竞选捐款和立法投票:牛奶钱和乳品价格支持

W. Welch
{"title":"竞选捐款和立法投票:牛奶钱和乳品价格支持","authors":"W. Welch","doi":"10.1177/106591298203500402","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"-M W fANY MEMBERS of the press and the public apparently believe that interest groups \"buy\" influence by contributing to political campaigns. This belief has been cited as reason for Congress either publicly to finance congressional campaigns or to place a limit on the amount of monies that a candidate may receive from political action committees. In spite of this public discussion, few scholars have investigated systematically whether campaign contributions directly affect public policy or, more specifically, whether the likelihood that a legislator will vote for a bill favored by an interest group increases upon receiving a contribution from the group. Empirical research on legislative voting can be categorized into two groups. The first group of studies has investigated the relationship between dimensions of voting (e.g. composites of votes on several issues) and measures of general district opinion such as referendum results (Miller and Stokes, 1963; Erickson, 1978; Kuklinski, 1977, 1978; Kuklinski and McCrone, 1980; and Markus, 1974). The second group has focused on the relationship between a congressman's vote on specific bills and the opinions (or self-interest) of sections of his constituency (Bernstein and Anthony, 1974; Danielson and Rubin, 1977; Kau and Rubin, 1978, 1979; and Abrams, 1977). Opinion is usually measured by socioeconomic characteristics. To elaborate on Kuklinski's (1979) criticism, the presumption is that legislative voting is influenced by constituents' opinions but socioeconomic characteristics are no more than proxy variables for such opinions. Most of those used are poor proxies because a priori it is not clear which of many characteristics will predict voting and because the ability of a characteristic to predict voting presumably varies over issues. To be an adequate proxy, a socioeconomic characteristic must be sufficiently refined so that it is related to opinion on a specific bill. In the case of a vote on a specific piece of legislation, the size of a group for whom the issue is salient may be a convincing measure of its influence; and the more precisely the group is defined, the better the variable as a proxy. For instance, in this study dairy industry characteristics arguably are better measures of opinion on dairy price supports than general district characteristics such as percentage of the population which is rural. Furthermore, dairy industry characteristics presumably are poor measures of the relevant dimensions of district opinion on issues such as civil rights. For issues involving specific subgroups of votes, the relationship between a proxy variable and voting is not necessarily a black box. However, district level measures of","PeriodicalId":83314,"journal":{"name":"The Western political quarterly","volume":"13 1","pages":"478 - 495"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1982-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"127","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Campaign Contributions and Legislative Voting: Milk Money and Dairy Price Supports\",\"authors\":\"W. Welch\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/106591298203500402\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"-M W fANY MEMBERS of the press and the public apparently believe that interest groups \\\"buy\\\" influence by contributing to political campaigns. This belief has been cited as reason for Congress either publicly to finance congressional campaigns or to place a limit on the amount of monies that a candidate may receive from political action committees. In spite of this public discussion, few scholars have investigated systematically whether campaign contributions directly affect public policy or, more specifically, whether the likelihood that a legislator will vote for a bill favored by an interest group increases upon receiving a contribution from the group. Empirical research on legislative voting can be categorized into two groups. The first group of studies has investigated the relationship between dimensions of voting (e.g. composites of votes on several issues) and measures of general district opinion such as referendum results (Miller and Stokes, 1963; Erickson, 1978; Kuklinski, 1977, 1978; Kuklinski and McCrone, 1980; and Markus, 1974). The second group has focused on the relationship between a congressman's vote on specific bills and the opinions (or self-interest) of sections of his constituency (Bernstein and Anthony, 1974; Danielson and Rubin, 1977; Kau and Rubin, 1978, 1979; and Abrams, 1977). Opinion is usually measured by socioeconomic characteristics. To elaborate on Kuklinski's (1979) criticism, the presumption is that legislative voting is influenced by constituents' opinions but socioeconomic characteristics are no more than proxy variables for such opinions. Most of those used are poor proxies because a priori it is not clear which of many characteristics will predict voting and because the ability of a characteristic to predict voting presumably varies over issues. To be an adequate proxy, a socioeconomic characteristic must be sufficiently refined so that it is related to opinion on a specific bill. In the case of a vote on a specific piece of legislation, the size of a group for whom the issue is salient may be a convincing measure of its influence; and the more precisely the group is defined, the better the variable as a proxy. For instance, in this study dairy industry characteristics arguably are better measures of opinion on dairy price supports than general district characteristics such as percentage of the population which is rural. Furthermore, dairy industry characteristics presumably are poor measures of the relevant dimensions of district opinion on issues such as civil rights. For issues involving specific subgroups of votes, the relationship between a proxy variable and voting is not necessarily a black box. However, district level measures of\",\"PeriodicalId\":83314,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Western political quarterly\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"478 - 495\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1982-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"127\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Western political quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/106591298203500402\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Western political quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/106591298203500402","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 127

摘要

新闻界和公众成员显然相信利益集团通过参与政治活动来“购买”影响力。这种信念被引用为国会公开资助国会竞选或限制候选人从政治行动委员会获得的资金数额的理由。尽管有这样的公开讨论,但很少有学者系统地调查竞选捐款是否直接影响公共政策,或者更具体地说,立法者在收到利益集团的捐款后,是否会增加投票支持利益集团支持的法案的可能性。立法机关投票的实证研究可以分为两类。第一组研究调查了投票的维度(例如,对几个问题的投票的组合)和一般地区意见的衡量,如公民投票结果之间的关系(Miller和Stokes, 1963;埃里克森,1978;库克林斯基,1977,1978;Kuklinski and McCrone, 1980;Markus, 1974)。第二组关注国会议员对特定法案的投票与其选区部分意见(或自身利益)之间的关系(Bernstein and Anthony, 1974;Danielson和Rubin, 1977;Kau and Rubin, 1978, 1979;艾布拉姆斯,1977)。舆论通常以社会经济特征来衡量。为了详细说明Kuklinski(1979)的批评,假设立法投票受到选民意见的影响,但社会经济特征只不过是这种意见的代理变量。所使用的大多数都是很差的代理,因为先验地不清楚许多特征中的哪一个可以预测投票,而且因为一个特征预测投票的能力可能会因问题而异。要成为一个适当的代理,社会经济特征必须充分细化,使其与对具体法案的意见相关。在对一项具体立法进行投票的情况下,对该问题具有重要意义的群体的规模可能是衡量其影响力的一个令人信服的指标;群体定义得越精确,这个变量就越适合作为代理。例如,在这项研究中,乳制品行业的特征可以说是更好的衡量乳品价格支持的意见比一般地区的特征,如农村人口的百分比。此外,乳制品行业的特征可能是对公民权利等问题的地区意见的相关维度的不良衡量。对于涉及特定投票子组的问题,代理变量和投票之间的关系不一定是黑盒。然而,地区层面的措施
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Campaign Contributions and Legislative Voting: Milk Money and Dairy Price Supports
-M W fANY MEMBERS of the press and the public apparently believe that interest groups "buy" influence by contributing to political campaigns. This belief has been cited as reason for Congress either publicly to finance congressional campaigns or to place a limit on the amount of monies that a candidate may receive from political action committees. In spite of this public discussion, few scholars have investigated systematically whether campaign contributions directly affect public policy or, more specifically, whether the likelihood that a legislator will vote for a bill favored by an interest group increases upon receiving a contribution from the group. Empirical research on legislative voting can be categorized into two groups. The first group of studies has investigated the relationship between dimensions of voting (e.g. composites of votes on several issues) and measures of general district opinion such as referendum results (Miller and Stokes, 1963; Erickson, 1978; Kuklinski, 1977, 1978; Kuklinski and McCrone, 1980; and Markus, 1974). The second group has focused on the relationship between a congressman's vote on specific bills and the opinions (or self-interest) of sections of his constituency (Bernstein and Anthony, 1974; Danielson and Rubin, 1977; Kau and Rubin, 1978, 1979; and Abrams, 1977). Opinion is usually measured by socioeconomic characteristics. To elaborate on Kuklinski's (1979) criticism, the presumption is that legislative voting is influenced by constituents' opinions but socioeconomic characteristics are no more than proxy variables for such opinions. Most of those used are poor proxies because a priori it is not clear which of many characteristics will predict voting and because the ability of a characteristic to predict voting presumably varies over issues. To be an adequate proxy, a socioeconomic characteristic must be sufficiently refined so that it is related to opinion on a specific bill. In the case of a vote on a specific piece of legislation, the size of a group for whom the issue is salient may be a convincing measure of its influence; and the more precisely the group is defined, the better the variable as a proxy. For instance, in this study dairy industry characteristics arguably are better measures of opinion on dairy price supports than general district characteristics such as percentage of the population which is rural. Furthermore, dairy industry characteristics presumably are poor measures of the relevant dimensions of district opinion on issues such as civil rights. For issues involving specific subgroups of votes, the relationship between a proxy variable and voting is not necessarily a black box. However, district level measures of
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Judicial decision making and biological fact: Roe v. Wade and the unresolved question of fetal viability. Bicameralism and the Theory of Voting Party, Ideology, and the Lure of Victory: Iowa Activists in the 1980 Prenomination Campaign Campaign Spending in Contests for Governor The End of Methodology? a Review Essay On Evaluation Research Methods
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1