I have to admit being one of those people very upset by the
Supreme Court rulings on campaign finance over the past years. The majority opinion has been that without a
quid pro quo agreement, money does not create a corrupting influence. But anyone familiar with behavioral science
knows that this could not be further from the truth. When someone does you a favor, even with no
discussion whatsoever of any reciprocation, you develop at least an unconscious
if not an overt urge to reciprocate. And
when it is unconscious, the influence can be even more dangerous because you
can’t inhibit what you don’t even know about.
So a lobbying group or donor of some kind gives a large sum
of money to a political campaign. They don’t
ask for anything in return except for the politician to listen for a few
minutes to their case. The politician
will be influenced nonetheless. Even just
being predisposed to be open to the argument can make it more convincing that
the other side’s argument that was not accompanied by a donation.
The lobbying group may even say explicitly that they don’t
want any favors in return. This can
often lead to an even stronger reciprocation urge. The more strongly you insist you don’t want a
favor in return, the stronger the urge to give you one. Yes, it happens. But the Supreme Court doesn’t seem to get
this.
