Suchergebnisse

Since the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision, which allowed corporations to make campaign contributions, much of the commentary on the ruling has centered on how it would affect election outcomes. But what has the impact been on policy outcomes? Timothy Werner argues that corporate managers will use the influence of their new spending ability to push for corporate governance laws that will protect their positions from competition. In new research which uses data from 38 states over 15 years, he finds that states are likely to pass one additional antitakeover law when corporate independent expenditures are allowed, and that this effect tends to occur when state legislators feel electorally vulnerable.

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission , supporters of campaign finance reform argued that American politics would soon be awash in corporate cash and that public policy outcomes would reflect the desires of big business. Using event study methodology to isolate the effect of Citizens United on firms' stock prices, this article finds that the financial markets did not share this view. Rather, key events in the case did not significantly affect the share prices of those large firms heavily engaged in and sensitive to politics, suggesting that investors expected the decision to have no effect on political and policy outcomes of concern to corporate America. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright holder.]

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission , supporters of campaign finance reform argued that American politics would soon be awash in corporate cash and that public policy outcomes would reflect the desires of big business. Using event study methodology to isolate the effect of Citizens United on firms' stock prices, this article finds that the financial markets did not share this view. Rather, key events in the case did not significantly affect the share prices of those large firms heavily engaged in and sensitive to politics, suggesting that investors expected the decision to have no effect on political and policy outcomes of concern to corporate America.