Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T00:31:05.869Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mediated Density: The Indirect Relationship between U.S. State Public Policy and PACs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

Jennifer Benz ,
Justin H. Kirkland ,
Virginia Gray ,
David Lowery ,
Jennifer Sykes  and
Mary Deason
Jennifer Benz*
Affiliation:
University of Chicago, IL, USA
Justin H. Kirkland
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA
Virginia Gray
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA
David Lowery
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, USA
Jennifer Sykes
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA
Mary Deason
Affiliation:
University of Mississippi, University, USA
*
Jennifer Benz, University of Chicago, Public Health Research Department, National Opinion Research Center, Chicago, IL 60637 Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How does the demand for lobbying reflected by government policy activity influence the use of lobbying strategies and tactics? The authors examine this question by assessing how the complexity of the policy space affects the political action committee (PAC) system. They hypothesize that the complexity of the policy space indirectly affects the size and activity of the PAC system through its direct effect on interest organization density. The authors test this hypothesis within the health sector using a unique data set that connects individual interest organizations registered to lobby U.S. state legislatures with active PACs in the state. It appears that social, economic, and political measures of policy space complexity influence the size of the lobbying community, which in turn influences the size and activity of the PAC community.

Keywords

interest groupspolitical action committeespublic policypopulation ecology
Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , December 2011 , pp. 440 - 459
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alwin, Duane, and Hauser, Robert. 1975. “The Decomposition of Effects in Path Analysis.” American Sociological Review 40:37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Jones, Bryan D.. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Jones, Bryan D.. 2005. The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Berry, Jeffrey. 1977. Lobbying for the People. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bosso, Christopher. 2005. Environment, Inc.: From Grassroots to Beltway. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Center for Public Integrity. 2005. “Industry Puts $44 Million into State Lobbying.” www.publicintegrity.org.Google Scholar
Center for Public Integrity. 2006. “Drug Lobby Second to None.” www.publicintegrity.org.Google Scholar
Frendreis, John, and Waterman, Richard. 1985. “PAC Contributions and Legislative Behavior: Senate Voting on Trucking Deregulation.” Social Science Quarterly 66:401–12.Google Scholar
Gais, Thomas, and Jr, Jack Walker. 1991. “Pathways to Influence in American Politics.” In Mobilizing Interest Groups in America, ed. Walker, Jack Jr. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 103–22.Google Scholar
Godwin, Kenneth R. 1988. One Billion Dollars of Influence. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.Google Scholar
Gray, Virginia, and Lowery, David. 1996. The Population Ecology of Interest Representation: Lobbying Communities in the American States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, Virginia, and Lowery, David. 1997. “Reconceptualizing PAC Formation: It's Not a Collective Action Problem, and It May Be an Arms Race.” American Politics Research 25:319–46.Google Scholar
Gray, Virginia, and Lowery, David. 1998. “State Lobbying Regulations and Their Enforcement: Implications for the Diversity of Interest Communities.” State and Local Government Review 30:78–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, Virginia, Lowery, David, Fellowes, Matthew, and Anderson, Jennifer L.. 2005. “Legislative Agendas and Interest Advocacy: Understanding the Demand Side of Lobbying.” American Politics Research 33:404–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grenzke, Janet. 1989. “PACs and the Congressional Supermarket: The Currency Is Complex.” American Journal of Political Science 33:1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Richard, and Wayman, Frank. 1990. “Buying Time: Moneyed Interests and the Mobilization of Bias in Congressional Committees.” American Political Science Review 84:797–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halpin, Darren, and Jordan, Grant. 2009. “Interpreting Environments: Interest Group Response to the Population Ecology Pressures.” British Journal of Political Science 39:243–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Beth L., Baumgartner, Frank R., Pira, Timothy La, and Semanko, Nicholas A.. 2005. “Drawing Lobbyists to Washington: Government Activity and Interest-Group Mobilization.” Political Research Quarterly 58:19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowery, David, and Gray, Virginia. 1994. “The Nationalization of State Interest Group System Density and Diversity.” Social Science Quarterly 75:368–77.Google Scholar
Lowery, David, and Gray, Virginia. 1997. “How Some Rules Just Don't Matter: The Regulation of Lobbyists.” Public Choice 9:139–47.Google Scholar
Lowery, David, and Gray, Virginia. 2007. “Understanding Interest System Diversity: Health Interest Communities in the American States.” Business and Politics 9:1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowery, David, Gray, Virginia, Benz, Jennifer, Deason, Mary, Kirkland, Justin, and Sykes, Jennifer. 2009. “Understanding the Relationship between Health PACs and Health Lobbying in the American States.” Publius 39:70–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nownes, Anthony J. 2003. “The Population Ecology of Interest Group Formation: Mobilizing Gay and Lesbian Rights Interest Groups in the United States, 1950–98.” British Journal of Political Science 23:49–67.Google Scholar
Nownes, Anthony J., and Freeman, Patricia. 1998. “Interest Group Activity in the States.” Journal of Politics 60:86–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nownes, Anthony J., and Lipinski, Daniel. 2005. “The Population Ecology of Interest Group Death: Gay and Lesbian Rights Interest Groups in the United States, 1945–98.” British Journal of Political Science 35:303–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, Dennis P., and Shapiro, Robert Y.. 1991. “Business Political Power: The Case of Taxation.” American Political Science Review 85:852–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlozman, Kaye, and Tierney, John. 1986. Organized Interests in American Democracy. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Schneider, Saundra, ed. 2009. “Federalism and Health Policy Special Issue.” Publius 39:1–209.Google Scholar
Tripathi, Mickey, Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Snyder, James M. Jr. 2002. “Are PAC Contributions and Lobbying Linked? New Evidence from the 1995 Lobby Disclosure Act.” Business and Politics 4:131–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilhite, Allen, and Theilmann, John. 1987. “Labor PAC Contributions and Labor Legislation: A Simultaneous Logit Approach.” Public Choice 53:277–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witko, Christopher. 2005. “Measuring the Stringency of State Campaign Finance Regulation.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 5:295–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher. 1995. “The Public as Thermostat: Dynamics of Preferences for Spending.” American Political Science Review 39:981–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, John R. 1985. “PACs, Contributions, and Roll Calls: An Organizational Perspective.” American Political Science Review 79:400–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, John R. 2004. “Campaign Contributions and Congressional Voting on Tobacco Policy, 1980–2000.” Business and Politics 6:1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar