Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The impact of legislator attributes on union PAC campaign contributions

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Labor Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Unions are shown to have a sophisticated understanding of the political process, and to allocate their political resources based on this understanding. Two different tests of this hypothesis are presented. First, using a chi-square test, we show union contributions go disproportionately to members of committees with legislative and regulatory jurisdiction over their activities. Second, using logistic regression analysis, we demonstrate that this result is robust with respect to the inclusion of other institutional variables such as seniority, voting record, party, and electoral competitiveness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bennett, James T. “Unions and Politics.”Journal of Labor Research 5 (Summer 1984): 263–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chappell, Henry W. “Campaign Contributions and Voting on the Cargo Preference Bill.”Public Chcice 36 (1981): 301–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • _____ “Campaign Contributions and Congressional Voting: A Simultaneous Probit-Tobit Model.”Review of Economics and Statistics 64 (February 1982): 77–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coughlin, Cletus G. “Domestic Content Legislation: House Voting and the Economic Theory of Regulation.”Economic Inquiry 23 (October 1985): 437–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, D. R.The Analysis of Binary Data. London: Chapman and Hall, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzau, Arthur and Robert Mackay. “Gatekeeping and Monopoly Power of Committees: An Analysis of Sincere and Sophisticated Behavior.”American Journal of Political Science 27 (November 1983): 740–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denzau, Arthur and Michael Munger. “Legislators and Interest Groups: How Unorganized Interests Get Represented.”American Political Science Review 80 (March 1986): 89–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eismeier, Theodore J. and Philip H. Pollock III.Business, Money, and the Rise of Corporate PACs in American Elections. New York: Quorum Books, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  • Endersby, James W. “Institutional Constraints and Strategic Behavior: Three Essays on Competition for Desirable Policy Outcomes.” Ph. diss. University of Texas, 1990.

  • Evans, Diana. “Oil PACs and Aggressive Contribution Strategies.”Journal of Politics 50 (November 1988): 1047–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenno, Richard F.Congressmen in Committees. Boston: Little, Brown, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fink, Gary M., ed.Labor Unions. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frendreis, John P. and Richard W. Waterman. “PAC Contributions and Legislative Behavior: Senate Voting on Trucking Deregulation.”Social Science Quarterly 66 (June 1985): 401–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gifford, Courtney D.Directory of U. S. Labor Organizations. Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs, 1986, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, George, Jr.The Little Legislatures. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gopoian, J. David. “What Makes PACs Tick? An Analysis of the Allocation Patterns of Economic Interest Groups.”American Journal of Political Science 28 (May 1984): 259–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grenzke, Janet M. “PACs and the Congressional Supermarket: The Currency Is Complex.”American Journal of Political Science 33 (February 1989): 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grier, Kevin and Michael C. Munger. “The Impact of Legislator Attributes on Interest-Group Campaign Contributions.”Journal of Labor Research 7 (Fall 1986): 349–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • _____. “Committee Assignments, Constituent Preferences, and Campaign Contributions.”Economic Inquiry 29 (January 1991): 24–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, Richard and Frank Wayman. “Buying Time: Moneyed Interests and the Mobilization of Bias in Congressional Committees.”American Political Science Review 84 (September 1990): 797–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kau, James B. and Paul H. Rubin. “The Impact of Labor Unions on the Passage of Economic Legislation.”Journal of Labor Research 2 (Fall 1981): 133–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • _____.Congressmen, Constituents, and Contributors. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishing, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langbein, Laura I. “Money and Access: Some Empirical Evidence.”Journal of Politics 48 (November 1986): 1052–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masters, Marick F. and Delaney, John Thomas. “Interunion Variation in Congressional Compaign Support.”Industrial Relations 23 (Fall 1984): 410–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • _____. “Contemporary Labor Political Investments and Performance.”Labor Studies Journal 11 (Winter 1987): 220–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masters, Marick F. and Asghar Zardkoohi. “The Determinants of Labor PAC Allocations to Legislators.”Industrial Relations 25 (Fall 1986): 328–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • _____. “Congressional Support for Unions’ Positions Across Diverse Legislation.”Journal of Labor Research 9 (Spring 1988): 149–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munger, Michael C. “Allocation of Desirable Committee Assignments: Extended Queues versus Committee Expansion.”American Journal of Political Science 32 (May 1988): 317–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • _____. “A Simple Test of the Thesis that Committee Jurisdictions Shape Corporate PAC Contributions.”Public Choice 62 (1989): 181–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peltzman, Sam. “Constituent Interest and Congressional Voting.”Journal of Law and Economics 27 (April 1984): 181–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poole, Keith T. and Thomas Romer. “Patterns of Political Action Committee Contributions to the 1980 Campaigns for the United States House of Representatives.”Public Choice 47 (1985): 63–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poole, Keith T., Thomas Romer, and Howard Rosenthal. “The Revealed Preferences of Political Action Committees.”American Economic Review 77 (May 1987): 298–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roeder, Edward.PACs Americana: A Directory of Political Action Committees and Their Interests. Washington, DC: Sunshine Services Corporation, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabato, Larry J.PAC Power: Inside the World of Political Action Committees. New York: W.W. Norton, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saltzman, Gregory M. “Congressional Voting on Labor Issues: The Role of PACs.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review 40 (January 1987): 163–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepsle, Kenneth A.The Giant Jigsaw Puzzle: Democratic Committee Assignments in the Modern House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silberman, Jonathan I. and Garey C. Durden. “Determining Legislative Preferences on the Minimum Wage: An Economic Approach.”Journal of Political Economy 84 (April 1976): 317–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stubbs, Walter.Congressional Committees, 1789–1982: A Checklist. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Bureau of the Budget. Office of Statistical Standards.Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1967. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Congress. Joint Committee on Congressional Operations.Rules Adopted by the Committees of Congress, 94th Congress, June 1975. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Congress. Joint Committee on Printing.Official Congressional Directory. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1977–1986.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Congress. Committee on Rules.Rules Adopted by the Committees of the House of Representatives, 99th Congress 1985–1986. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  • _____.Rules Adopted by the Committees of the House of Representatives, 100th Congress, 1987–1988. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics.Directory of National Unions and Employee Associations, 1979. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Federal Election Commission.Campaign Expenditures in the United States, 1977–1986: Reports on Financial Financial Activity Data [computer files]. Washington, DC: USFEC [producer], 1982, 1986, 1988. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 1982, 1986, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  • _____.FEC Reports on Financial Activity, Final Report, Party and Non-Party Political Committees: Vol. ISummary Tables. Washington, DC: USFEC, 1985, 1988, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Statistical Policy Division. 1978.Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1977 Supplement. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  • _____.Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1987. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, Marvin and David U. Greevy.The PAC Directory. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weingast, Barry R. and William J. Marshall. “The Industrial Organization of Congress; or, Why Legislatures, Like Firms, Are Not Organized as Markets.”Journal of Political Economy 96 (February 1988): 132–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welch, W. P. “Campaign Contributions and Legislative Voting: Milk Money and Dairy Price Supports.”Western Political Quarterly 35 (December 1982): 478–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilhite, Al. “Union PAC Contributions and Legislative Voting.”Journal of Labor Research 9 (Winter 1988): 79–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilhite, Allen and John Theilmann. “Labor PAC Contributions and Labor Legislation: A Simultaneous Logit Approach.”Public Choice 53 (1987): 267–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, Woodrow.Congressional Government: A Study in American Politics. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1885.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, John R. “PACs, Contributions, and Roll Calls: An Organizational Perspective.”American Political Science Review 79 (June 1985): 400–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • _____. “PAC Contributions, Lobbying, and Representation.”Journal of Politics 51 (August 1989): 713–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • _____. “Contributions, Lobbying, and Committee Voting in the U.S. House of Representatives.”American Political Science Review 84 (June 1990): 417–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, Edward P.Almanac of Federal PACs. Washington, DC: Amward Publications, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Missouri, 65201, Columbia, MO

    James W. Endersby

  2. University of North Carolina, 27599, Chapel Hill, NC

    Michael C. Munger

Authors
  1. James W. Endersby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael C. Munger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

The authors thank James Bennett, Kevin Grier, Melvin Hinich, Brian Roberts, and an anonymous referee for helpful comments on earlier drafts.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Endersby, J.W., Munger, M.C. The impact of legislator attributes on union PAC campaign contributions. Journal of Labor Research 13, 79–97 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02685453

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02685453

Keywords

Search

Navigation