Mia Geoly Blog Post 1

The role of money in United States politics is both a legal and political issue that has interested and often divided the public sphere for decades. Citizens United set the precedent that independent expenditures as campaign contributions were protected from government limitation under free speech. Even after the reaction to Citizens United, which set restrictions and transparency regulations for campaign donors, the role that money plays in regards to the policies proposed and endorsed by lawmakers appears somewhat unclear. How do politicians understand members of their constituency and what their policy desires are? Do campaign contributions play any role in policy making?

One study conducted by Joshua L. Kalla and David E. Broockman indicates that campaign contributions can facilitate access to congressional officials. In a randomized field experiment, Kalla and Brockman determined that senior policy makers were significantly more likely to attend meetings when they were informed that meeting attendees were policy donors. This research could have implications for who get their voices heard in congressional offices, which could speak to broader political inequality due to economic circumstances. This issue of contributions and access cannot be understood without discussing the influence of incentives on congressional officials. Their main goal is always to get reelected, which is just about impossible without campaign contributions and financial support. Lawmakers must keep their donors happy in order to assure they at least have a chance at getting reelected. Ensuring their donors will continue contributing requires some level of responding to their concerns as constituents. So if lawmakers disproportionately hear the concerns and desires of donors, what does that say about the way in which they draft policy?

The voices that penetrate the sphere of policy makers matters, as “the constituency that a representative reacts to is the constituency that he or she sees” (Fenno from Brookman&Skovron 542). Another research study on political elites biased perception of public opinion could provide some information on how policy is influenced by the constituents lawmakers interact with. Broockman and Skovron’s research displays that political elites tend to write policy based on biased perceptions of what public opinion is. This could be contributed to the disproportionate time donors are able to obtain with lawmakers, as more politically active people tend to hold more far-right or far-left ideologies. If congressional actors only meet with those who donate, then the constituency may only represent a small portion of the group of people they are supposed to represent.

This could provide explanations for why policies fail to represent public opinion. This could also imply that donors have the ability to shape the way in which politicians perceive public demands. The way that public demand is perceived by lawmakers is vital to policymaking, as their concerns surrounding reelection not only revolves around donations but also public approval of policy agendas. Under this system, how can every individual that is supposedly represented by their lawmaker truly have a voice in the policies that impact them? The above research has posed this question of how much the financial barriers constituents face can impact the decision making of political elites. The lack of response to the demands of the people could be explained by the incentives of congressional officials and how this influences the allocation of their time. What this means for our democracy and representation is yet to be determined and proven by research.