The aim of this article is to study the suspect nature of private campaign finance, understood as the donors’ hidden intentions and delayed exchange of reciprocities with incumbents. In particular, I explore whether electoral contributions from private corporations lead to political corruption. On the basis of a cross-national analysis, I find that, first, private financing reduces corruption because the use of this legal mechanism is enough to guarantee that the donors’ interests will be achieved. Second, donors recognize that they have gained influence over policy outcomes, although in the spirit of the electoral laws this is not intended to occur. This increases corruption because incumbents use their positions of power to bend the rules and to adjust regulations and decisions in favor of their financial supporters. This paradox suggests law neutralization.
Administration and Cost of Elections (ACE). (2006). Comparative data: Parties and candidates. The electoral knowledge network. Retrieved July 19, 2011, fromhttp://aceproject.org/epic-en/pc
2.
ApollonioD.La RajaR. (2004). Who gave soft money? The effect of interest group resources on political contributions. Journal of Politics, 66, 1134–1154.
3.
ArndtC.OmanC. (2006). Uses and abuses of governance indicators. Paris, France: OECD.
4.
Austen-SmithD. (1998). Allocating access for information and contributions. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 14, 277–303.
5.
BeckerG. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76, 169–217.
6.
BerkR. (2010). What you can and can’t properly do with regression. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26, 481–487.
7.
BroadmanH.RecanatiF. (1999). Seed of corruption: Do market institutions matter?(World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2368). Washington D.C.: World Bank.
8.
BuscagliaE.van DijkJ. (2003). Controlling organized crime and public sector corruption: Results of the global trends study. In van DijkJ.RuggieroV. (Eds.), Forum on crime and society (pp. 3–35). Vienna, Austria: United Nations Press.
9.
ClaessensS.FeijenE.LeavenL. (2008). Political connections and preferential access to finance: The role of campaign contributions. Journal of Financial Economics, 88, 554–580.
10.
ClausenB.KraayA.MurrellP. (2011). Does respondent reticence affect the results of corruption surveys? Evidence from the World Bank Enterprise Survey for Nigeria. In Rose-AckermanS.SøreideT. (Eds.), International handbook of the economics of corruption (vol. 2, pp. 428–450). London, England: Edward Elgar.
11.
Della PortaD.VannucciA. (1999). Corrupt exchanges. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
12.
DjankovR.FredrikssonP.ManiM. (2002). The regulations of entry. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117, 1–37.
13.
DoubletY. (2010). Political financing: GRECOS’s first 22 evaluations. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.
FuchisE.AdlerS.MitchellL. (2000). Win, place, show. Public opinion polls and campaign contributions in a New York City election. Urban Affairs Review, 35, 479–501.
16.
GambettaD. (2002). Corruption: An analytical map. In KotkinS.SajóS. (Eds.), Political corruption in transition. A skeptic’s handbook (pp. 33–56). Budapest, Hungary: Central European University Press.
17.
GattiR. (1999). Corruption and trade tariffs, or a case of uniform tariffs (World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2216). Washington D.C.: World Bank.
18.
GordonS. (2001). All votes are not created equal: Campaign contributions and critical votes. Journal of Politics, 63, 249–269.
19.
GreenP.WardT. (2004). State crime: Governments, violence and corruption. London, England: Pluto Press.
20.
GrossmanG. M.HelpmanE. (1994). Protection for sale. American Economic Review, 84, 833–850.
21.
HallerD.ShoreC. (2005). Introduction – Sharp practice: Anthropology and the study of corruption. In HallerD.ShoreC. (Eds.), Corruption: Anthropological perspectives (pp. 1–28). London, England: Pluto Press.
22.
HarstadB.SvenssonJ. (2011). Bribes, lobbying and development. American Political Science Review, 105, 46–63.
23.
HartD. (2001). Why do some firms give? Why do some give a lot? High-tech PACs, 1977–1996. Journal of Politics, 63, 1230–1249.
24.
HerschP.McDougallG. (2000). Determinants of automobile PAC contributions to house incumbents: Own versus rival effects. Public Choice, 104, 329–343.
25.
JohnstonM. (2005). Political finance policy, parties and democratic development. Washington, DC: National Democratic Institute for International Affairs.
26.
JohnstonM. (2009). Measuring the new corruption rankings: Implications for analysis and reform. In JohnstonM.HeidenheimerA. (Eds.), Political corruption: Context and concepts (pp. 865–885). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
27.
JohnstonM.HeidenheimerA. (2009). Introduction. In JohnstonM.HeidenheimerA. (Eds.), Political corruption: Context and concepts (pp. 3–14). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
28.
KaufmannD.KraayA.MastruzziM. (2009). Governance matters VIII: Aggregate and individual governance indicators 1996–2008(World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4978). Washington D.C.: World Bank.
29.
KaufmannD.VicenteP. (2011). Legal corruption. Economics and Politics, 23, 195–219.
30.
KnackS. (2006). Measuring corruption in Eastern Europe and Central Asia: A critique of the cross-country indicators(World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 3968). Washington D.C.: World Bank.
31.
LambsdorffJ. (2006). Causes and consequences of corruption: What do we know from a cross-section of countries? In Rose-AckermanS. (Ed.), International handbook on the economics of corruption (pp. 3–51). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
LambsdorffJ. (2008). The institutional economics of corruption and reform. Theory, evidence and policy. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
34.
LambsdorffJ.CorneliusP. (2000). Corruption, foreign investment and growth. In SchwabK.CookL.CorneliusP.SachsJ.SieversS.WarnerA. (Eds.), The Africa competitiveness report 2000/2001 (pp. 70–78). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
35.
La PortaR.Lopez-De-SilanesF.ShleiferA.VishnyR. (1999). The quality of government. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 15, 222–279.
36.
McBarnetD. (2006). After Enron will ‘whiter than white collar crime’ still wash?British Journal of Criminology, 46, 1091–1109.
37.
McCartyN. (2000). Coalitional maintenance. Politicians, parties and organized groups. American Politics Quarterly, 28, 291–308.
38.
McCartyN.RothenbergL. (1996). Commitment and the campaign contribution contract. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 872–904.
39.
MackenzieS.GreenP. (2008). Performative regulation. A case study in how powerful people avoid criminal labels. British Journal of Criminology, 48, 138–153.
40.
MurphyD.RobinsonM. (2008). The maximizer: Clarifying Merton’s theories of anomie and strain. Theoretical Criminology, 12, 501–521.
41.
NassmacherK.-H. (2003). Political parties, funding and democracy. In ReginaldA.TjerbströmM. (Eds.), Funding political parties and election campaigns (pp. 1–19). Stockholm, Sweden: Trydells Tryckeri.
42.
NelkenD.LeviM. (1996). The corruption of politics and the politics of corruption. In NelkenD.LeviM. (Eds.), The corruption of politics and the politics of corruption (pp. 1–16). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
43.
PassasN. (2005). Lawful but awful: ‘Legal corporate crimes.’Journal of Socio-Economics, 34, 771–786.
44.
Pinto-DuschinskyM. (2002). Financing politics: A global view. Journal of Democracy, 13, 69–86.
45.
PiqueroN.PiqueroA. (2006). Democracy and intellectual property: Examining trajectories of software piracy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 605, 104–127.
Rose-AckermanS. (1975). The economics of corruption. Journal of Public Economics, 4, 187–203.
48.
Rose-AckermanS. (1999). Corruption and government. Causes, consequences and reform. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
49.
ShichorD.GeisG. (2007). The itching palm: The crimes of bribery and extortion. In PontellH.GeisG. (Eds.), International handbook of white-collar and corporate crime (pp. 405–423). New York, NY: Springer.
50.
SmithR. (1995). Interest group influence in the US Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 20, 89–139.
51.
SøreideT. (2006). Is it wrong to rank?(CMI Working Paper No. 2006(1)). Bergen: Chr. Michelsen Institute.
52.
StamatelJ. (2006). Incorporating Socio‐historical Context into Quantitative Cross‐national Criminology. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 30, 177–207.
53.
StamatelJ. (2009). Contributions of cross-national research to criminology at the beginning of the 21st century. In KrohnM.LizotteA.HallG. (Eds.), Handbook on crime and deviance (pp. 3–22). New York, NY: Springer.
54.
StratmannT. (1992). Are contributors rational? Untangling strategies of political action committees. Journal of Political Economy, 100, 647–664.
55.
StratmannT. (1998). The market for congressional votes: Is timing of contributions everything?Journal of Law and Economics, 41, 85–113.
StratmannT. (2004). Some talk: Money in politics. A (partial) review of the literature. Public Choice, 124, 135–156.
58.
SungH.-E. (2004). Democracy and political corruption: A cross-national comparison. Crime, Law and Social Change, 41, 179–194.
59.
SvenssonJ. (2005). Eight questions about corruption. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 19–42.
60.
ThompsonT.ShahA. (2005). Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index: Whose perceptions are they anyway?(World Bank Institute discussion paper). Washington D.C.: World Bank.
