Votes For Sale? Interest Groups, Lobbyists, and Politicians.

At a press conference before the Iowa Caucus in 2016, Donald Trump told the crowd, “The fact is that whether it’s Jeb, or Hillary, or any of ’em—they’re all controlled by these people!  And the people that control them are the special interests, the lobbyists and the donors.”  The American public agrees with Trump.  A New York Times/CBS poll showed that 85 percent of Americans believe politicians reward big-money donors with policy favors.  Moreover, a Gallup Poll showed that Americans find lobbying to be the least honest and ethical of all professions, even shadier than used car sales associates, ad execs, and members of Congress.  If true, it puts the locus of American political power on K Street, not on Capitol Hill or at 1600 Pennsylvania.    

Fortunately, this view isn’t quite correct.  Many political scientists, myself included, believe that: (1) interest group money rarely buys a politician’s vote, and (2) lobbyists are usually honest.  And, no, the American Political Science Association is not selling oceanfront property in Arizona. 

Let’s first consider what interest group money buys.  The evidence shows a strong correlation between the amount of money an interest group contributes to a politician and how that politician votes:

more money = more favorable votes for the interest group

less money = less favorable votes for the interest group. 

But, as we all learned from Intro to Statistics, correlation is not causation.  Consider the two causal mechanisms that could produce a correlation between money and votes.  The first is that interest groups use their money to buy a politician’s votes; this is the position of Trump and most of the American public.  A second possibility is that interest group money follows the votes.  In this scenario, interest groups donate to those politicians who already support their position.  

There are good reasons to suspect that, in most cases, money follows the votes.  Political scientist John Wright found that, in the 1980s and 90s, tobacco companies donated to politicians already opposed to more governmental regulation.  Big Tobacco didn’t buy anyone’s vote; it just rewarded those members of Congress who shared a common interest in small government and Cohibas. 

As I write this, America is dealing with yet another mass murder of children by someone with an AR-15.  I am among the many Americans who think that no one needs, nor should have, military-style assault rifles.  But our inability to ban assault weapons is not because the NRA gives out campaign donations.  Republican senators keep blocking these bills because they either believe more guns make us safer, or they represent citizens who do.  I’m sure that Ted Cruz would still filibuster gun control bills if the NRA never gave him a dime.  And I’m also sure that there is no amount of money in the world that could convince someone like AOC to start screaming about 2nd Amendment rights. It’s not about the money for members of Congress, it’s about the votes.   

So, what does interest group money buy if not votes?  First, it helps the right people get elected and stay in office.  If an interest group has a stalwart in Congress, they want that person to say in office for a long time and don’t mind paying for the privilege.  Second, interest group money buys access.  All things being equal, politicians are far more likely to sit down with a generous financial donor than with non-donors, a fact that politicians use to their advantage.  Lobbyists routinely receive dialing-for-dollar calls from members of Congress who say, “I’m hosting a $1,000 per plate dinner this Friday.  How many tickets do you want?”  The message is clear: Want access?  Pony up!  (This congressional shakedown turns the conventional view that interest groups are the marionettists who use their money to pull politicians’ strings).  Finally, cash buys activity.  It takes effort to navigate the labyrinthine D.C. legislative process, and interest group money can buy a “horse”—i.e., a member of Congress willing to expend the necessary energy on a group’s behalf.  Although none of this seems very sporting in an ideal democratic world, neither is it the perfidious, backroom quid pro quo that most people think exists between politicians and interest groups. 

Are lobbyists honest?  I realize that for most people, the words lobbyists: honesty go together as well as Trump: humility or seagull: sushi.  But when lobbyists deal with members of Congress, they are usually pretty honest.  Consider that a lobbyist’s career depends on access to politicians, and trustworthiness is the key to that access.  If a lobbyist lies to a member of Congress, then access to that member is cut off forever—members of Congress don’t like to be lied to [insert own joke here].  Moreover, the offended member of Congress is likely to encourage her colleagues to sever all ties with the lying, no-good lobbyist—members of Congress are quite vindictive.  Consequently, lobbyists have an incentive not to lie to members of Congress.

None of this suggests that interest groups and lobbyists champion the public good.  A series of highly questionable Supreme Court decisions have given interest groups—including corporations and unions—the ability to spend unlimited amounts of largely unregulated money to spread their message.  This “issue advocacy” doesn’t have to be fair, transparent, or even truthful.  Consequently, individuals and groups with more money have more (not necessarily better) political speech, which offends my conception of political equality. 

Although lobbyists rarely lie to members of Congress, they are pretty good at spinning issues.  Spinning isn’t lying, but neither is it completely truthful.  In the Hollywood movie Thank You for Smoking, Big Tobacco lobbyist Nick Naylor reframes smoking not as a public health concern but as a matter of personal liberty.  The upshot is that the groups with the most money to spend have the greatest ability to spin political issues for the American public.  In the end, the group that can spin is the group that can win.

I think money has a corrupting influence on American politics, just not how most Americans think.  Interest groups and lobbyists usually can’t buy off members of Congress with a paltry PAC contribution.  That’s the good news.  The bad news is that we’ve embarked on a troubling new era in which Super PACS spend massive amounts of dark money to shape public opinion (I’ll cover this in subsequent posts).  Perhaps we should worry less about interest groups buying politicians’ votes and more about interest groups buying our own.