The normatively troubling impact of attitudes toward the role of money in politics on external political efficacy

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveWe explore whether Americans’ attitudes about the role of money spent on political campaigns and separately their attitudes about the influence of corporations impact their external political efficacy (EE) or perception that the government is responsive to them.MethodsWe conduct three independent sample surveys (total N = 2789) to measure individuals’ attitudes toward the role of money in politics (ARMP), attitudes toward corporations, and EE. We also measure political partisanship to test for moderating effects.ResultsARMP are strongly and positively associated with EE: those who are more favorable of the role money plays in politics view government as more responsive to them. This finding is specific to ARMP and does not extend to corporations, suggesting that public awareness of campaign spending is shaping individuals' views of government responsiveness. We find no evidence that this relationship is moderated by partisanship, despite differing views of money in politics between Democrats and Republicans.ConclusionOur results are normatively troubling and suggest that as campaign spending continues to rise, individuals will increasingly feel that the government is less responsive to their concerns.