This paper develops a probabilistic voting model in which a single lobby group commits campaign contributions to parties, contingent on the policy position the party adopts. Parties may have different propensities for diverting campaign funds towards rents. We show that a party that skims more from contributions mobilises fewer uninformed voters but places more value on receiving greater contributions. Further, the contributions and vote share of the party increases with the distance between the lobby's preferred policy and the median voter's ideal policy. Finally, we show that the equilibrium policy is between the median voter's ideal point and the lobby's preferred policy. Such an equilibrium policy does not maximise the aggregate social welfare due to the distortionary nature of lobbying. However, when an appropriate contribution tax is introduced to limit this distortion, social welfare will be maximised.
We develop a game-theoretical model in which the politicians can be influenced by means of campaign contributions of special interest groups. If there is no legally binding contract, politicians have a proclivity to divert some contributions for private use. In doing so, they maximize their own utility which depends on expected election-winning premium and amount of funds misappropriated. We study the utility maximizing fraction of expropriation emerging from the equilibrium policy platform and the associated contribution level. We then compare results under alternative scenarios, namely, one single lobby group versus multiple lobby groups and one-sided lobbying versus two-sided lobbying.
of, for and by the people. we need a government that actually understands that and doesn t think that it is the ruler. what do you think, david? well, i think that he is speaking to the he has command of one-half of the right wing of the republican party and those are social conservatives. and he has he s had a base with that group for years because of his writings. he is now going after the populous tea party base that is fundamentally anti-government, populist in its notions, and this is a direct appeal to that group that is very anti-washington. let s take a look at the second spot from the carson campaign called drain the swamp. did you know washington is built on a swamp? massive government debt, stifling regulation, special interest politics? partisan dysfunction. now it all makes sense.
things. they are very logical things. if people really sat down and thought about them rather than allowing themselves to be whipped into a frenzy. reporter: trump fresh off the campaign trail in iowa where he bragged about his lead. i love these polls. and i say to people when they always say you love to mention the polls, nobody else does. i said that s because they re losing. they re not stupid people. reporter: now he s struggling to explain two polls in as many days showing he s no longer on top. i was very, very surprised to see it because i think we re doing well in iowa. i have a feeling we re doing much better in iowa than the polls are showing, if you want to know the truth. but we had an amazing crowd. i m sure you saw it because it was all over television. i did. reporter: polls show trump is still in first nationwide. but carson is looking to solidify his position going up on the air waves with two new ads slamming washington. did you know washington is built