Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:33:20.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Corporate Independent Spending in the Post-BCRA to Pre-Citizens United Era

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Susan Clark Muntean
Susan Clark Muntean*
Affiliation:
Ball State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper proposes a theory of political action based upon ownership structure and tests this theory utilizing data on independent expenditures during the campaign finance regulatory regime consisting of the period after the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 and before the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in 2010. The results suggest a strong relationship between the presence of an entrepreneur or founding family and firm participation in electoral politics via contributions to independent political organizations. Both privately held and publicly traded firms with a principal owner present are more likely to contribute to independent political organizations in the first place, and once they do contribute, give a far greater amount relative to firms without a principal owner. The implications for the post-Citizens United era and possible motivations behind independent expenditures and their impact on other stakeholders including investors, employees, competitors, and the public are discussed. This paper contributes to our understanding of which corporate interests are most likely to spend money on electoral politics independent of the political party or candidate and seeks to broaden discourse about why these actors might participate in elections in the first place as well as the impact of their participation.

Keywords

corporate political actionindependent spending527sBCRAfounding family firms
Type
Research Articles
Information
Business and Politics , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , April 2011 , pp. 1 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © V.K. Aggarwal 2011 and published under exclusive license to Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, Ronald C. and Reeb, David M. 2003. Founding-Family Ownership, Corporate Diversification, and Firm Leverage. The Journal of Law and Economics 46 (2): 653–684.Google Scholar
Anderson, Ronald C. and Reeb, David M. 2003. Founding-Family Ownership and Firm Performance: Evidence from the S&P 500. The Journal of Finance 58 (3): 1301–1327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Ronald C. and Reeb, David M. 2004. Board Composition: Balancing Family Influence in S&P 500 Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly 49 (2): 209–237.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, De Figueiredo, John M., and Snyder, James M. 2003. Why Is There so Little Money in U.S. Politics? The Journal of Economic Perspectives 17 (1): 105–130.Google Scholar
Atkinson, Lisa and Galaskiewicz, Joseph. 1988. Stock Ownership and Company Contributions to Charity. Administrative Science Quarterly 33 (1): 82–100.Google Scholar
Bennedsen, Morten and Wolfenzon, Daniel. 2000. The Balance of Power in Closely Held Corporations. Journal of Financial Economics 58 (1): 113–139.Google Scholar
Berle, Adolf A. Jr. 1926. Non-Voting Stock and “Bankers’ Control. Harvard Law Review 39 (6): 673–693.Google Scholar
Berle, Adolf A. and Means, Gardiner C. 1933. The Modern Corporation and Private Property. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Blumentritt, Timothy P. 2003. Foreign Subsidiaries’ Government Affairs Activities. Business & Society 42 (2): 202.Google Scholar
Bonardi, Jean-Philippe and Keim, Gerald D. 2005. Corporate Political Strategies for Widely Salient Issues. The Academy of Management Review 30 (3): 555–576.Google Scholar
Burch, Philip H. Jr. 1972. The Managerial Revolution Reassessed: Family Control in America's Large Corporations. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Co.Google Scholar
Chaganti, R., and Damanpour, F. 1991. Institutional Ownership, Capital Structure, and Firm Performance. Strategic Management Journal 12 (7): 479–491.Google Scholar
Clark Muntean, Susan. 2006. Resurrection of the Robber Barons: Reassessing the Theory of the Firm. Business and Economic History (BEH On-Line). http://www.h-net.org/∼business/bhcweb/publications/BEHonline/2006/clarkmuntean.pdf.Google Scholar
Clark Muntean, Susan. 2008a. Corporate Contributions after the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Election Law Journal 7 (3): 233–244.Google Scholar
Clark Muntean, Susan. 2008b. Analyzing the Dearth in Family Enterprise Research. In Theoretical Developments and Future Research in Family Business, 3–26. Research in Entrepreneurship and Management. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
Clark Muntean, Susan. 2008c. BCRA's Impact on the Political Expenditures of Corporate Interests. Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics 6 (10): Article 9.Google Scholar
Clawson, Dan, Neustadtl, Alan, and Weller, Mark. 1998. Dollars and Votes: How Business Campaign Contributions Subvert Democracy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Cochran, William G. and Rubin, Donald B. 1973. Controlling Bias In Observational Studies: A Review. Sankhya: The Indian Journal for Statistics 35 (4) A: 417–446.Google Scholar
Cook, Ronald G. and Barry, David. 1995. Shaping the External Environment. Business & Society 34 (3): 317.Google Scholar
Daily, Catherine M. and Dollinger, Marc J. 1992. An Empirical Examination of Ownership Structure in Family and Professionally Managed Firms. Family Business Review 5 (2): 117–136.Google Scholar
De Figueiredo, J. M. and Tiller, E. H. 2001. Organizing and Engaging in Nonmarket Activity: A Transactional Analysis of Corporate Lobbying at the Federal Communication Commission. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 10 (1): 91–122.Google Scholar
Diamond, Alexis and Sekhon, Jasjeet S. 2006. Genetic Matching for Estimating Causal Effects: A General Multivariate Matching Method for Achieving Balance in Observational Studies. Institute of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley.Google Scholar
Dyer, W. Gibb Jr. 2003. The Family: The Missing Variable in Organizational Research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 27 (4): 401–416.Google Scholar
Fama, Eugene F. 1980. Agency Problems and the Theory of the Firm. Journal of Political Economy 88 (21): 288–307.Google Scholar
Francia, Peter L, Green, John C., Herrnson, Paul S., Powell, Lynda W., and Wilcox, Clyde. 2003. The Financiers of Congressional Elections: Investors, Ideologues, and Intimates. New York: Columbia University Press Google Scholar
Getz, Kathleen A. 1997. Research in Corporate Political Action: Integration and Assessment. Business & Society 36 (1): 32.Google Scholar
Gordon, Sanford C., Hafer, Catherine, and Landa, Dimitri. 2007. Consumption or Investment? On Motivations for Political Giving. The Journal of Politics 69 (4): 1057–1072.Google Scholar
Greening, Daniel W. and Gray, Barbara. 1994. Testing a Model of Organizational Response to Social and Political Issues. The Academy of Management Journal 37 (3): 467–498.Google Scholar
Grier, Kevin B., Munger, Michael C., and Roberts, Brian E. 1994. The Determinants of Industry Political Activity, 1978-1986. The American Political Science Review 88 (4): 911–926.Google Scholar
Griffin, Jennifer J. and Dunn, Paul. 2004. Corporate Public Affairs: Commitment, Resources, and Structure. Business & Society 43 (2): 196.Google Scholar
Hadani, Michael. 2007. Family Matters: Founding Family Firms and Corporate Political Activity. Business & Society 46 (4): 395–428.Google Scholar
Hansen, Wendy L. and Mitchell, Neil J. 2000. Disaggregating and Explaining Corporate Political Activity: Domestic and Foreign Corporations in National Politics. The American Political Science Review 94 (4): 891–903.Google Scholar
Harris, Lloyd C. and Ogbonna, Emmanuel. 2007. Ownership and Control in Closely-held Family-owned Firms: An Exploration of Strategic and Operational Control. British Journal of Management 18 (1): 5–26.Google Scholar
Hart, David M. 2001. Why Do Some Firms Give? Why Do Some Give a Lot?: High-Tech PACs, 1977-1996. The Journal of Politics 63 (4): 1230–1249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, David M. 2004. “Business” Is Not an Interest Group: On the Study of Companies in American National Politics. Annual Review of Political Science 7: 47–69.Google Scholar
Heckman, James J. 1976. The Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation, Sample Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for Such Models. NBER Annals of Economic and Social Measurement 5 (4): 120–137.Google Scholar
Heckman, James J. 1979. Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error. Econometrica 47 (1): 153–161.Google Scholar
Hillman, Amy J. 2005. Politicians on the Board of Directors: Do Connections Affect the Bottom Line? Journal of Management 31 (3): 464–481.Google Scholar
Hillman, Amy J. and Hitt, Michael A. 1999. Corporate Political Strategy Formulation: A Model of Approach, Participation, and Strategy Decisions. The Academy of Management Review 24 (4): 825–842.Google Scholar
Hillman, Amy J., Keim, Gerald D., and Schuler, Douglas. 2004. Corporate Political Activity: A Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Management 30 (6): 837–857.Google Scholar
Ho, Daniel E., Imai, Kosuke, King, Gary, Stuart, and Elizabeth A. 2007. Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference. Political Analysis 15 (3): 199–236.Google Scholar
James, Harvey S. Jr. 1999. Owner as Manager, Extended Horizons and the Family Firm. International Journal of the Economics of Business 6 (1): 41–55.Google Scholar
Jensen, Michael C. and Meckling, William H. 1976. Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial Economics 3 (4): 305–360.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S. 1977. Power and Independence: World Politics in Transition. Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
La Porta, Rafael, Lopez-de-Silanes, Florencio, and Shleifer, Andrei. 1999. Corporate Ownership Around the World. Journal of Finance 54 (2): 471–517.Google Scholar
Lansberg, Ivan, Perrow, E. L., and Rogolsky, S. 1988. Family Business as an Emerging Field. Family Business Review 1 (1): 1–8.Google Scholar
Long, J. Scott. 2006. Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata/Freese, Jeremy. College Station, Tex.: StataCorp LP.Google Scholar
Lord, Michael D. 2000. Constituency-based Lobbying as Corporate Political Strategy: Testing an Agency Theory Perspective. Business and Politics 2 (3): 289–308.Google Scholar
Lord, Michael D. 2003. Constituency Building as the Foundation for Corporate Political Strategy. The Academy of Management Executive (1993-2005) 17 (1): 112–124.Google Scholar
Masters, Marick F. and Keim, Gerald D. 1985. Determinants of PAC Participation Among Large Corporations. The Journal of Politics 47 (4): 1158–1173.Google Scholar
McConaughy, Daniel and Michael Phillips, G. 1999. Founders versus Descendants: The Profitability, Efficiency, Growth Characteristics and Financing in Large, Public, Founding-Family-Controlled Firms. Family Business Review 12 (2): 123.Google Scholar
McKay, Amy. 2010. The Effects of Interest Groups’ Ideology on Their PAC and Lobbying Expenditures. Business and Politics 12 (2): Article 4.Google Scholar
Meznar, Martin B. and Nigh, Douglas. 1995. Buffer or Bridge? Environmental and Organizational Determinants of Public Affairs Activities in American Firms. The Academy of Management Journal 38 (4): 975–996.Google Scholar
Milyo, Jeffrey, Primo, David, and Groseclose, Timothy. 2000. Corporate PAC Campaign Contributions in Perspective. Business and Politics 2 (1): 75–88.Google Scholar
Morck, Randall and Yeung, Bernard. 2004. Family Control and the Rent-Seeking Society. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 28 (4): 391–409.Google Scholar
Nyman, Steve and Silberston, Aubrey. 1978. The Ownership and Control of Industry. Oxford Economic Papers 30 (1): 74–101.Google Scholar
Ozer, Mine. 2010. Top Management Teams and Corporate Political Activity: Do Top Management Teams Have Influence on Corporate Political Activity? Journal of Business Research 63 (11): 1196–1201.Google Scholar
Ozer, Mine, Alakent, Ekin, and Ahsan, Mujtaba. 2010. Institutional Ownership and Corporate Political Strategies: Does Heterogeneity of Institutional Owners Matter? Strategic Management Review 4 (1), 2010.Google Scholar
Ozer, Mine and Lee, Seung-Hyun. 2009. When Do Firms Prefer Individual Action to Collective Action in The Pursuit of Corporate Political Strategy? A New Perspective on Industry Concentration. Business and Politics 11 (4): Article 4.Google Scholar
Pearl, Judea. 2000. Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ Press.Google Scholar
Pfeffer, Jeffrey and Salancik, Gerald R. 2003. The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.Google Scholar
Phan, Phillip H. and Butler, John E., eds. 2008. Theoretical Developments and Future Research in Family Business. A Volume in Research in Entrepreneurship and Management. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Poza, Ernesto J., Hanlon, Susan, and Kishida, Reiko. 2004. Does the Family Business Interaction Factor Represent a Resource or a Cost? Family Business Review 17 (2), (June 1): 99–118.Google Scholar
Rehbein, Kathleen A. 1995. Foreign-Owned Firms’ Campaign Contributions in the United States: An Exploratory Study. Policy Studies Journal 23 (1): 41–61.Google Scholar
Rehbein, Kathleen A. and Schuler, Douglas A. 1999. Testing the Firm as a Filter of Corporate Political Action. Business & Society 38 (2): 144–166.Google Scholar
Rubin, Donald B. 2005. Causal Inference Using Potential Outcomes. Journal of the American Statistical Association 100 (469): 322–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuler, D.A, Rehbein, K., and Cramer, R. D. 2002. Pursuing Strategic Advantage through Political Means: A Multivariate Approach. Academy of Management Journal 45 (4): 659–672.Google Scholar
Schuler, Douglas A. 1996. Corporate Political Strategy and Foreign Competition: The Case of the Steel Industry. The Academy of Management Journal 39 (3): 720–737.Google Scholar
Schuler, Douglas A. 2002. Public Affairs, Issues Management and Political Strategy: Methodological Approaches that Count. Journal of Public Affairs 1 (4), (January): 336–355.Google Scholar
Schuler, Douglas A., Rehbein, Kathleen, Cramer, and Roxy D. 2002. Pursuing Strategic Advantage Through Political Means: A Multivariate Approach. Academy of Management Journal 45 (4): 659–672.Google Scholar
Schulze, W. S., Lubatkin, M. H., Dino, R. N., and Buchholtz, A. K. 2001. Agency Relationships in Family Firms: Theory and Evidence. Organization Science 12 (2): 99–116.Google Scholar
Schulze, William S., Lubatkin, Michael H., Dino, Richard N., and Buchholtz, Ann K. 2001. Agency Relationships in Family Firms: Theory and Evidence. Organization Science 12 (2): 99–116.Google Scholar
Sekhon, Jasjeet S. 2007. Multivariate and Propensity Score Matching Software with Automated Balance Optimization: The Matching Package for R. Journal of Statistical Software 10 (2): 1–51.Google Scholar
Sekhon, Jasjeet S. 2010. The Neyman-Rubin Model of Causal Inference and Estimation via Matching Methods. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, 271–299. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shaffer, Brian and Hillman, Amy J. 2000. The Development of Business-Government Strategies by Diversified Firms. Strategic Management Journal 21 (2): 175–190.Google Scholar
Shaffer, Brian, Quasney, Thomas J., and Grimm, Curtis M. 2000. Firm Level Performance Implications of Nonmarket Actions. Business & Society 39 (2): 126–143.Google Scholar
Shleifer, Andrei, and Vishny, Robert W. 1986. Large Shareholders and Corporate Control. The Journal of Political Economy 94 (3): 461–488.Google Scholar
Skinner, Richard M. 2005. Do 527's Add Up to a Party? Thinking About the “Shadows” of Politics. The Forum 3 (3), 5.Google Scholar
Skippari, Mika, Eloranta, Jari, Lamberg, Juha-Antti, and Parvinen, Petri. 2003. Conceptual and Theoretical Underpinnings in the Research of Corporate Political Activity: a Bibliometric Analysis. Working Paper. Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
Smith, Richard A. 1995. Interest Group Influence in the U. S. Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly 20 (1), (February 1): 89–139.Google Scholar
Stigler, George J. and Friedland, Claire. 1983. The Literature of Economics: The Case of Berle and Means. Journal of Law and Economics 26 (2): 237–268.Google Scholar
Trochim, William M.K. 2001. Research Methods Knowledge Base. Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog Pub.Google Scholar
Villalonga, Belen and Amit, Raphael. 2005. How Do Family Ownership, Control, and Management Affect Firm Value? Journal of Financial Economics 80: 385–417.Google Scholar
Villalonga, Belen and Amit, Raphael. 2006. Benefits and Costs of Control-Enhancing Mechanisms in US Family Firms. Working Paper, Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, edited by Roth, Guenther and Wittich, Claus. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: Univ of California Press.Google Scholar
Wilts, Arnold. 2006. Identities and Preferences in Corporate Political Strategizing. Business & Society 45 (4), (December 1): 441–463.Google Scholar
Yoffie, David B. 1987. Corporate Strategies for Political Action: A Rational Model. In Business Strategy and Public Policy, edited by Marcus, Alfred A., Kaufman, Allen M., and Beam, David R., 43–60. New York: Quorum Books.Google Scholar
Yoffie, David B., and Bergenstein, Sigrid K. 1985. Creating Political Advantage: the Rise of the Corporate Political Entrepreneur. California Management Review 28 (5): 124–139.Google Scholar
Zardkoohi, Asghar. 1985. On the Political Participation of the Firm in the Electoral Process. Southern Economic Journal 51 (3): 804–817.Google Scholar