"Big Political Donors Just Looking for Favors? Apparently Not."

Source: Shankar Vedantam, The Washington Post, November 10, 2008.

"The Center for Responsive Politics recently estimated that it cost $5.8 billion to finance the 2008 general elections......Federal discretionary spending in 2008 was more than $1.125 trillion, and total spending was $2.995 trillion." So why don't companies spend more money on elections as a means to influence government policies, since those policies should greatly affect the corporate profits?

Comment: My guess it because there are more effective ways to spend those funds to influence legislation. Of course, it may be that they don't need to spend more to get all the influence that they need. JAD

"Kevin Esterling of the University of California at Riverside matched the size of political contributions to 203 members of Congress with how the lawmakers operated in the House. He found that money systematically flowed away from those who grandstanded before cameras and constituents, and toward "workhorses," the lawmakers who immersed themselves in the minutiae of policy........

In last week's elections, Esterling found that campaign contributions appeared to mediate a clear relationship between analytical ability and the odds of reelection: Both Republicans and Democrats with above-average analytical capability received significantly more in campaign contributions than their show-horse colleagues. In turn, lawmakers who were below average in analytical ability received 7 percent fewer votes on average than those who had above-average analytical skills. In the 2006 elections, reduced analytical ability lowered a lawmaker's vote share by nearly 10 percent. The same patterns held true in the 2004 elections as well.

Comment: I wonder whether there is a hidden variable. For example, do people who have been in Congress longer and longer on their committees have both a higher probability of being reelected and provide more analytic questions in hearings? I can imagine reasons why those in office for a long time might be (or appear) more competitive. They might also have more knowledgeable staffs and the opportunity to enter their questions first during hearings. JAD