Money and Polarization: How Campaign Limits Are Both a Solution and a Problem

Modern American politics has two common refrains: that it is very polarized, and that it is all about the money.

In a recent study, “Ideological Donors, Contribution Limits, and the Polarization of American Legislatures,” Michael Barber connects these two platitudes. Barber hypothesizes that the level of polarization among legislators is associated with how electoral campaigns are funded; specifically, polarization is related to the types of contributors (individual donors vs. access-seeking PACs) and limits on campaign contributions.

Individual donors and access-seeking Political Action Committees (PACs) are the two largest sources of funding in the US. However, they have different motivations when giving. Individual donors tend to be ideologically driven, which means that they are willing to contribute to candidates who are ideologically similar to them, even when they know the candidates will not be successful. Meanwhile, access-seeking PACs are interested in accessing the lawmaking process and, to achieve this, are willing to contribute to successful candidates with different ideologies. Of course, not all PACs are access-seeking, but ideologically-focused/issue-based PACs are a comparative minority.

States have different limits on campaign contributions, and they change them often. To examine the effect of changes in campaign contribution limits on legislators’ polarization, Barber recorded the actual dollar amount of each limit over time for every state since 1994. He then used this variation—both among and within states over time—to measure polarization.

Barber finds that raising contribution limits for individual donations polarizes legislators in office, while increasing PAC limits leads to greater moderation. He also finds that these changes in contribution limits have larger effects in state legislatures with low (below the median) contribution limits than in states with high limits. Additionally, the study finds that the effect is larger in more professional legislatures (where candidates spend more time campaigning, are better paid, or are more likely to face quality challengers).

Barber uses additional measures to try to explain why this trend occurs. He argues that his research demonstrates that candidates adjust their ideologies, or their levels of polarization, in response to the funding environment. If the limits on individual contributions increase, individual donors have more space to contribute, and ideologically driven funding will be more important. Conversely, if the limits on PAC contributions increase, PACs have a greater ability to contribute, and moderate funding will be more important.

These results, of course, cannot be easily extended to other contexts outside of state legislatures. However, the intuition behind them should be considered when thinking about regulating campaign contributions. If moderation is considered a virtue, then there are good reasons to modify contribution limits to reduce the effect of ideologically driven money.

Article Source: Barber, Michael J. “Ideological Donors, Contribution Limits, and the Polarization of American Legislatures,” The Journal of Politics 78 (2016): 296-310

Featured Photo: cc/(Charles Mann, photo ID: 19752368, from iStock by Getty Images)