Why contribute?

We talked in class about how donors can often see contributions as investment goods. The CBS article discusses how many conservative -leaning donors feel as though they had almost no return for their investment. The article says that the super PAC, American Crossroads, spent over $100 million to influence the election with little to show for it.

"A study by the Sunlight Foundation found that just 1.29 percent of the nearly $104 million it spent in the general election ended with the desired result"

This included both the presidential election as well as congressional candidates. Other lobbying organizations such as Crossroads GPS, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the NRA has similarly disappointing results. On the other hand, the Forbes article explains just why donors may decided to continue to contribute amidst dismal results. The casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson spent $53 million dollars in this election cycle. Yet the article says this is a "bargain." Why?

"It bought Adelson a direct line into every politician- and media outlet-- in America. When Adelson calls, you're going to pick up the phone. And pick it up fast."

It's not just about the economic benefit to Adelson. The article says that Adelson is a strong supporter of Israel, which is another policy issue that he could influence through campaign contributions.. This is exactly what we were talking about in class-- Adelson would likely be more willing to contribute to a candidate if the contribution affects the candidate's position. Even if he didn't influence the outcome of this election, Adelson may now have major influence with conservative candidates in the future.