Our pal, Amir Sufi, at the University of Chicago School of Business (which got an eye-popping $300 million gift this morning from alumnus David Booth and will, natch, be renamed the University of Chicago Booth School of Business) sent over a copy of his recent research on the role politics is playing in the ever-expanding federal bailout plan.
Sufi and some colleagues have already run the numbers on politicians' voting records for both recent economic bailout packages, and their findings won't ease concerns about misspent billions.
Here's a story about his findings on Slate.com
And a small excerpt from his study:
Representatives from districts experiencing an increase in mortgage default rates are significantly more likely to vote in favor of the AHRFPA. They are precise in responding only to mortgage related constituent defaults, and are significantly more sensitive to defaults of their own-party constituents. Increased campaign contributions from the financial services industry is associated with a higher likelihood of voting in favor of the EESA, a bill which transfers wealth from tax payers to the financial services industry. We also examine the trade-off between politician ideology and constituent and special interests, and find that conservative politicians are less responsive to constituent and special interest pressure. This latter finding suggests that politicians, through ideology, can commit against intervention even during severe crises.