Money and Politics

Marginal Revolution has a post on the fact that there is relatively little evidence that in the US campaign contributions have an effect on the votes of legislators (see below)

For Ukraine, the effect is much clearer as often campaign contributors get elected into the parliament giving them a direct vote in policy making

From www.marginalrevolution.com

"Why is there so little money in U.S. politics?"

Tyler Cowen

That's the title of a famous paper by Stephen Ansolabehere, John de Figueireido, and James Snyder. The abstract of the non-gated version (other versions here) reads as follows:

Thirty years ago, Gordon Tullock posed a provocative puzzle: considering the value of public policies at stake and the reputed influence of campaign contributions in policy-making, why is there so little money in U.S. politics? In this paper, we argue that campaign contributions are not a form of policy-buying, but are rather a form of political participation and consumption. We summarize the data on campaign spending, and show through our descriptive statistics and our econometric analysis that individuals, not special interests, are the main source of campaign contributions. Moreover, we demonstrate that campaign giving is a normal good, dependent upon income, and campaign contributions as a percent of GDP have not risen appreciably in over 100 years - if anything, they have probably fallen. We then show that only one in four studies from the previous literature support the popular notion that contributions buy legislators' votes. Finally, we illustrate that when one controls for unobserved constituent and legislator effects, there is little relationship between money and legislator votes. Thus, the question is not why there is so little money politics, but rather why organized interests give at all. We conclude by offering potential answers to this question.