In this chapter, Primo and Milyo offer a theoretical foundation for why and how public perceptions of American democracy are thought to be tied to the role of money in the political system. They cast doubt on these microfoundations, showing that a hydraulic theory of influence implies that attempts to limit access and influence by restricting campaign contributions will lead to a reorientation of efforts by affected interests—not capitulation. Moreover, because research in social choice theory establishes there is no such thing as the “will of the people,” the notion that money in politics “distorts” outcomes—a central claim of campaign finance reformers—has little meaning in the absence of some normative standard, which itself will be the subject of dispute.
Chicago Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs, and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us.