Political Action Committees Research Articles

Civic Organizations and the Political Participation of Cross-Pressured Americans: The Case of the Labor Movement

Civic associations underpin American democracy. How can politically cross-cutting associations engage members who hold divergent viewpoints amidst increasing partisan polarization and nationalization of politics? I examine this question in the context of labor unions, studying how unions engage members who hold conservative views at odds with some of the union’s political actions. Using original surveys of local union presidents, members, and non-members along with in-depth interviews in selected local unions, I show how local union leaders can foster norms of participation among politically cross-pressured members. Norms of participation increase conservative members’ perceptions of political representation and engagement in politics, including participation in the union’s political action committee and support for union political mobilization. These findings have implications for understanding civic associations and participation in an era of political division, as well as the role unions continue to play in politics.

Political Giving by Retired U.S. General and Flag Officers

Why do retired U.S. General and Flag Officers (GOFOs) donate to political causes? I argue that retired GOFOs likely sort between nondonors, partisan donors, and corporate political action committee donors. Using a novel data set of all former members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Combatant Commanders from 1979 to 2022 and drawing on data from the Federal Election Commission, I examine the conditions associated with increased likelihood of GOFO political giving. The results suggest that the majority of retired GOFOs are nongivers. However, retired GOFOs are more likely to donate to Republicans than to Democrats, and GOFOs are more likely to donate to Republicans during U.S. presidential elections. I find strong partisan trends in GOFOs’ political giving, and the results provide new insights into the conditions under which retired American GOFOs take domestic political action.

Advocacy: a reflection on my 30 years of orthopedic practice

As orthopedic surgeons, we have the responsibility for advocating for our patients and our profession, on the local, state, and federal levels. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) created the American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons to allow for political advocacy. The Association Political Action Committee, OrthoPAC, was created in 1999 and has become an effective tool in our advocacy committee. The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), along with many orthopedic subspecialty societies, has established an advocacy effort and works with the AAOS through the OrthoPAC as a member of the Advisor’s Circle, which is designed to provide AAOS Members’ group practices and specialty societies with a leadership role within the Political Action Committee of the American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons (Orthopaedic PAC). If we are to preserve individual patient access to specialized musculoskeletal care, we must support state and federal advocacy efforts. This can be in the form of financial support or personal involvement in relationship building. I encourage all members of ASES, especially the younger ones, to support your state orthopedic societies, the ASES, and the AAOS in their advocacy efforts. The well-being of our patients and the future of our profession depend on you.

Who Gives to American Trade and Professional Association Political Action Committees and Why?

Who Gives to American Trade and Professional Association Political Action Committees and Why?

To Toe the Party Line? The Impact of Firm and CEO Partisanship on Corporate Mass-Media Normative Legitimacy

Corporate political activity (CPA) research has traditionally focused on instrumental and strategic value, explicitly ignoring how external stakeholders, specifically the public, view the legitimacy implications of CPA, in particular with regard to partisan forms of CPA. Yet, recent research has begun introducing normative considerations into CPA, highlighting the impact of public evaluations on CPA, and partisan CPA, in particular. Focusing on normative affective legitimacy, as proxied by the tone of mass-media reporting rhetoric, this study explores the effect of firm and CEO partisan political contributions on corporate affective legitimacy. Utilizing three types of dynamic panel data analyses on S&P 500 firms over 20 years, the study provides consistent evidence that both firm-level and CEO-level partisan political action committee contributions are negatively associated with affective-based corporate legitimacy. Post hoc analyses reveal that in response to affective-legitimacy evaluations, firms reduce firm-level partisan political contributions and lobbying expenditures, but not other forms of CPA or partisan CPA. The study also finds that state-level public political polarization moderates the association between CEO partisan contributions and firms’ affective-legitimacy evaluations. This study is the first to systematically document the negative normative impact of CPA and partisan CPA. It strongly informs CPA theory and has practical implications for executives’ use of partisan CPA.

William R. Safarjan (1943-2023).

This article memorializes William R. Safarjan (1943-2023). Dr. Safarjan spent much of his career working as a clinical psychologist for the California Department of State Hospitals at Atascadero State Hospital, 1984-2009. During his professional career, Dr. Safarjan served in many roles with the California Psychological Association, including president in 1998, liaison to the California Psychological Association, and membership chair and chair of the research political action committee. He served as vice chair of the American Psychological Association (APA) membership committee, chair of the APA committee of state leaders, council of representatives from California. In addition to his work in psychology, Dr. Safarjan served in several professional organizations including Rotary International where he was recognized as an outstanding club president (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Commentary: On theory, data, and interpreting results in political CSR research: Reflecting on “Do firms put their money where their mouth is? Sociopolitical claims and corporate political activity”

In examining whether firms align their sociopolitical claims with their corporate political activities (CPA), Preuss and Max (2023) tackle a topic of keen interest to the Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS), corporate social responsibility (CSR), and broader interdisciplinary accounting research communities. They document partial alignment between firms' diversity and environmental claims and the voting records of U.S. Congress members they financially support through political action committee (PAC) contributions, but also report several important caveats. Given that firm strategies on CSR and CPA often are played on ‘two (different) chessboards’ (Den Hond, Rehbein, de Bakker, & Lankveld, 2014), a study such as theirs is difficult to accomplish successfully. I applaud their efforts and believe the objective of their study was met. In my commentary, I use their study as a springboard to discuss key considerations regarding theory, data, and the interpretation of results when performing political CSR research in accounting.

School shootings increase NRA donations.

The United States has experienced a tragic increase in school shootings in recent years. Despite substantial media attention being paid to such incidents and widespread support for stricter gun control measures, substantial legislative action remains absent, however. To make sense of this puzzle, this paper focuses on the mobilizing responses of gun rights supporters in the aftermath of such events. Using granular data from 225,000 donations to the NRA's political action committee in a difference-in-differences design, this study provides causal estimates showing substantial increases in both donation amounts and donor numbers after school shootings. These results provide insight into the counter-mobilizing responses of the pro-gun political right after shootings. In contrast to the typically transient nature of gun control movements, these counter-mobilizing responses are notably durable. The results of this study have important implications for our understanding of the complexities of, and obstacles to, gun regulation in the United States.

Public mass shootings cause large surges in Americans' engagement with gun policy.

As public mass shootings continue to plague the United States, a growing scholarly literature seeks to understand the political effects of these tragic events. This literature, however, focuses on public opinion or turnout and vote choice, leaving open to question whether or not public mass shootings affect a range of other important actions citizens may take to engage with gun policy. Leveraging the as-good-as random timing of high-publicity public mass shootings over the past decade and an immense array of publicly available and proprietary data, we demonstrate that these events consistently cause surges in public engagement with gun policy-including internet searches, streaming documentaries, discussion on social media, signing petitions, and donating to political action committees. Importantly, we document the behaviors where shootings induce polarizing upswings in engagement and those where upswings skew toward gun control. Finally, we demonstrate that low-publicity shootings largely exert little-to-no effect on our outcomes.

Donor activity is associated with US legislators' attention to political issues.

Campaign contributions are a staple of congressional life. Yet, the search for tangible effects of congressional donations often focuses on the association between contributions and votes on congressional bills. We present an alternative approach by considering the relationship between money and legislators' speech. Floor speeches are an important component of congressional behavior, and reflect a legislator's policy priorities and positions in a way that voting cannot. Our research provides the first comprehensive analysis of the association between a legislator's campaign donors and the policy issues they prioritize with congressional speech. Ultimately, we find a robust relationship between donors and speech, indicating a more pervasive role of money in politics than previously assumed. We use a machine learning framework on a new dataset that brings together legislator metadata for all representatives in the US House between 1995 and 2018, including committee assignments, legislative speech, donation records, and information about Political Action Committees. We compare information about donations against other potential explanatory variables, such as party affiliation, home state, and committee assignments, and find that donors consistently have the strongest association with legislators' issue-attention. We further contribute a procedure for identifying speech and donation events that occur in close proximity to one another and share meaningful connections, identifying the proverbial needles in the haystack of speech and donation activity in Congress which may be cases of interest for investigative journalism. Taken together, our framework, data, and findings can help increase the transparency of the role of money in politics.

The rise of political action committees: interest group electioneering and the transformation of American politics by Emily J. Charnock (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020, ISBN: 978-0-19-007551-4)

The rise of political action committees: interest group electioneering and the transformation of American politics by Emily J. Charnock (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020, ISBN: 978-0-19-007551-4)

Do firms put their money where their mouth is? Sociopolitical claims and corporate political activity

Firms increasingly respond to stakeholder demands by making public claims about their stances on polarizing issues, but at the same time their political activities may contradict their claims. We analyze the extent to which firms' sociopolitical claims and their political action committee contributions align. We develop a dictionary of claims related to diversity and environmental protection based on word combinations in firm communications and link firms' political contributions to candidate approval ratings provided by third-party advocacy groups. While firms generally donate mostly to lower-rated politicians (i.e., those with lower environmental and human rights ratings), firms making more sociopolitical claims donate relatively more to higher-rated politicians. The latter is consistent with political alignment but also has further limit: While firms with more claims donate more to higher-rated politicians, they donate no less to lower-rated politicians. Moreover, government subsidies, politicians’ power, and community pressure for diversity and environmental disclosures reduce political alignment.

Healthcare lobbying and campaign finance activities of vision-related professional societies, 2015 to 2022

Purpose To compare the lobbying expenditures and political action committee (PAC) campaign finance activities of the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO), American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS), and American Optometric Association (AOA) from 2015 to 2022. Methods Financial data were collected from the Federal Election Commission and OpenSecrets database. Analysis was performed to characterize and compare financial activity among the organizations. P < 0.05 was considered significant and all analyses were two-sided. Results From 2015 to 2022, the AAO, ASCRS, and AOA spent $6,745,000, $5,354,406, and $13,335,000 on lobbying, respectively. The AOA’s annual lobbying expenditure (median, $1,725,000) was significantly greater than AAO’s ($842,500, P = 0.03) and ASCRS’s ($694,289, P < 0.001). In PAC donations, OPHTHPAC, affiliated with AAO, received $3,221,737 from 2079 donors (median, $900); eyePAC, affiliated with ASCRS, received $506,255 from 349 donors ($500); and AOA-PAC received $6,642,588 from 3641 donors ($825). Compared to eyePAC, median donations to OPHTHPAC (P = 0.01) and AOA-PAC (P = 0.04) were significantly higher. In campaign spending, OPHTHPAC contributed $2,728,500 to 326 campaigns (median, $5000), eyePAC contributed $293,500 to 58 campaigns ($3000), and AOA-PAC contributed $5,128,673 to 617 campaigns ($5500). eyePAC’s median campaign contribution was significantly lower than the AOA’s (P < 0.001) and AAO’s (P = 0.007). Every PAC directed most of its contributions toward Republican campaigns; eyePAC donated the highest proportion (64.9%). Conclusions AOA was more assertive in shaping policy by increasing lobbying expenditures, fundraising, and donating to a greater number of election campaigns.

An Analysis of Political Contributions by Urologists in the United States: 2003-2022.

We sought to better understand the amounts and distribution of political contributions made by urologists in the United States. The Federal Election Commission was analyzed for political contributions from 2003 to 2022 using the search terms "urology," "urologist," or "urologic surgeon." Contributions were classified by political party (Democratic, Republican, or Independent) and were analyzed for temporal, geographic, and demographic trends. There were a total of 26,441 unique contributions that resulted in $9,943,205 after adjusting for inflation. The total amount of political contributions increased significantly over time, with higher numbers during presidential election years. The Republican party received the highest proportion of donations (69.1%). Importantly, women urologists and urologists working in academic centers were significantly more likely to contribute to Democratic committees (P < .001 for both). Texas had the highest total amount of contributions ($395,152). Overall contributions to urology political action committees have steadily decreased since 2011, while contributions to individual campaigns and nonurology political action committees have increased. Urologists have been increasingly contributing to political campaigns over the past 19 years, with most of their individual and political action committee contributions going to Republican committees and candidates. Future research evaluating how growing political engagement by urologists affects the development of new health care policy will be important as a new generation of urologists begins to enter practice.

Advocacy 101 for Interventional Cardiologists: A Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions Policy Statement.

Advocacy is a core mission of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI). SCAI advocates on behalf of interventional cardiologists and our patients. This document provides foundational information and a toolkit for grassroots advocacy by interventional cardiologists. The first half of the document summarizes how health care laws are made, how medical devices are approved, and how procedure reimbursement is determined. The second half of the document is a playbook of advocacy strategies: legislative advocacy, judicial advocacy, advocacy with regulators and payors, advocacy in the media, and participation in SCAI advocacy initiatives, such as the Government Relations Committee and SCAI Political Action Committee. Equipped with this toolbox, interventional cardiologists must increase our advocacy activities with government, payors, and industry.

Corporate Lobbying and ESG Reports: Patterns among US Companies, 1999–2017

AbstractTo lobby legislators, it is important for interest groups to signal their ability to help legislators win elections and provide them with policy-relevant information. We explore for-profit companies’ use of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reports as a signaling device to promote their reputation to legislators and convey their ability to provide electoral and policymaking support, which is valuable for lobbying. To this end, we create a panel dataset by combining ESG reports issued by US companies and the same companies’ lobbying and campaign contribution records from 1999 to 2017. We expect companies to issue more ESG reports, as well as reports containing more quantitative content, when they lobby. The data conform to our expectations. We also reason that lobbying may be more strongly related to ESG reporting when it is coupled with campaign contributions made by affiliated corporate political action committees, but the data do not support this expectation.

Political Priorities, Voting, and Political Action Committee Engagement of Emergency Medicine Trainees: A National Survey.

Medicine is increasingly influenced by politics, but physicians have historically had lower voter turnout than the general public. Turnout is even lower for younger voters. Little is known about the political interests, voting activity, or political action committee (PAC) involvement of emergency physicians in training. We evaluated EM trainees' political priorities, use of and barriers to voting, and engagement with an emergency medicine (EM) PAC. Resident/medical student Emergency Medicine Residents' Association members were emailed a survey between October-November 2018. Questions involved political priorities, perspective on single-payer healthcare, voting knowledge/behavior, and EM PACs participation. We analyzed data using descriptive statistics. Survey participants included 1,241 fully responding medical students and residents, with a calculated response rate of 20%. The top three healthcare priorities were as follows: 1) high cost of healthcare/price transparency; 2) decreasing the number of uninsured; and 3) quality of health insurance. The top EM-specific issue was ED crowding and boarding. Most trainees (70%) were supportive of single-payer healthcare: "somewhat favor" (36%) and "strongly favor" (34%). Trainees had high rates of voting in presidential elections (89%) but less frequent use of other voting options: 54% absentee ballots; 56% voting in state primary races; and 38% early voting. Over half (66%) missed voting in prior elections, with work cited as the most frequent (70%) barrier. While overall, half of respondents (62%) reported awareness of EM PACs, only 4% of respondents had contributed. The high cost of healthcare was the top concern among EM trainees. Survey respondents had a high level of knowledge of absentee and early voting but less frequently used these options. Encouragement of early and absentee voting can improve voter turnout of EM trainees. Concerning EM PACs, there is significant room for membership growth. With improved knowledge of the political priorities of EM trainees, physician organizations and PACs can better engage future physicians.

Abortion Policy Positions of Federal Legislators Who Received Support From the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2012-2022

This cross-sectional study analyzes the abortion policy positions of legislators financially supported by Ob-GynPAC, a political action committee funded by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), between 2012 and 2022.

Funding the war in America: A look in the mirror.

Health care political action committees (HPACs) historically contribute more to candidates opposing firearm restrictions (FRs), clashing with their affiliated medical societies. These societies have increasingly emphasized the prevention of firearm violence and it is not known if recent contributions by their HPACs have aligned with their stated goals. We hypothesized that such HPACs still contribute similar amounts toward legislators up for reelection opposing FR. We identified HPACs of medical societies endorsing one or both calls-to-action against firearm violence published in the Annals of Internal Medicine (2015, 2019). House of Representatives (HOR) votes on H.R.8, a background checks bill, were characterized from GovTrack. We compiled HPAC contributions between the H.R.8 vote and election to HOR members up for re-election from the National Institute on Money in Politics. Our primary outcome was total campaign contributions by H.R.8 stance. Secondary outcomes included percentage of politicians funded and total contributions. Nineteen societies endorsed one or both call-to-action articles. Three hundred eighty-five of 430 HOR members ran for reelection in 2020. Those endorsing H.R.8 (n = 226, 59%) received $2.8 M for $4,750 (interquartile range [IQR], $1000-$15,500) per candidate. Those opposing (n = 159, 41%) received $1.5 M for $2,500 (IQR, $0-$11,000) per candidate ( p = 0.0057). Health care political action committees donated toward a median of 20% (IQR, 7-28) of candidates endorsing H.R.8 and 9% (IQR, 4-22) of candidates opposing H.R.8 ( p = 0.0014). Those endorsing H.R.8 received 1,585 total contributions for a median of 3 (IQR, 1-10) contributions per candidate, while those opposing received 834 total contributions for a median of 2 (IQR, 0-7) contributions per candidate ( p = 0.0029). Politicians voting against background checks received substantial contributions toward reelection from the HPACs of societies advocating for firearm restrictions. However, this is the first study to suggest that HPAC's contributions have become more congruent with their respective societies. Further alignment of medical society goals and their HPAC political contributions could have a profound impact on firearm violence. Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

Corporate populism: How corporations construct and represent ‘the people’ in political contestations

Business implications of the recent surge in populism in societal and academic discourse have been relatively neglected. This is surprising, considering that corporations provide financial support (e.g., donations and political action committees), intellectual resources (e.g., think tanks and public relations firms) and informational channels (e.g., social media platforms) that populist parties and movements depend on. In this article, we develop a conceptualization of corporate populism as a distinct form of firm or industry practice to theorize how corporate political involvement influences democratic processes. The concept of corporate populism problematizes the prevailing treatment of corporations as political actors in corporate political activity (CPA) scholarship by attending to the democratic implications of business mobilization efforts. The practice of corporate populism is significant in that it influences democracies by constructing and reifying divisions in society, legitimizing de-politicization, and repressing representative democratic deliberations.