How Permissive Campaign Finance Laws Slow Down the Revolving Door: Evidence from Citizens United.

In this article, I demonstrate that more permissive campaign finance regulation has a countervailing effect on other forms of money in politics. I argue that because more campaign spending changes incumbents' career incentives, they are less likely to leave electoral politics to take up a lucrative "revolving door" job. Empirically, I exploit the exogenous removal of campaign finance regulation through the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling. Using new data on the post-office employment of state legislators in a difference-in-differences research design, I show that removing campaign finance restrictions reduces the probability that lawmakers go through the revolving door. More permissive campaign finance regulation thus may not necessarily increase the role of money in politics.