I agree that “correlation doesn’t immediately establish incentive.” Campaign contributions are just one factor in determining how a legislator votes. Party, personal views, constituent interests, and many other factors play a role.

MAPLight.org does make the claim, however, that campaign contributions bias our legislative system. Candidates who take positions contrary to industry interests are unlikely to receive industry funds and thus have fewer resources for their election campaigns than those who vote in favor of industry.

A correlation between money given and votes cast, as evident in this bill, suggests that money is biasing our legislative system–either by affecting the issue positions of legislators once they are elected, or by supporting the (re)election of lawmakers who already hold an issue position favorable to the monied interest. This influence of money remains regardless of how much or how little party affiliation correlates with votes on a given bill.

In another example worthy of analysis, on May 7, 2007, the Senate passed an amendment to block Americans from importing prescription drugs from Canada and other countries. Drug manufacturers wanted this amendment to pass. They gave more than twice as much money, on average–$100,104–to each Senator voting Yes, to pass this amendment, as they did to each Senator who voted No–$37,887. (http://www.maplight.org/map/us/bill/60939/SBE4xw/votes/vote-294039 )

This striking correlation between money and votes exists on this amendment despite the vote not falling closely on party lines. You can see each Senator, their party, and how they voted, here: http://www.maplight.org/map/us/bill/60939/SBE4xw/votes/votedetail-294039

I much appreciate your interest in MAPLight.org’s data and appreciate your analysis and interpretation. Our philospophy is to make all the facts available for anyone to interpret as they see fit. I am glad that our data generates discussion, too.

Best,
Dan Newman
MAPLight.org