Why do Political Donors Give Money?
The Debate
This week’s readings get at the heart of the course and asks why do donors give. There are two main theories: the political investment theory- donors primarily give as another means to participate in politics, and the consumption theory-donors primarily give as a means of exerting influence on politicians and receive private gains. Some proponents of the consumption school of thought are Ansolabehere and his colleagues as they conclude through a statistical study that since firms do not flood the market and legislators make decisions on a multitude of factors, donors mostly contribute because of ideological motivations or an excitement for politics . This theory seems to be supported by Chuck Schumer, a democratic Senator who opposed the Iran Deal. Though many donors flocked to him, perhaps to influence his stance, Schumer claims that they had no effect on his decision because this issue was so important . Assuming Schumer is being honest and there are many more lawmakers like him, then donors have little effect on policymakers. On the other hand, scholars like Gordon and his colleagues are part of the investment school of thought as they believe that since the compensation of executives that vary directly with cooperate earnings give more, the motivation for political giving must be to seek gains . This theory may be …show more content…
Both Ansolabehere and Gordon admit this information. Political scientists have also concluded that members of Congress were more likely to take meetings with donors than average members of their constituency . Additionally, it is also clear that the likelihood of someone contributing goes up with income. This makes sense, since rich people have more means to give to politicians regardless whether they simply want to support a cause or make an investment.
My
The Debate
This week’s readings get at the heart of the course and asks why do donors give. There are two main theories: the political investment theory- donors primarily give as another means to participate in politics, and the consumption theory-donors primarily give as a means of exerting influence on politicians and receive private gains. Some proponents of the consumption school of thought are Ansolabehere and his colleagues as they conclude through a statistical study that since firms do not flood the market and legislators make decisions on a multitude of factors, donors mostly contribute because of ideological motivations or an excitement for politics . This theory seems to be supported by Chuck Schumer, a democratic Senator who opposed the Iran Deal. Though many donors flocked to him, perhaps to influence his stance, Schumer claims that they had no effect on his decision because this issue was so important . Assuming Schumer is being honest and there are many more lawmakers like him, then donors have little effect on policymakers. On the other hand, scholars like Gordon and his colleagues are part of the investment school of thought as they believe that since the compensation of executives that vary directly with cooperate earnings give more, the motivation for political giving must be to seek gains . This theory may be …show more content…
Both Ansolabehere and Gordon admit this information. Political scientists have also concluded that members of Congress were more likely to take meetings with donors than average members of their constituency . Additionally, it is also clear that the likelihood of someone contributing goes up with income. This makes sense, since rich people have more means to give to politicians regardless whether they simply want to support a cause or make an investment.
My