Jack Abramoff: The lobbyist’s playbook
Posted: November 7, 2011 | Author: Daniel J. Smith | Filed under: Lobbying | Leave a comment »http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57319075/jack-abramoff-the-lobbyists-playbook/
Corporate PACs give heavily to Democrats
Posted: July 12, 2011 | Author: Daniel J. Smith | Filed under: Lobbying | Leave a comment »http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/nearly-5-workers-for-every-available-job/
A Fistful of Dollars: Lobbying and the Financial Crisis — by Deniz Igan, Prachi Mishra, Thierry Tressel
Posted: May 24, 2011 | Author: Daniel J. Smith | Filed under: Financial Crisis, Lobbying, Uncategorized | Leave a comment »Sent to you via Google Reader
A Fistful of Dollars: Lobbying and the Financial Crisis — by Deniz Igan, Prachi Mishra, Thierry Tressel
Has lobbying by financial institutions contributed to the financial crisis? This paper uses detailed information on financial institutions’ lobbying and mortgage lending activities to answer this question. We find that lobbying was associated with more risk-taking during 2000-07 and with worse outcomes in 2008. In particular, lenders lobbying more intensively on issues related to mortgage lending and securitization (i) originated mortgages with higher loan-to-income ratios, (ii) securitized a faster growing proportion of their loans, and (iii) had faster growing originations of mortgages. Moreover, delinquency rates in 2008 were higher in areas where lobbying lenders’ mortgage lending grew faster. These lenders also experienced negative abnormal stock returns during the rescue of Bear Stearns and the collapse of Lehman Brothers, but positive abnormal returns when the bailout was announced. Finally, we find a higher bailout probability for lobbying lenders. These findings suggest that lending by politically active lenders played a role in accumulation of risks and thus contributed to the financial crisis.
Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2010
Posted: February 24, 2011 | Author: Daniel J. Smith | Filed under: Lobbying | Leave a comment »http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?type=A
One of Obama’s Biggest Donors Now His ‘Economics Adviser’ – Publius Forum
Posted: January 26, 2011 | Author: Daniel J. Smith | Filed under: Corruption, Lobbying, Uncategorized | Leave a comment »
For food-safety overhaul, lobbyists rushed to the table
Posted: January 10, 2011 | Author: Daniel J. Smith | Filed under: Consumer Safety, Lobbying | Leave a comment »http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/03/AR2010120306058.html
Everyone Hates Ethanol Subsidies. Why Can’t We Get Rid of Them?
Posted: December 10, 2010 | Author: Daniel J. Smith | Filed under: Lobbying | Leave a comment »http://reason.com/blog/2010/12/10/everyone-hates-ethanol-subsidi
United States Department of Agriculture, Domino’s Pizza and Anti-Obesity
Posted: November 6, 2010 | Author: Daniel J. Smith | Filed under: Lobbying, USDA | Leave a comment »Dairy Management, which has made cheese its cause, is not a private business consultant. It is a marketing creation of the United States Department of Agriculture — the same agency at the center of a federal anti-obesity drive that discourages over-consumption of some of the very foods Dairy Management is vigorously promoting.
http://jeffreymiron.com/2010/11/one-more-reason-to-avoid-dominos-pizza/
Friends in High Places — by Lauren Cohen, Christopher Malloy
Posted: October 11, 2010 | Author: Daniel J. Smith | Filed under: Democracy, Lobbying, Logrolling, Uncategorized | Leave a comment »Sent to you via Google Reader
Friends in High Places — by Lauren Cohen, Christopher Malloy
Cheap Booze, Cheaper Congressmen
Posted: September 30, 2010 | Author: Daniel J. Smith | Filed under: Alcohol, Lobbying, Monopoly, Uncategorized | Leave a comment »Sent to you via Google Reader
Cheap Booze, Cheaper Congressmen
This Bud’s Not for You
Posted: September 26, 2010 | Author: Daniel J. Smith | Filed under: Corruption, Drugs, Lobbying, Uncategorized | Leave a comment »Sent to you via Google Reader
This Bud’s Not for You
(Jonathan H. Adler)
The California Beer and Beverage Distributors is opposing a California ballot proposition that would legalize marijuana within the state. No surprise there. Some of the CBBD’s members may fear legal marijuana would compete with beer. Interestingly, the CBBD claims it is not opposed to legalization in principle, just the poor wording of this specific proposal. Josh Wright doesn’t buy it. Neither should you.
Daniel J. SmithSent Via Mobile Phone
http://www.danieljosephsmith.com
For Lobbyists, How Much Is a Senate Connection Worth?
Posted: September 24, 2010 | Author: Daniel J. Smith | Filed under: Lobbying | Leave a comment »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XLuaebpdAA
The Effects of Earmarks on the Likelihood of Reelection
Posted: May 22, 2010 | Author: Daniel J. Smith | Filed under: Lobbying, Politics, Public Choice, Special Interest Groups, Uncategorized | Leave a comment »http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1608230
Interest Groups, Information Manipulation in the Media, and Public Policy: The Case of the Landless Peasants Movement in Brazil
Posted: April 5, 2010 | Author: Daniel J. Smith | Filed under: Lobbying, Special Interest Groups | Leave a comment »“We extend the literature on interest group behavior and policy outcomes by examining how groups with limited resources (votes and campaign contributions) effectively influence government by manipulating media information to voters. Voters in turn lobby politicians to implement the group’s preferred policies. In this manner interest groups can secure favorable government actions beyond their size and wealth. This is an important contribution because of the increased role of the media in the information age and because this linkage better explains observed government policies. We develop a multi-principal, multi-task model of interest group behavior and generate the characteristics of interest groups that would be most successful using publicity to secure their policy objectives. We apply the model to the Landless Peasants’ Movement in Brazil. We detail how the Landless Peasants’ Movement molds information; show the general voter response; and examine the reaction of politicians in changing the timing and nature of policy.”
http://papers.nber.org/papers/w15865#fromrss
Gigantism in Lawmaking
Posted: March 30, 2010 | Author: Daniel J. Smith | Filed under: Government, Health Care, Health Insurance, Lobbying, Logrolling, Public Choice | Leave a comment »http://thinkmarkets.wordpress.com/2010/03/30/gigantism-in-lawmaking/
Health Care and Lobbying
Posted: March 17, 2010 | Author: Daniel J. Smith | Filed under: Health Care, Health Insurance, Lobbying | Leave a comment »Posted: March 16, 2010 | Author: Daniel J. Smith | Filed under: Lobbying, Politics, Price Controls, Quotes | Leave a comment »
“When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators” — P.J. O’Rourke.
Political Influence behind the Veil of Peer Review: An Analysis of Public Biomedical Research Funding in the United States
Posted: February 24, 2010 | Author: Daniel J. Smith | Filed under: Lobbying, Politics, Research, Science | Leave a comment »http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/605565
The U.S. public biomedical research system is renowned for its peer review process that awards federal funds to meritorious research performers. Although congressional appropriators do not earmark federal funds for biomedical research performers, I argue that they support allocations for those research fields that are most likely to benefit performers in their constituencies. Such disguised transfers mitigate the reputational penalties to appropriators of interfering with a merit‐driven system. I use data on all peer‐reviewed grants by the National Institutes of Health during the years 1984–2003 and find that performers in the states of certain House Appropriations Committee members receive 5.9–10.3 percent more research funds than those at unrepresented institutions. The returns to representation are concentrated in state universities and small businesses. Members support funding for the projects of represented performers in fields in which they are relatively weak and counteract the distributive effect of the peer review process.
Under Obama’s Watch, Lobbyists Keep On Keepin’ On
Posted: February 23, 2010 | Author: Daniel J. Smith | Filed under: Lobbying, Obama, Uncategorized | Leave a comment »Sent to you via Google Reader
Under Obama’s Watch, Lobbyists Keep On Keepin’ On
Automobile “Safety” Inspections Research
Posted: December 15, 2009 | Author: Daniel J. Smith | Filed under: Automobile Safety Permits, Lobbying, Public Safety, Special Interest Groups | Leave a comment »http://www.jstor.org/pss/30027176
http://www.jstor.org/pss/30025852
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2487049
What a Wise Mother Would Wish Her Children to Do For a Living if ObamaCare Passes
Posted: November 9, 2009 | Author: Daniel J. Smith | Filed under: Corporatism, Health Care, Health Insurance, Lobbying, Special Interest Groups | Leave a comment »What a Wise Mother Would Wish Her Children to Do For a Living if ObamaCare Passes
Political lobbying explained through the example of all-pay auctions
Posted: November 3, 2009 | Author: Daniel J. Smith | Filed under: Democracy, Lobbying, Special Interest Groups | Leave a comment »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QN_kt97w7Wg&feature=player_embedded#
HT: Marginal Revolution
