Search

Begin New Search Topic Legislation Political Geography United States of America

11. Measuring the Impact of Campaign Finance on Congressional Voting: A Machine Learning Approach

Author:
Matthias Lalisse
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET)
Abstract:
How much does money drive legislative outcomes in the United States? In this article, we use aggregated campaign finance data as well as a Transformer based text embedding model to predict roll call votes for legislation in the US Congress with more than 90% accuracy. In a series of model comparisons in which the input feature sets are varied, we investigate the extent to which campaign finance is predictive of voting behavior in comparison with variables like partisan affiliation. We find that the financial interests backing a legislator’s campaigns are independently predictive in both chambers of Congress, but also uncover a sizable asymmetry between the Senate and the House of Representatives. These findings are cross-referenced with a Representational Similarity Analysis (RSA) linking legislators’ financial and voting records, in which we show that “legislators who vote together get paid together”, again discovering an asymmetry between the House and the Senate in the additional predictive power of campaign finance once party is accounted for. We suggest an explanation of these facts in terms of Thomas Ferguson’s Investment Theory of Party Competition: due to a number of structural differences between the House and Senate, but chiefly the lower amortized cost of obtaining individuated influence with Senators, political investors prefer operating on the House using the party as a proxy.
Topic:
Corruption, Elections, Legislation, and Money
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

12. Stop Fighting Blind: Better Use-of-Force Oversight in the U.S. Congress

Author:
International Crisis Group
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
International Crisis Group
Abstract:
The U.S. constitution divides war powers between the executive and legislative branches, so as to ensure that decisions about using force are collective and deliberative. Lawmakers’ role has receded, however, particularly in recent decades. Small steps would help them start reclaiming their prerogatives.
Topic:
Military Strategy, Legislation, Civil-Military Relations, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

13. After the CHIPS Act: The Limits of Reshoring and Next Steps for U.S. Semiconductor Policy

Author:
Vishnu Kannan and Jacob Feldgoise
Publication Date:
11-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
The U.S. Congress’s recent success in passing the CHIPS and Science Act (informally the CHIPS Act) shows that legislators are united on one point: the United States needs to manufacture more semiconductors at home. This idea gained traction during the worst days of the coronavirus pandemic, when global shortages of semiconductors halted the manufacturing of automobiles, traditional consumer electronics, and other products that use semiconductors, such as household appliances.1 As demand for these products soared during the pandemic, the world experienced painful price inflation, which amplified the acute geopolitical tensions between the United States and China.2 U.S. policymakers, already worried that dependence on Taiwan for the most sophisticated semiconductors could imperil national security and economic security, saw an urgent need to act.3 And together, rising prices and geopolitical competition underscored the need to invest in domestic economic revitalization. The CHIPS Act’s $52.7 billion investment in domestic semiconductor manufacturing (see table 1) aims to fulfill three main objectives: 1) reduce the likelihood that shocks abroad might disrupt the supply of chips, 2) boost American international economic competitiveness and create domestic jobs, and 3) protect semiconductors from being sabotaged in the manufacturing process. This paper argues that the CHIPS Act, by itself, will not fully accomplish any of these goals. The act is a major step forward, but it leaves multiple gaps that require additional government action.
Topic:
Industrial Policy, Legislation, Trade, and Semiconductors
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

14. CHIPS Act will spur US production but not foreclose China

Author:
Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Megan Hogan
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE)
Abstract:
The CHIPS and Science Act, export controls, and agreements with allied countries will accomplish many of their multiple objectives. More US semiconductor fabrication plants will be built, US R&D will be accelerated, and advanced chips and chip-making machines will be denied to China, Russia, and other adversaries. However, the Act will not make a material difference to US chip supplies in the next two or three years. Slower economic growth has already tipped the chips market in favor of ample supplies. While collective measures have inflicted considerable short-term pain on China, causing a sharp drop in the fortunes of its high-tech firms, China will respond by redoubling its self-sufficiency programs. The United States, however, should not mimic China in pursuing self-sufficiency, as US self-sufficiency is an illusion. The United States currently exports high-value chips and imports low-value chips, so increasing self-sufficiency would require the United States to prioritize basic chip production at the same time it is supposed to be competing with China in advanced chip production. Continuing to prioritize advanced chip production—where the United States has a clear advantage—is the most efficient course of action.
Topic:
Economics, Legislation, Exports, Production, and Semiconductors
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and United States of America

15. Breaking Down the Arguments for and against U.S. Antitrust Legislation

Author:
Caitlin Chin
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Abstract:
In many areas of the world, including the European Union, United Kingdom, South Korea, and Australia, governments are considering new legislation to check the market power of a few dominant technology platforms. Yet some of the most sweeping proposals are taking place within the U.S. Congress. In October 2020, the majority staff of the House Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law published a set of recommendations to promote competition in technology markets, the result of a 16-month investigation that directed attention to the actions of Alphabet (the parent company of Google), Amazon, Apple, and Facebook (now Meta). The House Judiciary Committee advanced six bills in June 2021 that paralleled many of these recommendations, focusing on the anticompetitive impacts of self- preferencing, mergers and acquisitions, data accumulation, and network effects related to digital platforms. Meanwhile, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to advance the American Innovation and Online Choice Act and Open App Markets Act in early 2022. While antitrust reform has seen broad bipartisan support in Congress, members of both parties have also expressed concerns that these bills might have unintended consequences. For example, many of the newly proposed restrictions would only apply to “covered platforms” that meet certain size or categorical criteria—which, under current market conditions, would primarily include Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, and Meta. In turn, some critics have asserted that unequal rules could create arbitrary winners or losers in the marketplace and even benefit foreign competitors or bad actors at the expense of U.S. technological innovation. To put these issues into context, below is an overview of seven major bills under consideration in the U.S. House and Senate as well as the related challenges, commentary, and controversies that surround them.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Legislation, Antitrust Law, and Emerging Technology
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

16. Measuring Congressional Impact on Defense Acquisition Funding

Author:
Seamus P. Daniels and Todd Harrison
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Abstract:
Congress exercises its oversight authority on the executive branch’s defense policy via the appropriations process and can choose to match, modify, or eliminate the Department of Defense’s (DoD) requested funding levels for acquisition programs primarily funded by the procurement and research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) accounts. Congress’s decisions in this process can have a significant impact on the executive branch’s defense plans by making adjustments to acquisition projects’ program of record. This in turn can force DoD program management teams to alter schedules and contracting actions, causing second-order effects on private sector partners in the acquisition process. To measure Congress’s impact on defense acquisition funding, this study compares the actual funding level for procurement and RDT&E accounts with the original level proposed in the administration’s budget request and identifies patterns in which accounts are regularly adjusted by Congress. It assesses procurement and RDT&E accounts between fiscal year (FY) 2001 and FY 2020 and conducts data cuts of acquisition funding at the account, category, military department, and budget activity levels. This analysis ultimately aims to inform defense planners, acquisition officials and program managers, and industry partners of trends in congressional appropriations for defense so they can better anticipate Congress’s impact on defense acquisition funding.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Legislation, Defense Industry, and Civil-Military Relations
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

17. Competition and Content Moderation

Author:
Jennifer Huddleston
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has played a pivotal role in fostering the internet ecosystem we have today. Although the law applies to millions of websites of all sizes, critics often misconstrue it as a special exemption for “big tech” companies, shielding them from legal scrutiny; however, platforms large and small are liable for all content they create or develop, even if only in part. Yet many lawmakers see Section 230 as a stumbling block impeding fairness and accountability online. Their arguments fail to consider the expansive impact that Section 230 has had in fostering and preserving a competitive online marketplace over the past 25 years. Its protections for both platforms and users have proven essential to increasing competition.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Social Media, Legislation, Content Moderation, and Competition
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

18. Universal Preschool: Lawmakers Should Approach with Caution

Author:
Colleen Hroncich
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
Children are not widgets. What works well for one may not work for another. That is why education is not a one‐​size‐​fits‐​all endeavor. When looking at preschool or K–12 education, having a diversity of options is essential.
Topic:
Education, Children, Legislation, Preschool, and Schools
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

19. Unfair Trade or Unfair Protection? The Evolution and Abuse of Section 301

Author:
Scott Lincicome, Inu Manak, and Alfredo Carrillo Obregon
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 gives the U.S. trade representative (USTR) broad authority to investigate “unfair” foreign trade policies allegedly harming American companies and to impose tariffs or other trade restrictions to achieve the removal of those policies. The statute was a common tool of U.S. trade policy from the 1980s to the 1990s, authorizing the USTR to conduct almost 100 different investigations during that period. Since the World Trade Organization (WTO) was established in 1995, however, the USTR has used Section 301 infrequently and almost exclusively to initiate or implement WTO dispute settlement actions—actions that, per WTO rules, were supposed to supplant the kinds of unilateral trade actions once applied under the law. The Trump administration departed from this long‐​standing U.S. practice and took advantage of Section 301’s flaws to circumvent the WTO and enact unilateral tariffs against multiple U.S. trading partners, imposing significant economic and geopolitical costs along the way. This paper examines the Trump administration’s actions in historical context, evaluates how the law was stretched beyond its intended purpose in direct contravention of the United States’ WTO obligations, and offers practical reforms to prevent future abuse.
Topic:
Economics, Legislation, Trade, Protectionism, and WTO
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

20. Why the CHIPS Are Down: Stock Buybacks and Subsidies in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry

Author:
William Lazonick and Matt Hopkins
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET)
Abstract:
The Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) is promoting the Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) for America Act, introduced in Congress in June 2020. An SIA press release describes the bill as “bipartisan legislation that would invest tens of billions of dollars in semiconductor manufacturing incentives and research initiatives over the next 5-10 years to strengthen and sustain American leadership in chip technology, which is essential to our country’s economy and national security.” On June 8, 2021, the Senate approved $52 billion for the CHIPS for America Act, dedicated to supporting the U.S. semiconductor industry over the next decade. This paper highlights a curious paradox: Most of the SIA corporate members now lobbying for the CHIPS for America Act have squandered past support that the U.S. semiconductor industry has received from the U.S. government for decades by using their corporate cash to do buybacks to boost their own companies’ stock prices. Among the SIA corporate signatories of a letter to President Biden in February 2021, the five largest stock repurchasers—Intel, IBM, Qualcomm, Texas Instruments, and Broadcom—did a combined $249 billion in buybacks over the decade 2011-2020, equal to 71 percent of their profits and almost five times the subsidies over the next decade for which the SIA is lobbying. In addition, among the members of the Semiconductors in America Coalition (SIAC), formed specifically in May 2021 to lobby Congress for the passage of the CHIPS for America Act, are Apple, Microsoft, Cisco, and Google. These firms spent a combined $633 billion on buybacks during 2011-2020. That is about 12 times the government subsidies provided under the CHIPS for America Act to support semiconductor fabrication in the United States in the upcoming decade. If the Congress wants to achieve the legislation’s stated purpose of promoting major new investments in semiconductors, it needs to deal with this paradox. It could, for example, require the SIA and SIAC to extract pledges from its member corporations that they will cease doing stock buybacks as open-market repurchases over the next ten years. Such regulation could be a first step in rescinding Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-18, which has since 1982 been a major cause of extreme income inequality and loss of global industrial competitiveness in the United States.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Regulation, Legislation, Strategic Competition, Subsidies, and Lobbying
Political Geography:
United States of America