Graphics by Amy Cesal and Ben Chartoff
In the 2012 election 28 percent of all disclosed political contributions came from just 31,385 people. In a nation of 313.85 million, these donors represent the 1% of the 1%, an elite class that increasingly serves as the gatekeepers of public office in the United States.
More than a quarter of the nearly $6 billion in contributions from identifiable sources in the last campaign cycle came from just 31,385 individuals, a number equal to one ten-thousandth of the U.S. population. In the first presidential election cycle since the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC, candidates got more money from a smaller percentage of the population than any year for which we have data, a new analysis of 2012 campaign finance giving by the Sunlight Foundation shows. These donors contributed 28.1 percent of all individual contributions in the 2012 cycle, a record high. One sign of the reach of this elite “1% of the 1%”: Not a single member of the House or Senate elected last year won without financial assistance from this group. Money from the nation’s 31,385 biggest givers found its way into the coffers of every successful congressional candidate. And 84 percent of those elected in 2012 took more money from these 1% of the 1% donors than they did from all of their small donors (individuals who gave $200 or less) combined. This elite 1% of the 1% dominated campaign giving even in a year when President Barack Obama reached new small donor frontiers (small donors are defined as individuals giving in increments of less than $200). In 2014, without a presidential race to attract small donors, all indicators are that the 1% of the 1% will occupy an even more central role in the money chase. The nation’s biggest campaign donors have little in common with average Americans. They hail predominantly from big cities, such as New York and Washington. They work for blue-chip corporations, such as Goldman Sachs and Microsoft. One in five works in the finance, insurance and real estate sector. One in 10 works in law or lobbying. The median contribution from this group of elite donors? $26,584. That’s a little more than half the median family income in the United States. Watch a video summary of The Political 1% of the 1% Continue reading
Groups come together in support of Senate e-filing
A coalition of groups interested in campaign finance reform and government openness, including the Sunlight Foundation, have joined together to urge Senators to support the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act and "help ensure that citizens have the same access to campaign finance information about Senate candidates that they currently have regarding all other federal candidates, political parties, and federal PACs." Candidates for President and the House of Representatives file their campaign finance reports electronically; So do party committees and federal PACs. Only Senate candidates still do things the old fashioned way, filing their campaign finance reports on paper. The paper filings, over 380,000 pages worth last year, have to be transferred into electronic formats and posted online by the Federal Election Commission before the public is able to see what kind of money Senate candidates are raising, and who they are raising it from. This process is time consuming, expensive, and unnecessary. Luckily, the legislation introduced in the 113th Congress by Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) would solve this problem and make Senate candidates more transparent and accountable to the public. The bill has been gaining momentum, garnering 34 bipartisan cosponsors since February. Unfortunately, previous versions of the bill have been blocked on a number of occasions. The bill's prospects are unclear this time around, but we are hopeful that the growing momentum for change will help push Senate candidates into the 21st century. You can read the full letter below.
Continue readingStudy finds link between who gives to judicial candidates and how they decide
A rising tide of campaign contributions to candidates for states' top courts appears to be influencing the way those courts mete out justice, a new academic study finds.
"Justice at Risk," a report from the American Constitution Society, examined more than 2,300 business-related cases decided between 2010-2012 by the Supreme courts of the 50 states and compared them to 175,000 records of campaign contributions obtained from the nonpartisan National Institute on Money in State Politics. The conclusion: "There is a statistically significant relationship between campaign contributions from business groups and justices voting in favor of business interests."
The ...
Continue readingWhy you should be skeptical of candidates’ self-imposed bans on special interest contributions
For anyone paying attention to the hypocrisy surrounding the so-called “people’s pledge” in the Massachusetts Senate race, a new paper offers some good evidence of why you should be skeptical of these kinds of pledges in general. The paper, “Campaign Contributions from Corporate Executives in Lieu of Political Action Committees” is by Brian Keller Richter and Timothy Werner, both assistant professors of Business, Government, and Society at the University of Texas at Austin, finds that when candidates pledge to stop accepting money from political action committees (PACs), corporate CEOs step up their personal contributions.
Continue readingStates Not Waiting for Congress to Act on Disclosure of Dark Money
This week, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman adopted bold new disclosure rules to shine a light on dark money spent on elections in New York. Effective immediately, groups that spend $10,000 or more on state and local electioneering will have to publicly disclose their contributions and expenditures on the New York Open Government website. Nonprofits registered with the state will also be required to report the percentage of their expenditures that go to federal, state and local electioneering. Last week in California, the Senate passed a version of the DISCLOSE Act. If enacted, the bill would require disclosure of donors to outside groups that run political ads. And in Montana, Republican lawmakers this week unveiled a proposal for a ballot measure that would require any entities that spend money to influence campaigns in the state to make public information about their financial supporters. Unlimited secret money has been fueling our elections to an ever-greater extent since 2010, when the Supreme Court decided in the Citizens United case that corporate money could be used to influence elections so long the spending is “independent” of candidates’ campaigns. The Court relied on the mistaken assumption that in the Internet era, such spending would be transparent, noting, “prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions.” What the Court failed to take into account was Congress’ inability to pass laws that would ensure the public had the spending information needed to hold “corporations and elected officials accountable.” Instead, at least $300 million in dark money was spent during the 2012 election cycle, while Congress continues to sputter along in its effort to create a disclosure regime.
Continue readingBefore closing up shop, Lautenberg campaign committee has a debt to pay
New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg, who died Monday at age 89, leaves behind many accomplishments, from laws fighting drunk driving to preventing people convicted of domestic violence from obtaining guns.
Continue readingWhat Charles G. Koch can teach us about campaign finance data
On May 13, I wrote up an analysis of campaign finance data that asked “Did almost 600 donors break campaign finance law in 2012?” Truth is, I wasn’t sure. The bulk data made it appear that way, but as I noted at the outset, “our most troubling finding may be just how difficult it is determine with legal certainty exactly how many campaign scofflaws there are, or how much over the limit they gave.” In the past week, I have received one e-mail and one letter proving that point. Both came from some rather prominent individuals. First the e-mail, which was sent on behalf of Charles G. Koch: “The analysis asserts that Charles Koch exceeded the 2011-2012 biennial overall contribution limits and the PAC and party contribution limits,” wrote Missy Cohlmia, Director, Corporate Communication, Koch Companies Public Sector, LLC. “We have checked our records at length and request that Sunlight Foundation take Mr. Koch off this list.”
Continue readingNonprofit’s $4 million dark money dump unreported for three months
An Arizona non-profit political group spent $4 million more than was been widely reported on last year's election thanks to a loophole in federal election law that allows some last-minute spending to be hidden until Jan. 31.
In all, Americans For Responsible Leadership spent $9.8 million on federal elections in 2012. That figure doesn't include $11 million more given to a California PAC that state authorities have described as "campaign money laundering".
Continue readingCalls for Reform of IRS Rules Face Resistance from Dark Money Advocates
Eight groups, including the Sunlight Foundation, sent letters to the House and Senate, urging Members of Congress to adopt legislation... View Article
Continue readingReporter’s notebook: How we came up with that campaign finance maze
If it makes you all feel any better, campaign finance is hard for us too.
At the Sunlight Foundation Reporting Group, we make a speciality of money in politics reporting, so when the dark money groups that we often cover burst into the headlines -- on reports that the Internal Revenue Service was denying the coveted tax exempt status to Tea Party groups -- we figured it was time to put what we know about the campaign finance ecosystem out there.
The process turned out to be revealing, if painful.
You can see the final product here. But we learned a lot ...
Continue reading
59063
