Where there's smoke there's money - Tobacco industry campaign contributions and US congressional voting
Where there's smoke there's money - Tobacco industry campaign contributions and US congressional voting
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.amepre.2004.08.014
复制
发表时间：
2004-12-01
影响因子：
5.5
通讯作者：
Krauss, M
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Luke, DA;Krauss, M
背景：烟草使用是美国主要的可预防死亡原因。造成这一巨大健康负担的直接原因是烟草业活动的有效性，包括竞选捐款。方法：获得了 1997 年至 2000 年间第 106 届美国国会 527 名议员对 49 项烟草相关法案的投票记录。烟草业政治行动委员会 (PAC) 总结了 1993 年至 2000 年每位成员的捐款。构建了一个横截面、多层次模型来预测投票行为基于捐款金额、政党、所在州和州烟草农业的数量。对 2002 年、2003 年和 2004 年的数据进行了分析。 结果：立法者从 17 个烟草业 PAC 收到了总计 6,827,763 美元的资金，平均每位成员收到 12,956 美元。参议院共和党人收到的钱最多（平均 22,004 美元），而参议院民主党人收到的钱最少（平均 6,057 美元）。共和党人在 73% 的情况下投票支持烟草，而民主党人仅在 23% 的情况下投票支持烟草 (p < 0.001)。支持烟草的投票比例因州而异（组内相关系数 = 0.27，p < 0.001）。即使在控制了政党、州和州烟草种植之后，国会议员收到的 PAC 资金数额与支持烟草投票呈正相关（p < 0.01）。对于国会中投票支持烟草的民主党人来说，他们每收到 10,000 美元的捐款，他们这样做的可能性就会增加 9.8%。另一方面，对于投票支持烟草的共和党人来说，每收到 10,000 美元，他们这样做的可能性仅增加 3.5%。 结论：烟草业捐款、政党和州级因素影响国会议员的投票行为。在第 106 届国会中，共和党人投票支持烟草的次数是民主党人的三倍多。然而，对于那些投票支持烟草的民主党人来说，接受烟草业政治行动委员会的资金与支持烟草投票之间的关系比共和党人更强。 (C) 2004 年美国预防医学杂志。
Background: Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. A direct contributor to this massive health burden is the effectiveness of the tobacco industry's activities, including campaign contributions.Methods: Voting records of 527 members of the 106th U.S. Congress were obtained for 49 tobacco-related bills between 1997 and 2000. Tobacco industry political action committee (PAC) contributions for each member were summed from 1993 to 2000. A cross-sectional, multilevel model was constructed that predicts voting behavior based on amount of contributions, political party, home state, and amount of state tobacco agriculture. The data were analyzed in 2002, 2003, and 2004.Results: A total of $6,827,763 was received by the legislators from 17 tobacco industry PACs, an average of $12,956 per member. Senate Republicans received the most money (mean $22,004), while Senate Democrats received the least ($6,057). Republicans voted protobacco 73% of the time and Democrats voted pro-tobacco only 23% of the time (p < 0.001). Pro-tobacco voting percentage varied significantly by state (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.27, p < 0.001). The amount of PAC money received by a member of Congress was positively associated with voting pro-tobacco (p < 0.01), even after controlling for political party, state, and state tobacco farming. For Democrats in Congress who voted pro-tobacco, for every $10,000 contribution they received, they were 9.8% more likely to do so. On the other hand, for Republicans who voted pro-tobacco, for every $10,000 received, they were only 3.5% more likely to do so.Conclusions: Tobacco industry contributions, political party, and state-level factors influence the voting behavior of Congress members. In the 106th Congress, Republicans voted pro-tobacco over three times as often as Democrats. However, for those Democrats who voted pro-tobacco, the relationship between receiving tobacco industry PAC money and a pro-tobacco vote was stronger than it was for Republicans. (C) 2004 American journal of Preventive Medicine.