CDZ The role of money in lobbying and policymaking

[320 Years of History]

The current election cycle has focused much attention on the conclusion that well heeled organizations and individuals are, by dint of their wealth, able to successfully influence policymakers and legislators more so than can non-wealthy advocates of a given position. Recognizing the intuitiveness, the common sensibility, of that conclusion, I wondered whether, as with other things, the common sense of that conclusion, namely whether lobbying efforts are more or less likely to prevail when or because they have vast financial resources backing them, is borne out by facts obtained from critical examination of the matter. Quite simply, I wondered whether there is any credible and rigorously developed evidence that "big money" gets what it wants when lobbying elected leaders, and if there is, what does it show?

To find the answer to my question, I checked to see if anyone else had already asked the question and performed "serious" research to find out the answer. Well, it turns out people have, and quite frankly, there are more rigorous studies that have answered this question than I'd have ever imagined, and there are more of them than I have time to read. Here, however, are the documents I have read:

• For lobbyists, money doesn’t buy policy, but it can buy things that help achieve policy goals
  
• The Influence of Campaign Contributions on Legislative Policy
  
• Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
  
• Money, Priorities, and Stalemate: How Lobbying Affects Public Policy
  
• Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why (summary)
  
  • Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why (full Study Document)

You read them and then share your thoughts.