1 - The Senate in transition and campaign finance

Summary

When, by the arbitrary power of the prince, the electors, or the ways of election, are altered, without the consent, and contrary to the common interest of the people, the legislative is altered: for, if others than those whom society hath authorized thereunto, do chuse, or in another way than what society hath prescribed, those chosen are not the legislative appointed by the people.

John Locke The Two Treatises of Government

Adequate and fair representation has been at the center of the democratic debate in the United States since the Founding. In the intervening two centuries, a variety of disputes have arisen regarding the representative nature of the system, often attacking its real or perceived inequitable outcomes. Although the struggle for electoral participation by women and minorities has dominated the debate over representative democracy in the United States since the Civil War, how money affects elections and, therefore, the creation of public policy is also an important question. In this volume, we examine the role of money in campaigns for the contemporary U.S. Senate. Given the centrality of the Senate in policy making, combined with the tremendous powers enjoyed by individual Senators, it is appropriate to delineate the role played by money in contemporary Senate elections. In order to fully test the impact of rent seeking in the campaign-finance system on the political system, we also examine how rent-seeking behavior affects electoral outcomes.