Post-election campaign contributions?

Already a week and a half past the presidential election, the debate over the role of money in politics continues.  Even though the campaigns are over, elected representatives still receive money from interest groups, including more than $800,000 to 9 lawmakers elect, according to this article from thehill.com.  These groups “bundle” funds together from individual contributors since the FEC places no limits on bundled contributions.  The intention is for individuals to group their contributions together in a lump sum, and that a candidate will be more likely to respond to this lump sum.  According to Rep. Musgrave from Colorado, 

“Picture the candidate. You got a contribution here, you got a contribution there from different areas of the country. … Contrast that with bundling, where all this money comes in. That gives the elected official courage because of their stand on life when the issue comes up.” 

This, however, has created some controversy.  Kathy Kiely, a critic of money in politics argues: 

“People who give in these amounts, they are not just speaking, they are investing.” 

 

In class, we discussed two competing theories of what determines campaign contributions.  The political man view holds that contributors give to candidates whose positions are closest to their own, while the economic man view asserts that contributors give to candidates if their contribution affects the candidate’s position.  In the article, Kiely’s comments about contributions being an “investment” are evidence for this economic man position, which views representatives or candidates as investment goods.  The contributors’ intention is to affect the candidate’s position and ultimately voting behavior.  Also, as evidenced by the article, younger, freshman representatives are more likely to receive contributions since their legislative careers are still young, and they may be easier to influence.  Finally, with regards to bundling, Rep. Musgrave’s comments suggest that individuals have an incentive to organize and cooperate in order to donate money in a more effective, way, in a lump sum.  This implies some shared benefits to organizing, which is another principle discussed in class.