• About
  • Campaign Finance
  • Personal Finances
  • Lobbying
  • Revolving Door

About Academic Research

The data sets provided by OpenSecrets are a goldmine for academics as well as journalists and interested citizens. Employing OpenSecrets data, scholars have investigated every aspect of money in politics -- from campaign contributions to lawmakers' investments to shadow lobbying. Click on the above tabs to read their research and find out what they've discovered.

If you've used OpenSecrets data in your research and would like to see it cited on this page, contact us at [email protected].

Campaign Finance

With the billions spent on federal elections growing by the cycle, campaign finance is a more prominent — and controversial — topic of discussion than ever before. Each election cycle, journalists and voters have to evaluate all kinds of competing claims about the role of money in elections. How and from whom do politicians get their contributions? How effectively does all that money translate into votes? And to what extent do big campaign contributors get special access or favors in return for their donations?

OpenSecrets' massive database of campaign contributions and expenditures allows scholars to go beyond anecdotal evidence to answer these questions. Academics have used our data to analyze patterns of giving by liberal and conservative PACs, investigate the relationship between campaign contributions and lobbying as strategies for buying influence, and distinguish ideological donors from those with a financial stake.

Personal Finances

In some ways, lawmakers' finances look a lot like those of many Americans. They include diverse portfolios of stocks, bonds, mutual funds and real estate. They have bank accounts, credit cards and mortgages. The difference: Politicians generally have more money and-unlike most people they represent-they must make their investments public. Journalists and academics have taken advantage of this public data (made searchable by OpenSecrets) to spot conflicts of interest, track trends in lawmakers' portfolios over time, and tackle the politically sensitive question of whether elected officials are using insider information for financial gain.

Lobbying

In addition to making campaign contributions to elected officials and candidates, companies, labor unions, and other organizations spend billions of dollars each year to lobby Congress and federal agencies. Some special interests retain lobbying firms, many of them located along Washington's legendary K Street; others have lobbyists working in-house. All hope to influence the direction and scope of legislation and government regulations, but some are more successful than others.

Researchers have examined the OpenSecrets' database of lobbying expenditures to determine how the influence industry works -- and how often those who ply the trade get what they want. The research below finds that lobbying often justifies its cost with a strong return on investment, but that even the best-funded lobbying efforts often fail to overcome Washington's status quo bias.

Revolving Door

Although the influence powerhouses that line Washington's K Street are just a few miles from the U.S. Capitol building, the most direct path between the two doesn't involve public transportation. Instead, it's through a door-the revolving door that deposits federal employees in jobs as lobbyists, consultants and strategists, and leads former hired guns into government careers. When congressional and executive branch officials and senior staffers spin in and out of the private and public sectors, so too does power, access and, of course, money.

While lobbyists aren't always forthcoming about the tricks of their trade, academics have been able to shed light on the effects of the revolving door by studying OpenSecrets' lobbying data. For example, political scientists have used OpenSecrets data to demonstrate that revolvers' success in the lobbying industry is closely tied to the fortunes of their former bosses on Capitol Hill, suggesting that lobbyists are valued more for their ability to peddle access than for their expertise.