Researchers at the University of Maryland studying the effect of PAC donations and what members say on the floor of Congress, find that PAC money has a stronger influence on congressional speeches than it has on other aspects of members’ behavior such as roll call votes.

The contributions appear to have more influence on speeches than the party the member belongs to, the committees they’re on and the state where their home district lies.

Conducted over 12 congressional cycles, from 1995-2018, the research explores territory not previously studied, going beyond such well-examined areas as bill sponsorships and roll call votes to look at “the understudied relationship between money and language use,” i.e., speeches. An important reason this is so, the political scientists find, is that “rank-and-file members have little autonomy over the congressional agenda,” while the binary (‘yes/no) nature of roll call votes is itself limiting.

Legislators “have much more discretion over their rhetoric,” enabling them to express shades of meaning otherwise lost. Speeches are also important in ways often overlooked. They influence the thinking of their fellow legislators, demonstrate a member’s expertise and express their commitment to issues, not only to other members but to the media and to their constituents. The study, in case you’re wondering, spans the years before and after Citizens United (2010) but looks at traditional PACs only, not super PACs.

So let cynics make their stale jokes about politicians and hot air. We know better.