As we expected, the culmination of the “fiscal cliff” negotiations was a rush to the finish line, in which policies... View Article
Continue readingThe Sandy Hook Shooting, Speech, and Campaign Cash?
Do campaign contributions affect the likelihood that a member of congress has publicly spoken out after the Sandy Hook School shooting? The answer appears to be yes, and by a lot. Our review found that a representative who received significant campaign support from the NRA was more likely to keep his or her mouth shut about the shooting -- speaking out at 2/3s the rate of an average member of congress.
Continue readingThe 12 Days of APIs
‘Tis the season for application programming interfaces. Sunlight is in a festive mood. Not only are we hosting a pretty... View Article
Continue readingBuyers remorse? Check out the return on investment webinar
Once the votes in election 2012 were counted, the Sunlight Foundation did some figuring of our own, calculating the percentage of money spent by outside groups in elections that helped winning candidates or hurt losing ones; we called that percentage return on investment (ROI). Mark your calendars for Thursday, Nov 29, at 1 p.m. for a webinar explaining how we did it, including a close up look at the ROI data. We will also debut our Congressional ROI data set, which shows how groups fared when the massive amounts of presidential election spending are removed from the totals. In this webinar we will show you how to dive into the data on a more granular level to tell the story behind the numbers. Sign up for the webinar here.
Continue readingWhistleblower Protection Act goes to President’s desk
The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA) was unanimously approved by the Senate on Tuesday, marking a positive leap forward for federal employees... View Article
Continue readingHow Much Did Money Really Matter in 2012?
One of the emerging post-campaign narratives is that all the outside money (more than $1.3 billion) that poured into the 2012 election didn’t buy much in the way of victories. And as we dig through the results in detail (our extensive data visualizations and analysis are below), the story holds up: we can find no statistically observable relationship between the outside spending and the likelihood of victory. Looking closely at the data helps to clarify and explore this emerging narrative in numerous ways. It also helps us to see some other smaller effects of money. It appears that candidate spending may have mattered a bit more than outside spending, especially for Democrats. It also appears that outside spending may have contributed slightly to the vote share, though not to the probability of victory. This post is based on House results, both because looking at the House gives us a larger sample size, and because there’s more of a likelihood that money could make a difference in House races, given the smaller size of House seats (compared to the Senate), the recent redistricting and the fact that we’ve had three House elections in a row with high turnover. (We’ll come back to the Senate soon, we promise) First an overview. As of September 6, two months before the election, the Cook Political Report listed 90 House seats as either likely for one party, lean for one party, or toss-ups. These were the seats where money could make a difference if it were to make one. (Before we proceed, a few caveats: 1. The candidate spending totals are through October 17; and 2. For purposes of the analysis we include outcomes still pending final approval.) Outside spending on these 90 seats was just over a quarter of a billion: $250,656,656, and candidate spending was just short of $300 million: $297,947,7717. In the 25 toss-up races, candidates spent $100,164,189; outside groups spent $140,043,821.
Continue readingLearning how to navigate Congress.gov
The new and much improved location for Congressional information, beta.congress.gov, has plenty of resources to offer users. Now the Library of Congress (LOC) is offering webinars and in-person training to help users navigate the expanding website. We applaud LOC for providing a variety of training opportunities for those seeking a better understanding of the information available.
Continue readingSTOCK Act Sausage Making
If ever there were an example of knee-jerk legislating, the STOCK Act may be it. A thoughtful and comprehensive bill, introduced by Rep. Slaughter, languished for years until some bad publicity made Members of Congress decide to “take action.” But in their haste to demonstrate they were responsive to the public’s outcry over allegations of congressional insider trading, Congress passed a watered down version of the bill. Furthermore, since passing the STOCK Act, Congress has twice acted to delay implementation of the bill, citing the risk of unintended consequences of the transparency measures they enacted. The hurry up and wait method of legislating leaves one to wonder what will be disclosed when the sausage making is complete.
Continue readingImproving Congressional Oversight
At a fundamental level, congressional oversight is an expression of the American people’s collaborative effort to govern themselves. Expressions of... View Article
Continue readingFederal candidates depend on financial sector more than any other for campaign money
Candidates running for federal office are two-thirds more dependent on donors from the finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE) sector for campaign contributions than any other sector. Through the second quarter of 2012, federal candidates have relied on the sector for 15.2% of their itemized (over $200 contributions), solidly ahead of their dependence on the next closest competitors -- health interests (at 8.9%) and lawyers and lobbyists (at 8.8%). This is not a new phenomenon. In each of the last seven election cycles, federal candidates have depended on the finance sector for between 15% and 17% of their contributions at the same point in the cycle. But with tax reform being high on the agenda no matter who is elected and the finance sector eager to continue to shape the implementation of Wall Street reform, the contributions are as important as ever. What is different this cycle is that FIRE contributions are solidly supporting Republicans for the first time since 2000. Through the second quarter of 2012, 54.8% of finance industry contributions to federal candidates went to Republicans, up dramatically from 44.3% in 2010 (even after the passage of Dodd-Frank) and 42.2% in 2008. This shift has taken place in the House, the Senate, and as most frequently reported, the presidential race. In the battle to be president, our calculations show that 58.6% of all financial sector itemized campaign donations going to Republican candidates, up from 38.6% in 2008. To be clear, this total only includes money directly to candidates. If we looked at super PACs, finance money would be titled even more Republican. Through the second quarter, we calculate that Mitt Romney’s Restore Our Future super PAC depended on the finance sector for 43% of its money, and 75% of the finance money was coming directly from the securities and investment sub-sector (aka Wall Street). No other sector of the economy even came close in helping to “Restore Our Future.”
Continue reading
59063
