Google Scholar