Explaining strategies of political action committee (PAC) contributions to candidates takes two forms. Scholars emphasize either PAC or candidate characteristics as having more explanatory power over variation in PAC contributions, and this choice results in different expectations for PAC contribution patterns. Using California fruit, nut, and wine PACs, this research revisits a much-debated question: Why do PACs give to some candidates and not others? The findings indicate a mediated model best explains PAC contributions, as these PACs contribute money according to legislator characteristics but predominantly within the state of California.
Abramowitz, Alan I.1991. Incumbency, campaign spending, and the decline of competition in U.S. House elections. Journal of Politics53 (1): 34-56.
2.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. n.d. Wine producers and blenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Treasury.
3.
Alexander, Brad.2005. Good money and bad money: Do funding sources affect electoral outcomes? Political Research Quarterly58 (2): 353-58.
4.
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M. , Peter M. Radcliffe, and Brandon L. Bartels.2005. The incidence and timing of PAC contributions to incumbent U.S. House members, 1993-94. Legislative Studies Quarterly30 (4): 549-79.
5.
Brambor, Thomas, William Roberts Clark, and Matt Golder.2006. Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis14 (1): 63-82.
6.
Brunell, Thomas L.2005. The relationship between political parties and interest groups: Explaining patterns of PAC contributions to candidates for Congress . Political Research Quarterly58 (4): 681-88.
7.
Campbell, James E., and Joe A. Sumners .1990. Presidential coattails in Senate elections. American Political Science Review84 (2): 513-24.
8.
Chin, Michelle, Jon R. Bond, and Nehemia Geva.2000. A foot in the door: An experimental study of PAC and constituency effects on access. Journal of Politics62 (2) 534-49.
9.
Denzau, Arthur, and Michael Munger.1986. Legislators and interest groups: How unorganized interests get represented. American Political Science Review80 (1): 89-106.
10.
Economic Research Service.2002a. Fruit and tree nuts outlook: FTS-296 (oranges). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.
11.
Economic Research Service.2002b. Fruit and tree nuts outlook: FTS-298 (pistachios). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.
12.
Economic Research Service.2003a. Fruit and tree nuts outlook: FTS-302 (fresh market fruits). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.
13.
Economic Research Service.2003b. Fruit and tree nuts outlook: FTS-303 (raisins). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.
14.
Economic Research Service.2005a. Fruit and tree nuts outlook: FTS-316 (almonds). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.
15.
Economic Research Service.2005b. Fruit and tree nuts outlook: FTS-318 (walnuts). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.
16.
Eismeier, Theodore J., and Philip H. Pollock , III.1984. Political action committees: Varieties of organization and strategy. In Money and politics in the United States: Financing elections in the 1980s, ed. Michael J. Malbin, 122-141. Chatham, UK: Chatham House.
17.
Eismeier, Theodore J., and Philip H. Pollock , III.1986. Strategy and choice in congressional elections: The role of political action committees. American Journal of Political Science30 (1): 197-213.
18.
Grenzke, Janet M.1988. Comparing contributions to U.S. House members from outside their districts. Legislative Studies Quarterly13 (1): 83-103.
19.
Grier, Kevin B., and Michael C. Munger .1986. The impact of legislator attributes on interest group campaign contributions. Journal of Labor Research7 (4): 349-61.
20.
Grier, Kevin B. and Michael C. Munger.1993. Comparing interest group PAC contributions to House and Senate incumbents, 1980-1986. Journal of Politics, 55 (3): 615-643.
21.
Hall, Richard L., and Frank W. Wayman .1990. Buying time: Moneyed interests and the mobilization of bias in congressional committees. American Political Science Review84 (3): 797-820.
22.
Hersch, Philip L., and Gerald S. McDougall .2000. Determinants of automobile PAC contributions to House incumbents: Own versus rival effects. Public Choice104 (3-4): 329-43.
23.
Hojnacki, Marie, and David C. Kimball .1998. Organized interests and the decision to whom to lobby in Congress. American Political Science Review92 (4): 775-90.
24.
Hojnacki, Marie, and David C. Kimball .1999. The who and how of organizations’ lobbying strategies in committee. Journal of Politics61 (4): 999-1024.
25.
Hojnacki, Marie, and David C. Kimball .2001. PAC contributions and lobbying contacts in congressional committees. Political Research Quarterly54 (1): 161-80.
26.
Magee, Christopher.2002. Do political action committees give money to candidates for electoral or influence motives. Public Choice112 (3-4): 373-99.
27.
McCarty, Nolan, and Lawrence S. Rothenberg .2000. The time to give: PAC motivations and electoral timing. Political Analysis8 (3): 239-59.
28.
Poole, Keith T., Thomas Romer, and Howard R. Rosenthal .1987. The revealed preferences of political action committees. American Economic Review77 (2): 298-302.
29.
Poole, Keith T., and Howard R. Rosenthal .1997. Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
30.
Regens, James L., Ronald Keith Gaddie, and Euel Elliot.1993. Member attributes and corporate contributions to United States Senators: Do environmental compliance costs matter?Canadian Journal of Political Science26 (2): 331-41.
31.
Rowhani, Omid, and Daniel A. Sumner .2007. California’s international agricultural exports in 2005. In Agricultural issues center: AIC issue briefs, 1-7Davis: University of California, Davis.
32.
Rudolph, Thomas J.1999. Corporate and labor PAC contributions in House elections: Measuring the effects of majority party status. Journal of Politics61 (1): 195-206.
33.
Sorauf, Frank J.1984. Who’s in charge? Accountability in political action committees. Political Science Quarterly99 (4) 591-614.
34.
Stimson, James A.1985. Regression in space and time: A statistical essay . American Journal of Political Science29 (4): 914-47.
35.
Stratmann, Thomas.1992. Are contributions rational? Untangling strategies of political action committees. Journal of Political Economy100 (3): 647-64.
36.
Taylor, Andrew J.2003. Conditional party government and campaign contributions: Insights from the tobacco and alcoholic beverage industries. American Journal of Political Science47 (2): 293-304.
37.
Van Doren, Terry D., Dana L. Hoag, and Thomas G. Field .1999. Political and economic factors affecting agricultural PAC contribution strategies. American Journal of Agricultural Economics81 (2): 397-407.
38.
Wilcox, Clyde.1989. Organizational variables and the contribution behavior of large PACs: A longitudinal analysis. Political Behavior11 (2): 157-73.
39.
Wright, John R.1985. PACs, contributions, and roll calls: An organizational perspective. American Political Science Review79 (2): 400-14.
40.
Wright, John R.1989. PAC contributions, lobbying, and representation . Journal of Politics51 (3): 713-29.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
