Political Scientists have widely explored why legislatures pass campaign finance regulations and how these laws condition the influence of organized interests over elected officials. Studies have not explained how state houses can overcome entrenched interests, to pass more restrictive legislative lobbying laws. Interest group pressure can be overcome when routine politics are impacted by agenda-setting environments and broader state political contexts that prompt the passage of legislative lobbying reforms. Findings suggest that although moralistic political culture and political scandals set the agenda for stricter regulation, the prospects for reform are tempered by the power of organized interests in state houses.
AinsworthS. H. (1997). The role of legislators in the determination of interest group influence. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 22, 517-533.
2.
AndersonJ.NewmarkA.GrayV.LoweryD. (2004). Mayflies and old bulls: Organization persistence in state interest communities. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 4, 140-160.
3.
BirklandT. A. (1997). After disaster: Agenda setting, public policy, and focusing events. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
4.
BoehmkeF. J. (2008). The initiative process and the dynamics of state interest group populations. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 4, 363-383.
5.
BowlerS.DonovanT. (2004). Measuring the effect of direct democracy on state policy: Not all initiatives are created equal. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 4, 345-363.
6.
BowmanJ. S.EnsignD. (1996). Public integrity annual. Kentucky, AR: Council on State Governments.
7.
BrasherH.LoweryD.GrayV. (1999). State lobbying registration data: The anomalous case of Florida and Minnesota too. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 24, 303-314.
8.
BridgesA.KousserT. (2011). Where politicians gave power to the people: Adoption of the citizen initiative in the U.S. states. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 11, 167-197.
9.
BrinigM.HolcombeR. G.SchwartzsteinL. (1993). The regulation of lobbyists. Public Choice, 77, 377-384.
10.
CareyJ. M.NiemiR. G.PowellL. W. (1995, 2000). State legislative survey and contextual data, 1995 [Computer file] (ICPSR Version). Columbus: Kathleen Carr, Ohio State University, Polimetrics Lab [producer]; Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor].
11.
CareyJ. M.NiemiR. G.PowellL. W. (1998). The effects of term limits on state legislatures. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 23, 271-300.
12.
CareyJ. M.NiemiR. G.PowellL. W. (2000). Term limits in the state legislatures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
13.
CareyJ. M.NiemiR. G.PowellL. M.MoncriefG. F. (2006). The effects of term limits on state legislatures: A new survey of the 50 states. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 1, 105-134.
14.
CiglerA. J.LoomisB. A. (2007). Interest group politics. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
DuquetteJ. J. (2002). Campaign finance reform in the Bay State: Is cleanliness really next to godliness. In SchultzD. (Ed), Money, Politics and Campaign Finance Reform in the States. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
17.
ElazarD. J. (1984). American federalism: A view from the states (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Harper and Row.
18.
FitzpatrickJ. L.HeroR. E. (1988). Political culture and political characteristics of the American states: A consideration of some old and new questions. Western Political Quarterly, 41, 145-153.
19.
GerberB. J.MaestasC.DometriusN. C. (2005). State legislative influence over agency rulemaking: The case of ex ante review. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 5, 124-146.
20.
GrayV. (2004). The socioeconomic and political context of the states. In GrayV.HansonR. (Eds.), Politics in the American states: A comparative analysis (8th ed., pp. 1-30). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
21.
GrayV.LoweryD. (1998). State lobbying regulations and their enforcement: Implications for the diversity of interest communities. State and Local Government Review, 30, 78-91.
22.
GrayV.LoweryD. (1999). Interest representation in the states. In WeberR. E.BraceP. (Eds.), American State and local politics: Directions for the 21st century (pp. 241-267). New York, NY: Chatham House.
23.
HammK. E.WeberA. R.AndersonR. B. (1994). The impact of lobbying laws and their enforcement: A contrasting view. Social Science Quarterly, 75, 378-381.
24.
HansenJ. M. (1991). Gaining access. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
25.
HardtJ. (2002). The fuel behind Oklahoma’s politics-The role of money. In SchultzD. (Ed), Money, Politics and Campaign Finance Reform in the States. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
26.
HerzickE. B. (1985). The legal-formal structuring of state politics: A cultural explanation. Western Political Quarterly, 38, 413-423.
27.
HuckshornR. J. (1985). Who gave it who got it? The enforcement of campaign finance laws in the states. Journal of Politics, 47, 773-789.
28.
KingdonJ. W. (2002). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New York, NY: Longman.
29.
LongS. J. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
30.
LongS. J.FreeseJ. (2006). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata (2nd ed.). College Station, TX: Stata.
31.
LoweryD.GrayV. (1997). How some rules just don’t matter: The regulation of lobbyists. Public Choice, 91, 139-147.
32.
LoweryD.SigelmanL. (1982). Political culture and state public policy: The missing link. Western Political Quarterly, 35, 376-384.
33.
MooneyC. Z. (2001). State politics and policy quarterly and the study of state politics: The editor’s introduction. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 1, 1-4.
NewmarkA. J. (2005). Measuring state legislative lobbying regulation, 1990-2003. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 5, 182-191.
36.
NownesA. J. (2001). Pressure and power. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
37.
OpheimC. (1991). Explaining the differences in state lobbying regulation. Western Political Quarterly, 44, 405-421.
38.
OzymyJ. (2010). Assessing the impact of legislative lobbying regulations on interest group influence in U.S. state legislatures. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 10, 397-420.
39.
PersilyN. A. (1997). The peculiar geography of direct democracy: Why the initiative, referendum and recall developed in the American west. Michigan Law and Public Policy Review, 2, 11-41.
40.
PippenJ.BowlerS.DonovanT. (2002). Election reform and direct democracy: Campaign finance reform regulation in the American states. American Politics Research, 30, 559-582.
41.
RamsdenG. P. (2002). State legislative campaign finance research: A review essay. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 2, 176-198.
42.
ReenockC.PoggioneS. (2004). Agency design as an ongoing tool of bureaucratic influence. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 24, 383-406.
43.
RosensonB. A. (2003). Against their apparent self-interest: The authorization of independent state legislative ethics commissions, 1973-96. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 3, 42-65.
44.
RosensonB. A. (2005). The shadowlands of conduct. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
45.
RosenthalA. (2001). The third house: Lobbyists and lobbying in the states. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
46.
SchultzD. (2002). Special interest money in state politics: Lessons from the Minnesota experiment. In SchultzD. (Ed.), Money, politics, and campaign finance reform law in the states (pp. 3-26). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
U.S. Department of Justice, Public Integrity Section. (Various years). Annual report of the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
WitkoC. (2005). Measuring the stringency of state campaign finance regulation. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 5, 295-310.
52.
WitkoC. (2007). Explaining increases in the stringency of state campaign finance regulation, 1993-2002. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 4, 369-393.
