the onl ne on money n tate olcs · 2015. 10. 27. · of campaign money on state-level elections and...

The National Institute on Money in State Politics

www.Fo l l owTheMoney.o r g

Constructing a New Paradigm

2 013 A n n u a l R e p o r t

NIMSP_13ReportFNL.indd 1 9/6/13 7:53:33 AM

The Institute dove into its engineering trenches this past year, completely

rethinking our underlying data architecture that archives 30 million

records documenting $28 billion reported in political campaign money.

We wanted more speed, more cross-analyses, more options. Our goal

was to make the quality of the data impossibly better. In short, we want you to be able to ask anything and find answers, fast.

And so, the Institute spent this past year deep in the twists and turns of

source codes, to knit and entwine our data pathways in new ways. We

closed our eyes and imagined an entirely fresh way of perceiving. We

mined the data, reimagined the substructure, sketched possibilities, and

wore out markers and erasers on whiteboards.

We gave the beta version to academics, journalists, and other major

users with instructions to find weaknesses, to probe and try to unravel

it, then we braided it into a stronger net, a solid labyrinth of

unimpeachable integrity.

Constructing a New Paradigm

MissionThe National Institute on Money in State Politics is the only

nonpartisan, nonprofit organization revealing the influence

of campaign money on state-level elections and public policy

in all 50 states. Our comprehensive and verifiable campaign-

finance database and relevant issue analyses are available for

free through our website FollowTheMoney.org. We encourage

transparency and promote independent investigation of

state-level campaign contributions by journalists, academic

researchers, public-interest groups, government agencies,

policymakers, students and the public at large.

Go ahead, try it. We promise you will be amazed: www.FollowTheMoney.org

1


The National Institute on Money in

State Politics gave the nation its first

comprehensive look at who was donating

to candidates running for state office in

all 50 states in the 2000 elections, who

was giving to lawmakers across state

lines, and early sketches of how major

industries and groups were strategically

donating to politicians in multiple states

to move specific policy agendas. We saw

energy deregulation policy initiatives

that gave us a fundamental restructuring

of energy markets in 24 states, and the

Enron scandal. Three-strikes and

mandatory-minimum tough-on-crime

measures got politicians elected across

the country, spurred the expansion of

prison privatization, and gave a handful of

companies tidy profits, at taxpayer expense.

Thirteen years later, the Institute continues

to create and maintain the nation’s only

50-state, state-level donor database,

and continues to do the heavy lifting

for good government and transparency

advocates. It is quickly building additional,

necessary infrastructure to provide essential

information about who supports major

candidates and policy initiatives and

how those donations may affect policy

outcomes that ultimately impact taxpayers.

It is leveraging the many eyes of social

media—with a mountain of high-quality

data at www.FollowTheMoney.org—to make

it more and more difficult for politicians to

dole out taxpayer-funded favors to high-

dollar donors.

Engaged, active citizens now have an

unprecedented ability to match donors

and their agendas with politicians eager to

get elected. Those citizens can change the

course of our nation.

Baseline building blocks from all 50 states

already collected by the Institute include:

Donors to all state-level legislative, gubernatorial, attorney general, and other candidates to constitutional offices

Donors to Democratic and Republican state party and caucus committees

Donors to ballot measure committees in the states that allow popular initiatives

Registered lobbyists in all 50 states, correlated to their clients and their donations to candidates

Donors correlated to legislative committee members

Independent spending reports from committees in 30 states in 2012

Pilot projects include compiling state PAC donors in 20 states, lobbyist expenditures in a dozen more, and local level data in Los Angeles and Orange County, and New York City

Much work remains to be done for the

infrastructure of democracy to show citizens

a clear roadway to greater accountability of

lawmakers and governments. More heavy

lifts need to be added to the ongoing data

collection:

Compile lobbyist expenditure data in a majority of states

Compile independent expenditure reports from additional states

Build a process for compiling issue-advocacy spending, such as TV and radio buys and mass-mailers, for representative districts in each state

Expand best practices in reporting and disclosure of all election and policy-debate-related information

Correlate introduced legislation to sponsors with key votes

Correlate subsidy and contract lists with campaign donor lists

Engage citizens to participate in the democratic processes

The Infrastructure of Democracy

Building and maintaining a healthy democracy is hard work.

The value of all this work is strengthening our democracy

through an engaged citizenry who hold lawmakers accountable over a long period

of time. Like the interstate highway system that spans and connects our country, the

Institute’s free-flowing, multi-layered, and evolving information highway can lead to

more efficient government, greater accountability of elected leaders, and a more robust

debate about issues that affect our everyday lives.

Our 21st century democracy looks very different from the past, but the corrosive effects

of power and money are unrelenting. It will take hard work to maintain a healthy,

vibrant democracy. We’ll hold up our end of the load.

—Edwin Bender, Executive Director

2


FollowTheMoney is a MARS Best Free Reference Web Sites of 2012 winner!

—Erica Danowitz, Chair, Best Free Web Sites Committee,

Emerging Technologies, American Library Association

Window on the YearThis was a year like no other. We broke all our own records to compile electronic data from

the state disclosure agencies as near to “real time” as possible, providing reporters and activists

the best data for analyzing 2012 elections and issues. As of Nov. 5, 2012, we had compiled an

average of 90 percent of all reports due across the states.

In the same time frame, we responded to an urgent request to compile new state PAC data in

the 24 states that provided meaningful data with reasonable access.

FollowTheMoney.org provided a clear window into the $2.78 billion reported by candidates and political party committees in the 50 states that conducted regular or special elections for state office in 2012. That eye-popping total includes:

$241.8 million raised by gubernatorial candidates & officeholders

$122.4 million for other statewide offices

$982.5 million for legislative seats

Republican . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $530,462,395

Democrat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$444,947,121

Independent and Third Party . . .$7,002,072

Nonpartisan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4,169,239

$49.8 million raised by appellate and high court candidates

Plus, we posted:

$342.5 million given to political party committees

$174.4 million . . . . . . . . . . Democrat

$168.1 million . . . . . . . . . . Republican

Additionally, we documented:

$934.2 million raise by 371 ballot measure committees in 39 states

As is typical, California led the pack, with 77 groups that raised $455.8 million around 13 measures.

3


Really, Really Smart

2012 Bits & Pieces

The June 2012 Wisconsin recall election raised the most money of any gubernatorial race, by far. Republican incumbent Scott Walker and Democratic challenger Tom Barrett combined to raise $44.2 million in contributions: $37.6 million for Walker and $6.6 million for Barrett.

Financially, the most evenly matched gubernatorial candidates in 2012 ran in New Hampshire, where Democrat Maggie Hassan raised $1.88 million and Republican Ovide Lamontagne raised $1.87 million. The resulting difference was the equivalent of only three-tenths of a percent of the combined total.

The race for two high court seats in West Virginia generated $3.7 million in contributions.

We recorded more than $55 million raised by about 1,200 lower court candidates.

In the ten states for which the Institute has contributions data for all three levels of courts, high court candidates averaged $323,180, appellate court candidates averaged $82,548, lower court candidates averaged $44,605.

Two-thirds of the legislative races were contested in the general election: 3,752 of nearly 5,700 races.

Legislative incumbents enjoyed an 89 percent success rate: 4,185 of the 4,707 who sought reelection to the same office won.

www.FollowTheMoney.org

Hig

hlig

hts

The Institute’s new, unique entity resolution system is our own artificial intelligence, created by our staff computer whizzes to find and resolve the chronic issue of donors listing multiple variations of the same name. This customized software quickly resolves the obvious ones, but sends the sticky ones to our researchers who provide the full-on brainwork to resolve them. For instance, we found an astonishing 2,337 ways to report AT&T and its state affiliates; 1,406 ways to list Verizon; 1,206 ways to say Hospital Corp of America; 878 versions of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. The list goes on—but thanks to the entity resolution system, the speed of our standardizing work has increased exponentially.

Data staff took on the unenviable task of testing new elements of our re-engineered data architecture while it was being developed. The big payoff came when we uploaded more records in three months than had been previously possible to upload in four years!

4



Raising Standards by Grading the StatesScorecard: Essential Disclosure Requirements for Independent Spending, 2013

We updated and upgraded our comprehensive assessment of essential independent spending disclosure requirements. Our analysis found that only 15 states require full disclosure of express advocacy and electioneering communications. Unfortunately, 26 states continue to fail to ensure meaningful disclosure of this spending.

Our new report co-published by the Center for Public Integrity shows that 35 states have independent spending disclosure laws that are less stringent than federal election law, meaning shadowy nonprofit groups and big-spending super PACs are able to do business virtually undetected in some races.

Just days after we published this “report card,” 13 publications had picked up on it and several states had already begun taking action to improve their systems. For instance, WIBC.com published Indiana News: Independent Campaign Finance Spending to Face Scrutiny:

“Senate Elections Chairman Sue Landske (R-Cedar Lake) says she was blindsided to discover Indiana [F – 0 points] doesn’t require financial disclosure from those groups. She notes 15 states already have disclosure requirements, and says a legislative study committee is likely to request data from those states this summer.”

Alaska Public Offices Commission sent the message below confirming that our practice produces positive results of highlighting trans-parency advances already achieved by states:

“I must admit that seeing Alaska’s scorecard [A – 100 points] gave me warm fuzzy feelings. Thank you for putting this together and validating our efforts for transparency up here!”

Judicial ElectionsJudicial candidates raised an unprecedented amount of money during the 2011 and 2012 elections: 3,291 candidates topped $110 million. The Institute expanded data collection to include lower courts in ten states, providing an essential, strategic tool for fair courts activists. Surprisingly, the numbers of lower-court candidates, records, and contributions in just ten states total more than the combined appellate/high court records and contributions for nearly double the number of states.

143,271 records document $55.4 million reported by 1,930 lower court candidates in 10 states

62,336 records document $33.1 million reported by 358 high court candidates in 24 states

41,900 records document $21.5 million reported by 1,003 appellate court candidates in 17 states

The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy published Justice at Risk, An Empirical Analysis of Campaign Contributions and Judicial Decisions, which relied heavily on Institute judicial contribution records to document how candidates’ campaign funds correlate with judicial decisions involving donor interests.

The Institute identified disclosure practices for lower court contributions in the 39 states where judges are elected. Our straightforward table provides a comprehensive, at-a-glance reference for pursuing this money path. In addition, we looked at who funded the campaigns of lower court judges in California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin in 2011–2012 campaigns.

Nailing the FactsTwelve years of 50-state contribution records (16,000+ candidates per election), six years of 50-state lobbying interests (100,000+ entities annually), and six years of independent spending records (21 states) provided powerful facts for public policy debates.

When the Florida State Legislature was moving to privatize 19 state-run prisons, opponents asked the Institute, “What does $1 million buy in Florida campaigns?” Our data supplied facts that were persuasive enough to help stop Florida’s private prison legislation in its tracks.

Health care issues lead the news in all 50 states. The Institute provided hands-on assistance to seven health policy advocacy and media grantees of The California Endowment, and basic services to its entire network. We also discovered that more than 50 health insurance companies, trade associations, HMOs and their affiliated political action committees (PACs), and nearly 730 employees of these entities, gave $14.6 million to California’s state-level candidates and ballot measure campaigns from 2000 to 2010.

In general, state and local lawmakers and officials determine the regulations and permitting requirements for oil and gas drillers. As fracking jars the nation, we looked at the industry’s lobbying efforts and campaign giving. Donors from the oil and gas industry gave $1.3 million to state-level candidates and officeholders in California in 2012, with Chevron Corp., California Independent Petroleum Assoc., and Occidental Oil and Gas topping the list. The Institute pointed out industry giving to Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, whose Oil and Gas Conservation Commission filed to sue the city of Longmont in an attempt to overturn that city’s ordinances regulating drilling in residential neighborhoods and mandating water-quality monitoring at fracking sites. The Texas-based Wilks family gave contributions to 70 percent of Montana’s Republican legislators and 42 percent of the Montana legislative body as a whole in 2012 elections. The Wilkses own a fracking firm and have recently bought large tracts of land in Montana.

Highlights

5


Pilot Projects Contributions are just one way to influence policy. Several pilot projects this year took us to independent spending and lobbying expenditures, enabling the public to see the full picture of an entity’s political influence.

We expanded collection of independent spending records from 21 to 30 states.

In a groundbreaking pilot project, we created another first-ever resource for investigative journalists and public policy groups by collecting all lobbying expenditures filed in 13 target states by natural resources and related companies whose economic interests are affected by laws and regulations relevant to clean energy, global warming (climate change), and energy development.

The 2011-2012 election cycle was the first for which the Institute collected Political Action Committee (PAC) reports in 24 states. We compiled 265,845 reports that document $1,608,127,579 from 16,678 committees. We plan to continue collecting PAC reports for the 2013-2014 elections.

Local DataWe cut our teeth on collecting local campaign data in California, starting with all contributions to candidates for the Orange County Board of Supervisors and Los Angeles’ municipal elections. In addition, we obtained the records for committees working to promote or oppose ballot measures in two California counties (both measures seeking to tax soda pop failed). Widespread dissemination of this data has lit a flame under Orange County. We have set our sights on local races elsewhere, as well, focusing next on Chicago, and the New York City mayoral race.

Legal ChallengesThe Institute’s archives provided indisputable facts that may change the law. In the wake of consequences from the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. FEC, state attorneys general and public interest law centers relied on the political contribution records at FollowTheMoney.org to defend state campaign-finance disclosure laws and contribution limits and to inform public policy debates. The Institute’s data and research were used as evidence in 2013 legislative debates on campaign-finance reform in several states. For instance, Executive Director Edwin Bender provided expert witness testimony for Montana’s defense of the state’s low contribution limits from a challenge in federal court by American Tradition Partnership, represented by attorney James Bopp. The Ninth Circuit Court ultimately issued a stay in the case, allowing Montana’s low contribution limits to stand.

A 90-100

B 80-89

C 70-79

D 60-69

F 0-59

Raising Standards by Grading the States

Scorecard: Essential Disclosure Requirements for Independent Spending, 2013

6


The Institute in the NewsThe 2012 campaigns attracted enormous amounts of money: $2.78 billion reported by candidates and party committees; and $878.2 million raised around ballot measures. The Institute’s data was cited repeatedly in the news, invigorating the debate about the role money plays in elections and public policy decisions.

Our attention to the tedious details required to create accurate, comprehensive data archives has been rewarded by its clear adoption as a primary resource by the national press, and inclusion as a training resource for journalism schools, fueling still more dissemination.

More than 3,900 reporters and 7,600 myFollowTheMoney subscribers are signed up to receive releases and reports on specific states or topics. This past year, we sent 108 press releases, and 22 email alerts to subscribers.

The Institute’s communications database includes 3,913 reporters signed up to receive releases and reports relevant to their specific states or topics. The resulting stories include articles published by Bloomberg Business Week, Center for Public Integrity, CNN Money, Investigative News Network, Los Angeles Times, Mother Jones, NBC News, The Nation, The New York Times, and more. Columbia Journalism Review profiled FollowTheMoney.org at its Online News Startups.

Reporters use our research to investigate issues and write articles to educate the public

and policymakers. For example, the San Francisco Chronicle published an AP story by Matt Gouras, Feb. 10, 2013, “Billionaire fracking brothers top political donors.” It summarized research that we published Feb. 1, Texas Fracking Billionaires Gave Money to 70 Percent of Montana Republican Legislators. The AP article was widely circulated. Our report, and the articles it generated, helped the public learn about the political contributions so that it can monitor whether legislative votes on regulation of fracking appear to correlate with benefits to the public or to the elected officials’ political donors.

A report by CNN Money, “NRA Power and Money Goes A Long Way in States,” Dec. 20, 2012, cited our data to give a 50-state context on influence of the National Rifle Association in Wisconsin’s recall election:

“The NRA and its campaign arm, the Political Victory Fund, have given nearly $3 million to state-level campaigns, political committees, and candidates over the past nine years, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics, a watchdog group. That doesn’t include hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on lobbying various state legislatures in the same period. The money has helped win owners expanded rights to carry guns outside of their home in 41 states, more than double the number from two decades ago.”

The Institute’s Public Face: FollowTheMoney.orgFrom Jan. 2009 to Dec. 2012, we achieved a 385 percent increase in visitors to FollowTheMoney.org. We maintain an active social media presence by posting frequently, often daily. The Institute had 1,700 Facebook fans and 4,600 Twitter followers, reflecting a growth of 50 percent for each, Jan. – Dec. 2012.

The Institute in ActionEach year we convene a select group of national advisors and foundation officers for intensive roundtable discussions. Presenters pose solutions to challenges to elections, judicial independence, government and corporate

I wanted to send you a link to our story that examines the political

influence of private prison companies and the growing immigration

detention industry, and thank you again for your help. Our story,

published last Thursday, got great play nationwide.

—Garance Burke, Reporter, The Associated Presshttp://www.miamiherald.com/2012/08/02/2926854/

immigrants-prove-big-business.html

Building Stories

The Institute was cited in these publications, among others, during the past year: St. Louis Beacon CNBC POLITICO NPR Los Angeles Times Associated Press U.S. News & World Report Bloomberg Businessweek New York

Times Free-Times The Guardian The Atlantic NBC News Portland Press Herald San Francisco Chronicle Wall Street Journal Bloomberg News CNN Money MSNBC Tampa Bay Times Washington Post Huffington Post Lincoln Journal

Star Miami Herald Atlanta Journal Constitution Denver Post Mother Jones The Plain Dealer Wall Street Journal Washington Post Bloomberg Oregon Public Broadcasting Cincinnati Enquirer Texas Public Radio The Nation


Website visitors increased 385 percent in four years

7

700,000

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

02009 2010 2011 2012

Jul-1

2

Aug-12

Sep-1

2

Oct-12

Nov-12

Dec-1

2

Jan -1

3

Feb-1

3

Mar

-13

Apr-13

May

-13

Jun-1

3

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Blogs

New Media

Traditional Media

Unique Visitors to FollowTheMoney.org, 2009-2012

451 Media Citations of FollowTheMoney.orgJuly 1, 2012-June 30, 2013

NIMSP_13ReportFNL.indd 8 9/10/13 12:27:18 PM

accountability, investigative journalism, and civic engagement. Our 2013 Summary of Proceedings reflects the widespread concern that corporate influence on elections has reached a tipping point.

Institute staff traveled to 40 events this year to introduce new tools and expand use of the resources to a wide range of participants: news reporters, policy advocates, community organizers, immigrant rights groups, Tea Party activists, law school students, state ethics officials, and many more. A few examples include:

Managing Director Denise Roth Barber showcased three agencies that have been successful at providing campaign finance data, lobbying expenditures, and independent spending, presented to state ethics officers attending the annual conference of the Council on Governmental Ethics Laws (COGEL).

Executive Director Edwin Bender presented “Transparency in Action: Pinpointing the Influence of Money in State Politics,” at the Society of Professional Journalists/Radio Television Digital News Association conference.

The Institute presented our data and resources at the Harvard-Georgetown Market Democracy Project academic conference, followed by panels that

The Institute was cited in these publications, among others, during the past year: St. Louis Beacon CNBC POLITICO NPR Los Angeles Times Associated Press U.S. News & World Report Bloomberg Businessweek New York

Times Free-Times The Guardian The Atlantic NBC News Portland Press Herald San Francisco Chronicle Wall Street Journal Bloomberg News CNN Money MSNBC Tampa Bay Times Washington Post Huffington Post Lincoln Journal

Star Miami Herald Atlanta Journal Constitution Denver Post Mother Jones The Plain Dealer Wall Street Journal Washington Post Bloomberg Oregon Public Broadcasting Cincinnati Enquirer Texas Public Radio The Nation

discussed linking and analyzing data, using data to inform public discourse, how to promote greater transparency in government and elections, how to discuss accountability, and how to build in performance standards.

Montana Law Review symposium, “Debating Democracy’s Future,” invited Bender to participate as a panelist with four attorneys on the topic, “Administration of a Republican Form of Government.” Harvard Law School Professor Lawrence Lessig provided the keynote and acknowledged the value of the Institute’s resources.

8

680,000

660,000

640,000

620,000

600,000

580,000

560,000

540,000FY2013 FY2012

670,449

590,664

FollowTheMoney.org13.5% Increase in Unique Visitors

2012 ElectionsWhen 1% = 50%

$4

$3

$2

$1

$0

Bil

lio

ns


Strong CollaborationsYears of cooperation with other groups paid off, seen in these impactful, recent collaborative projects and reports.

We consulted with the Center for Public Integrity for its State Integrity Investigation that assesses corruption risk. Some of the 14 factors assessed used our Best Practices studies for baseline information on which to evaluate state laws governing political contributions and lobbying.

A project with the Center for Effective Government (formerly OMB Watch) used Institute data to fuel analysis of how money and politics intersect with state actions to regulate fracking practices. Our 2011 report, Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission, documented contributions given by oil and gas executives and lobbyists who were appointed to sit on the governor’s commission.

Data gathered and supplied by the Institute provided the foundation for The Impact of Citizens United in the States: Independent Spending in State Elections, 2006-2010, by Keith Hamm, Michael J. Malbin, Jaclyn Kettler, and Brendan Glavin, presented at the 2012 meeting of the American Political Science Association:

“There can be no denying the profound changes in U.S. campaign financing since the U.S. Supreme Court’s January 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. This paper begins to disentangle the strands through an analysis of independent expenditures in elections at the state level in 2006 and 2010.”

In Jan. 2013, we coordinated release of our report, Big Tobacco Wins Tax Battles, with the American Lung Association’s report, State of Tobacco Control 2013, which tracks progress on key tobacco control policies at the state and federal levels, and assigns grades based on tobacco control laws and regulations. Money emerges as the core theme.

Another study relied on Institute data, “Taking Opt-In Rights Seriously: What Knox v. SEIU Could Mean for Post-Citizens United Shareholder Rights,” by Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Montana Law Review, April 22, 2013. Spelliscy argues that the Supreme Court has treated inequitably the political speech of corporations and of unions, and makes the case for improved regulation of corporate

political speech.

Campaign FinanceThe Institute’s data and research were used as evidence in 2013 legislative debates on campaign-finance reforms in Florida, Montana, New York, and more. The Palm Beach Post, Jan. 22, 2013, reported, “Florida lawmakers consider lifting cap, adding restrictions on campaign cash”:

“The political fund-raising arms run by lawmakers, known as committees of continuous existence (CCEs)…open the door to unlimited amounts of industry contributions… The Senate Ethics & Elections Committee approved new regulations on CCE spending Tuesday, as part of a sweeping new ethics proposal (CS/SB 7006). The National Institute on Money in State Politics has said Florida’s committee system creates a ‘Russian doll syndrome,’ where money is nested and passed from one committee to another. The average voter has little chance of following the source of the money, the Institute warned.”

We created a multi-state database of the lobbying expenditures reported by natural resources and utility companies from 2010 through 2012. This objective data may be of immense value to policy advocacy related to climate change.

This site saves countless hours that would otherwise be spent perusing 50 different state government websites, and hundreds upon hundreds

of pages. It’s an invaluable service to researchers everywhere!!—Jeremiah L. Curtis, Freelance Researcher, North Benton, Ohio

The Institute uses its multistate, multiyear databases to research trends in political giving, examine how

contributions drive public policy debates in the states and the nation, and see how special interests give across state

lines. We relentlessly pursue information that puts campaign contributions in context, such as legislative committee

assignments and lobbyist/client relationships. We hope to soon link lawmakers with their proposed legislation.

Framework for Success

www.FollowTheMoney.org9


Institute ResearchScorecard: Essential Disclosure Requirements for Independent Spending, 2013 by Institute Staff, May 16, 2013

Just how much money is spent independently on elections for state office? The answer remains elusive in the majority of states, according to the Institute’s latest analysis of disclosure requirements for independent spending. The analysis found that 15 states require full disclosure of both forms of independent spending: express advocacy and electioneering communications. Unfortunately, 26 states continue to fail to ensure meaningful disclosure of this spending.

For additional discussion of the Scorecard’s grading system, and the role of enforcement in ensuring adequate disclosure, see our blog, Independent Spending Scorecard: Grades Based on Laws, Not Enforcement.

Lower Courts: Selection Methods and Campaign Finance by Linda Casey, July 31, 2012

This report assesses the campaign finance reporting systems for lower court candidates in the 39 states that elect their lower court judges. The attached table provides a comprehensive, at-a-glance reference for pursuing this money path, adding critical information to selected data provided by the American Judicature Society.

The Role of Money & Incumbency in 2009-2010 State Elections by Linda Casey, July 03, 2012

Legislative incumbents enjoyed an 87 percent success rate during the 2009 and 2010 primary and general elections. One-third of them ran unopposed. Incumbents in contested general election races had a success rate of 85 percent; legislative candidates who raised more money than their opponents were successful 76 percent of the time.

Monetary Competitiveness in 2009-2010 State Legislative Races by Peter Quist, July 03, 2012

73 percent of the legislative seats up for election in the 2009-2010 general elections were contested, up from 67 percent in 2007-2008. 25 percent of the legislative seats up for election were monetarily competitive, up from just 22 percent in the 2007-2008 contests. As during the 2007-2008 elections, monetary competitiveness rates were higher in states with public funding programs and in states with relatively inexpensive races.

“Evidencing a Republican Form of Government: The Influence of Campaign Money on State-Level Elections,” by Executive Director Edwin Bender, published in the Montana Law Review, April 22, 2013.

This article documents the value of the Institute’s data as evidence for assessing whether limits restrict First Amendment rights:

“Quality data gives public officials, policy experts, and the public reliable information that can help them explore larger systemic policy options that can de-emphasize the role of money in our elections and emphasize voter involvement… The Institute’s data has been cited before the United States Supreme Court on three occasions: in an amicus curiae brief in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., by Justice Souter in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc, and in an amicus curiae brief in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In addition, the Montana Attorney General presented the Institute’s analyses in Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General of Montana.

“The curated data compiled by the Institute enables scholars who study both state elections and public policy processes new opportunities to quicken and expand their inquiries. Understanding the role

money plays in elections and public policy development, and specifically how campaign-finances are regulated, can improve the representative form of government in the states. If a state wants more inclusive elections—contested as well as monetarily competitive—data shows that adjusting contribution limits or funding mechanisms can have a dramatic effect. Offering incentives for donors to participate and for candidates to seek out more small-dollar donors can also have a positive effect on both the number of candidates who run and the number of people who donate (and presumably vote).”

Big Tobacco Wins Tax Battles by Robin Parkinson and Institute Staff, Jan. 16, 2013

Take a deep look at the tobacco industry’s campaign contributions during the 2012 election cycle. The industry gave nearly $54 million overall, with 87 percent coming from just four tobacco manufacturers: Philip Morris USA, Reynolds American Inc., U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company, and Altria. Of that $54 million, tobacco interests gave more than $47 million to help defeat ballot measures that would have raised taxes on tobacco products, and contributed $3.5 million to state-level candidates and $3 million to party committees, with 76 percent going to Republican candidates and committees.

The Money Tale

In addition to research reports, from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013, communications specialists and researchers blogged 26 times at The Money Tale. Topics ranged from Controversy over Colorado’s Renewable Energy Standards to The Sweet Taste of…Taxes to Texas homebuilder/political mega-donor Bob Perry.

Data availability has been greatly facilitated for scholars by the efforts of the National Institute on Money in State Politics, directed by Edwin Bender,

which since 1999 has gathered, cleaned, and made publicly available data on contributors to legislative candidates in the 99 chambers.

—The Influence of Campaign Contributions in State Legislatures,

©2012, by Lynda Powell, Professor of Political Science

10


We’re working faster and better. Exponentially faster. We broke through previous technical limitations and now answer queries at record speeds, enabling people to peel back the layers to more fully understand the impact money has on policy development.

Our website redesign centered around a specific mandate: it must be easy to navigate and understand. And it is. To further that goal, we are developing infographics, data visualizations, tutorials, glossaries, and classroom materials.

We will offer more on-site trainings, webinars, widgets, and other services, targeting reporters, advocates, and other user groups. We will reduce perceived barriers to using the data, share our expertise on data processing, and inspire innovative investigations. We will partner with experts in legislative vote tracking and financial disclosure to create APIs or other tools that can match the records and illuminate the results.

The Institute’s new data architecture is revolutionary. Our open source data enables in-depth academic analyses and reports, facilitating data mash-ups of the contribution records with other types of information. Direct access to our servers will empower users to run search queries they write, and then save and share the results in their reports and on social media. Visitors will be able to upload contributor lists to business-code and standardize names that match with our comprehensive database, then download the results to inspire others.

We intend to reach out to even more open government advocates and policy groups.

We want to sponsor fellowships to train key journalists and academics to use our data to produce investigative articles targeted to specific regions or important issues. We will create and disseminate information suitable for television, radio, and other venues to help voters connect the dots among candidates, donors, lobbying interests, and policy decisions. We will assist developers to create mobile apps that showcase the Institute’s data and research.

We will empower local-level investigations by seeding our website with municipal election databases from Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, and other local-level jurisdictions. We will survey the nation to find other major jurisdictions that have electronic reports, and create partnerships with state and local groups to fill in the blanks.

We will analyze campaign finance systems such as public funding, small donor incentives, and matching funds, and provide cross-jurisdictional analyses to more fully inform the debate about reforming the system. Building on our recent Scorecard co-published with the Center for Public Integrity, we will partner with key groups to launch a 50-state program to increase awareness and adoption of best practices in campaign finance reporting.

As always, we will personally answer the phone and rapidly answer the emails, directly addressing questions from users.

Above all, we will continue to serve the public good by remaining nonpartisan and nonprofit, encouraging transparency, and promoting independent investigation of the influence of campaign money on elections and public policy in all 50 states.

2014: Stepping Up to the Next Level

I’m proud to chair the board of the National Institute on Money in State Politics, which is changing politics in America. Their data is vast, nonpartisan and impeccable, empowering voters to connect the dots between campaign contributions and the making of public policy. FollowTheMoney.org has become a go-to resource for journalists, policymakers, activists and academics. Their database is a goldmine that has sparked numerous independent research projects. Best of all, the Institute never rests: right now it’s developing new projects on independent spending, judicial races, the lobbying sector, and government transparency policies around the country. What’s next? Stay tuned.

—Board President Bert Brandenburg


11


Team Builders

Building the Institute, daily: Robin Arnold (née Parkinson), Researcher; Edwin Bender, Executive Director; Barbara Bonifas, Development Director; Lori Cadwell, Finance Specialist; Linda Casey, Lead Researcher; Sara Christiansen, Input Management and Data Acquisition Specialist; Tyler Evilsizer, Researcher; Ken Feaster, Information Systems Director; John Hardy, Information Systems Technician; Amanda Harrow, Outreach and Communications Specialist; Michelle Hoffart, Data Acquisition Specialist; Zach Holden, Researcher/Outreach Specialist; Wendy Kolppa, Data Acquisition Specalist; Maria Kurtz, Data Acquisition Coordinator; Shirlene Kuykendall, Data Acquisition Specialist; Robin Larson, Administrative Assistant; Beverly Magley, Special Projects Director; Jeff Plaggemeyer, Data Acquisition Specialist; Peter Quist, Research Director; Denise Roth Barber, Managing Director; Karen Sedivy, Data Acquisition Specialist; Anne Sherwood, Communications Specialist; Gus Voss, Researcher/Outreach Specialist; Scott Wahl, Information Systems Specialist

The data acquisition staff continues to be a great source of pride for the Institute, performing the thankless and tedious task of obtaining the data, day after day, hour after hour. They even key in the numbers from the paper reports filed in New Jersey, where nothing is yet digitized. Several have been with us for more than 15 years. Their persistence, attention to detail, and flexibility make it easy for the rest of the organization to pivot on a dime to meet specialized requests for assistance. The energy from that strong core permeates the rest of the organization and makes everyone else’s jobs easier.

The Institute’s management team runs a collaborative shop. Once here, they stick around a long time to contribute their skills. Edwin Bender, a founding incorporator and on staff since 1999, has been executive director for more than a decade. Development Director Barbara Bonifas has led fundraising and grants administration since 2002. With the Institute since 2006, Information Systems Director Ken Feaster has worked nonstop the past year to redesign the Institute’s data architecture. Maria Kurtz was named data acquisition coordinator in 2010, following six years of service as data acquisition specialist. Beverly Magley, special projects director, has created the Institute’s public presentations, annual report, conference, and tutorials since 2008. Denise Roth Barber has served as managing director since 2010, after four years as research director and seven years as researcher. Peter Quist took the reins as research director this year, after five years as a researcher, with a focus on best practices for disclosure of money in state politics.

Our tireless researchers pore through the data, adding value at several levels and looking for trends, anomalies, and news. They painstakingly build candidate lists, and standardize names of political contributors, lobbyists, lobbying clients, and outside spenders in elections. While performing the standardization work needed to optimize search results, researchers also assign codes to these entities so the public can look at the role specific economic interests play in politics. Researchers write reports and blog about the findings in Institute data, give presentations on Institute data and stories, and answer questions from reporters and other members of the public.

12


EDWIN BENDER, a founding incorporator for the Institute, has been executive director for more than a decade. He promotes the use of the Institute’s comprehensive, highly credentialed state-level donor information by investigative journalists, scholars examining state elections and public-policy processes, and attorneys involved in campaign-finance litigation. In 2012, Ed was an expert witness for the Montana Attorney General’s defense of Montana’s campaign-contribution limits. He was recently published in the Montana Law Review, “Evidencing a Republican Form of Government: The Influence of Campaign Money on State-Level Elections.” Ed emphasizes the need to break down barriers to public disclosure of campaign finance and related information in poor-reporting states, while pushing advances in cross-state issue analyses and web-based data aggregation and dissemination.

BERT BRANDENBURG, Institute board president, is executive director of the Justice at Stake Campaign, a national, nonpartisan partnership working to keep courts fair and impartial. JAS has passed reform legislation, built a coalition of more than 50 groups, and put the issue of independent courts on the national map. Bert was the Justice Department’s director of public affairs under Attorney General Janet Reno. He served in policy and communications positions for the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, the National Performance Review, and the 1992 Clinton-Gore campaign and presidential transition team. Bert is chair of the Committee on Fair and Impartial Courts of the ABA, and he serves on the National Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on Judicial Campaign Conduct. He holds a JD from the University of Virginia.

ROSALIND GOLD has worked with the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund for two decades. As the organization’s senior director for policy research and advocacy, she leads policy analysis, research, naturalization and civic engagement activities. She directs preparation of the National Directory of Latino Elected Officials, Latino Election Handbook, Election Profiles, and other research and policy documents. The Los Angeles Times and other media outlets regularly seek Rosalind’s perspectives on Latino electoral participation, political progress and naturalization policy developments. Her expertise includes election reform, voting rights and the decennial Census enumeration of the Latino population. She earned her JD from Harvard Law School.

KEITH HAMM is the director of the Harlan Program in State Elections, Campaigns and Politics at Rice University. He has conducted extensive research on campaign finance, interest groups and state politics during his career. His current research examines how the adoption of the new campaign finance law in Connecticut has affected both interest group lobbying strategies and the setting of the legislative agenda. Keith was selected as a Fulbright scholar in 2006 and served as research chair for North American Studies at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario. He is past co-editor of Legislative Studies Quarterly.

ADELAIDE ELM KIMBALL is senior advisor (and chaired the founding board of directors) for Project Vote Smart, one of the largest and most widely respected sources of comprehensive, unbiased information on elections and public officials in the country. Adelaide has been communications director for Project Vote Smart since 1994 and assists with development. Earlier, she directed the Archives Department at the Arizona Historical Society in Tucson from 1985 through 1993. Adelaide earned bachelors in history and Spanish from the University of Texas at Austin, and her MA with concentrations in American history and museum studies at the University of Arizona, and a master of library science, also from the University of Arizona.

LARRY MAKINSON is one of the pioneers of computer-assisted research into campaign finances. He first started tracking campaign money in Alaska in the mid-1980s, then moved to Washington, D.C., where he spent 15 years tracking federal contributions at the Center for Responsive Politics. Since leaving CRP, he has conducted investigative database projects for the Center for Public Integrity and the Sunlight Foundation. Larry is currently semi-retired, enjoying life on the Oregon coast but still keeping a finger in the campaign finance world.

JEFF MALACHOWSKY is the program director for the Civil Society Program of Wellspring Advisors, a national philanthropic advisory firm. Before joining Wellspring in February 2011, Jeff lived for nearly 30 years in Oregon where, in 2009–2010, he served as founding co-director of Oregon Voice, affiliated with the national State Voices network. Jeff was co-founder and co-director of the National Institute on Money in State Politics, and of the Western States Center, which provides training and resources to grassroots leaders in eight western states. He served as a consultant to foundations and donors, managing projects and advising on

nonpartisan, community-based civic engagement strategies. Jeff has extensive experience with voter engagement strategies, including prior service with Wellspring during 2006, and as a board member of the Oregon Bus Project Foundation.

MICHAEL J. MALBIN is a co-founder and executive director of the Campaign Finance Institute, as well as a professor of political science at the State University of New York at Albany. Michael has written extensively about money and politics for more than three decades. His recent publications include Reform in an Age of Networked Campaigns: How to Foster Citizen Participation through Small Donors and Volunteers, co-authored with Anthony Corrado, Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein. Other co-authored works include Public Financing of Elections after Citizens United; and Small Donors, Big Democracy: New York City’s Matching Funds as a Model for the Nation and States (Election Law Journal, 2012), which relied extensively on data supplied by the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

GERI D. PALAST, Institute board secretary, is the managing director of the Israel Action Network. Prior, she served five years as executive director of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity (CFE). During her tenure, CFE won the final Court of Appeals decision in the landmark litigation establishing the constitutional right to a sound basic education for all public school students in New York State. In 2008, Palast served as education policy counsel for Presidential-Elect Obama’s Transition Team. Formerly, Geri was the founder and executive director of the Justice at Stake Campaign. Geri is an attorney, a Root-Tilden Public Service Law Scholar from NYU School of Law, and an honors graduate of Stanford University. She is admitted to practice in the District of Columbia.

SAMANTHA SANCHEZ, Institute board treasurer, is an administrative law judge for the state of Montana. She served as the Institute’s co-director with Jeff Malachowsky for its first years of operation and is a founding incorporator and member of the first board of directors. Sam studied and wrote about campaign-finance issues for more than a decade. As principal researcher on the relationship of special-interest campaign contributions to judicial candidates for state supreme courts, Sam forged the Institute’s relationships with national scholars and researchers and co-authored several national reports on the independence of the judiciary. Her tax-law background includes 15 years at Catholic University Law School, where she served as associate dean for six years. Sam earned her JD at Catholic University Law School and is a current member of the Washington, D.C. and Montana State Bars.

CIARA TORRES-SPELLISCY is an assistant professor at Stetson University College of Law, teaching courses in Election Law, Corporate Governance, and Constitutional Law. Ciara was counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, an associate at Arnold & Porter and a staffer for Senator Durbin. She has testified before Congress as an expert on campaign finance reform. As well as publishing in the Montana Law Review and the NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, she has published in the New York Times, Roll Call, Business Week, Forbes, The Atlantic, USA Today, Judicature, Salon and CNN. com. Ciara has been quoted by The Economist, Mother Jones, The National Journal, Los Angeles Times, NBC. com, NPR, Fox, CSPAN, and NY1.

Board of Directors


Foundations and individuals generously support the Institute. We do not accept grants or contributions from

corporations, corporate foundations, political parties, or candidate

committees. For more information about supporting the Institute,

please contact Development Director Barbara Bonifas at 406-449-2480.

Fiscal year 2013 (July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013) expenses totaled

$1.6 million. Listed on the right are foundations that have supported

the Institute since our founding. We are especially grateful to

current foundation funders, identified in bold.

The Bauman Foundation

The California Endowment

Carnegie Corporation of New York

Donor Advised Funds

Energy Foundation

Ford Foundation

The William and

Flora Hewlett Foundation

JEHT Foundation

The Joyce Foundation

Albert A. List Foundation

John D. & Catherine T.

MacArthur Foundation

Mertz Gilmore Foundation

Open Society Foundations

The Pew Charitable Trusts

Public Welfare Foundation

Rockefeller Brothers Fund

Rockefeller Family Fund

Sunlight Foundation

Funding This Essential Work

Data sales, custom research, data licensing agreements, nonprofit

membership enhancements, speaking fees, and in-kind contributions

generate 10 percent of annual Institute income. A community

fundraiser sponsored by the Blackfoot River Brewing Co. donated $1

from every pint sold during the event; individual donations also taken.

We are grateful to individuals whose personal

donations during our fiscal year 2013 helped create transparency

around special interest influence in elections in 50 states.

Doug and Maureen Averill, Edwin Bender, Roger Best,

Gerald M. Bonetto, Bert Brandenburg, Martin Cooper,

Gerald Davis, Branden Diehl, Ann Eldridge, Thomas E. Heyes,

Annie and David Hull, Keith Hamm, David Hunter,

Adelaide Elm Kimball, Quresh Latif, Michael Malbin, Marie McAlear,

Alan Nicholson, Geri Palast, Samantha Sanchez, Aaron Sojourner,

Bernard van Maarseveen, Beverly Weeks, Anonymous


thank you

thank you


National Institute on Money in State Politics

833 N. Last Chance Gulch

Helena, Montana 59601

phone: 406-449-2480 • fax: 406-457-2091

email: [email protected]

September 2013 Printed on recycled paper with soy-based inks



the onl ne on money n tate olcs · 2015. 10. 27. · of campaign money on state-level elections and...

Documents