| |
Impact
of I-134 on Money in Washington Politics
Western States
Center &
The National Institute on Money in State Politics
By Samantha
Sanchez and Linda Casey
October 25,
1998
A Comparison
of the 1990, 1992, 1994 and 1996 Elections
Table of Contents
Table
of Contents
Voters
in Washington adopted Initiative 134 in 1992 as a
first attempt at campaign finance reform in the state.
The stated goals of the measure were to open the election
system to newcomers and reduce the money in politics.
Under fire from charges that I-134 was purely a partisan
measure, proponents claimed the "reforms are aimed
at eliminating incumbent advantage and forcing candidates
to raise most of their money from individuals rather
than special interest." (Seattle Times 1/3/92) While
the rhetoric was convincing, the effectiveness of
I-134 is doubtful.
- The limits
did not end the flow of special interest money
to candidates: contributions are 10% higher than
before reform (page 2) and the system is steeped
in controversy and scandal.
- Incumbents
are just as successful as before, raising as much
money and winning as many elections as they did
before reform. In 1996, 107 incumbents ran and
93 of them won -- the highest level in all four
elections studied and a 31% increase over the
previous election.
- The number
of contributors giving $1,000 or more has increased
steadily from 712 contributors in 1990 to 1026
contributors in 1996 and they still supply two-thirds
of all the money in legislative races.
- The impact
on contributors was not even-handed, as the largest
decline in contributions was from organized labor
sources while most business giving increased.
- Businesses
and PACs still supply nearly four times as much
money to candidates as individuals, down from
five times as much in 1990. Funds filtered through
party leadership PACs have nearly tripled since
1990.
- The most
important impact of I-134 is that it encouraged
special interests to pour money into independent
expenditures with the result that millions of
dollars are now hidden from public view. Accountability
is no longer a reasonable safeguard in Washington
politics.
The
Law
Prior
to the 1992 passage of I-134, there were no contribution
limits in Washington. In 1994, with a new law in effect,
individual contributions to legislative candidates
were limited to $500 per election whether or not the
candidate had opposition and $1,000 for candidates
for statewide office. In other words, an individual
contributor could give any legislative candidate $500
in the primary election, and another $500 in the general
election, or $1,000 per election cycle. The limits
were indexed and have now been increased to $575 and
$1,150 respectively. In
addition, the new law limited the amounts that a
political party could provide to a candidate, based
on the number of voters in the last election in
that district, but the limits imposed exceeded amounts
previously given by party PACs to candidates. Transfers
from candidate to candidate were banned.
Return
to Table of Contents
Methodology
Campaign contribution
records compiled by the Washington Public Disclosure
Commission for four election cycles have been used
in this study. The raw data was downloaded from
the Public Disclosure Commission's web site, standardized
and augmented by National Institute on Money in
State Politics staff by adding economic interest
codes to identify the sources of funds in the elections.
Two legislative
election cycles, 1990 and 1992, predate the reforms
enacted by I-134 and two cycles, 1994 and 1996,
were conducted under the I-134 limits. The two sets
of data are divided in the charts and graphs that
follow to make the before-and-after comparison more
visible. Note that statewide and gubernatorial races
are not included in this study in order to assure
that the numbers are comparable from one cycle to
the next. Only legislative races, both primary and
general, are included in the data.
Note that
the figures for 1990 and 1992 contributions have
been adjusted to be comparable to the 1994 and 1996
figures by removing $935,741 and $1,015,454 respectively,
in contributions by candidates and their election
committees to other candidates. The practice is
frequently used by party and legislative leaders,
typically those with easy re-election races, to
use their fund-raising skills to help others in
their party get elected and to build loyalty to
the party leaders in the legislature. These contributions,
called pass-throughs, do not actually increase the
amount of money in the election cycle. In fact,
when a contribution is passed from one candidate
to another it results in the same money being counted
twice and thereby overstates the actual total of
funds raised during the election cycle. By the same
analysis, banning pass-throughs, as I-134 did, did
not actually reduce the money contributed to candidates
as a group; it simply prevented the double counting.
Therefore, to make the numbers comparable from year
to year, we have removed those pass-throughs from
the files of prior years.
Return
to Table of Contents
Impact
on Contributions
Overall
The contribution
limits had a small, temporary impact on the amount
of money in Washington state politics. Comparison
of the past four legislative elections in Washington
state shows contributions declined 7% after reform
in 1994 but then increased 19% in 1996, so the leveling
influence of the limits was brief.
Before I-134
passed, contributions had increased 7% between 1990
($11,651,500) and 1992 ($12,472,445). After reform
contributions declined 7% to $11,537,524, but then
increased sharply to $13,728,035 in 1996. Overall,
contributions increased 18% over the four election
cycles from 1990 through 1996, despite contribution
limits being imposed in the third and fourth cycles.
The average dollars-per-resident increased from
$2.39 in 1990 to $2.52 in 1996.
It is
important to note that these totals do not include
the soaring independent expenditures that characterize
the 1994 and 1996 elections as business and labor
PACs searched for ways around the limits following
reform. A study by the non-partisan Washington Council
for Fair Elections documented independent expenditures
of $269,275 in 1994 and $1,028,067 in 1996, compared
to $91,045 in 1992 and none in 1990. However, this
study looks only at the funds contributed directly
to legislative candidates but it is clear that
I-134, when both direct and independent expenditures
are counted, did not prevent a substantial increase
in the money being spent in Washington elections.
If independent expenditures are added to direct
candidate contributions, for example, there was
a 26.6% increase in money in Washington politics
over the four election cycles. However, it is important
to document that even without avoidance devices
and alternative methods of funding candidates, the
contribution limits have not succeeded in reducing
the money contributed to candidates or opening up
the electoral system.
Return
to Table of Contents
Average
Raised Per Candidate
The average campaign
fund raised by candidates decreased in 1994 after
I-134, as might be expected. However, the downward
trend had already started before reform, with an
11% decline in 1992, and declined just 3% the first
year under reform so it is questionable whether
the change is due to the contribution limits or
to completely unrelated factors that were already
in place. Whatever the cause, the trend ended with
the 1996 cycle which saw a 20% increase in the average
funds raised by candidates.
The real change
was the larger number of candidates (20% more) in
1992 who raised more money overall but less money
individually. The total number of candidates has
stayed substantially higher than the 1990 figure
through the recent elections. However, it would
appear that reform was not responsible for broadening
the field of candidates, as the number of candidates
increased 20% before reform and then actually declined
by 4 percent in 1994 and another one percent in
1996.
Candidates of
the two major parties fared differently in the changes.
As a group, House Democratic candidates have lost
funds in both elections following I-134 compared
to pre-reform levels, while Republican candidates
have gained in both post-reform election cycles.
Senate candidates of both parties lost after reform,
but Republicans have regained their pre-reform fund-raising
levels while Democrats have not.
For the first
three cycles, Democrats in both House and Senate
raised more money, on the whole, than Republicans,
but because they ran more candidates, the per-candidate
average was very close for the two parties' candidates.
In 1996, however, Republicans raised more money
in both House and Senate, ran more candidates for
office, and had a higher per-candidate average than
Democrats.
Return
to Table of Contents
Number
and Size of Contributions
I-134 had a major impact on the nature of the contributions
to legislative candidates: the number of contributions
and contributors more than doubled while the average
size of contributions was roughly halved. With contribution
limits depressing the size of larger contributions,
the difference was made up, for the most part, by
more contributors.
 
- Contribution size declined: The average
size of contributions declined more in Senate
races than the House. Over the four year election
cycle the Senate contribution size declined by
61%, and the House declined by 34%. In 1996, average
contribution size in both House and Senate rose,
however.
In 1994 the average contribution to a House candidate
declined by 55% to $247, but then rose again to
$333 in 1996. In Senate races, however, as illustrated
in the graph below, there was a 66% decline in
the average contribution, down to $283 in 1994,
but in 1996 that amount had increased 39% to $393.
Before reform there was an 18% decline in Senate
average contributions between 1990 and 1992, from
an average contribution of $1,012 to $832.
- Contribution numbers increased: The
number of contributions increased 144% over the
four year election cycle, from 12,637 contributions
in 1990 and 15,248 in 1992 to 34,899 in 1994 and
30,894 in 1996.
- Contributors increased: The number of
contributors of all kinds, i.e., PACs, businesses,
individuals and party sources, more than doubled
after reform from 4,218 in 1990 and 4,914 in 1992
to 11,523 in 1994 and then dropped to 7,476. To
put that in perspective, the population of the
state was 4.9 million in 1990 and 5.4 million
in 1995, so the number of contributors is less
than 0.14% of the population.
However, the number of contributors who gave a
total of $1,000 or more to legislative candidates
increased steadily over the four election cycles
despite the contribution limits. In 1990, there
were 712 such contributors, 854 in 1992, 880 in
1994 and 1026 in 1996. Before reform, those big
contributors supplied 66% and 68% of the total
funds raised. After reform, they supplied 59%
and 67%, so their importance in the fund-raising
scheme was hardly diminished. As of 1996, two-thirds
of the funds raised by legislative candidates
came from just over 1000 contributors, or 0.019%
of the state's population.
- Small contributions declined: Contributions
under the reporting threshold are reported to
the Washington Public Disclosure Commission as
aggregate lump sums without contributor names
to reduce the record keeping required of candidates.
It is not possible to know how many contributors
or what kind of contributors are represented by
that sum of money, but surprisingly the total
amount reported declined initially after reform.
Despite the contribution limits, which were intended
to encourage more small contributions, the amount
collected declined steadily from 1990 to 1994,
from $2.97 million to $2.55 million, but then
jumped in 1996 to $2.90 million. The amount of
small contributions is, therefore, still below
pre-reform levels.
Return
to Table of Contents
Type
of Contributors
Following
the enactment of contribution limits, all categories
of contributors made more contributions, with businesses
and PACs showing a 219% increase and individuals showing
a 289% increase in the number of contributions made
as contributors and candidates alike redoubled their
efforts in order to compensate for the contribution
limits. Many contributors in the business/PAC category
spread their funds in smaller amounts to more candidates
in an effort to maintain previous levels of contribution
and protect their valuable access to the legislature.
At the same time, candidates had to raise more contributions
in smaller amounts in order to maintain previous fund-raising
levels. The results of their efforts are shown in
the chart below. The
most remarkable change, however, is the increase
in the money that went from party sources to candidates,
as the dollar value of the contributions nearly
tripled from $1,029,241 in 1990 to $3,030,778 in
1996. With direct contributions to candidates limited,
the PACs created by political parties became an
alternative vehicle for contributions which were
not subject to the $500/$1,000 limits.
The ratio
of business and PAC contributions to those made by
individuals declined from slightly more than 5 to
1 before reform to slightly less than 4 to 1 after
reform. However, in 1996 contributions from individuals
declined both in number and in dollars but still exceed
the pre-reform levels by both measures. Contributions
from businesses and PACs increased in number but declined
in dollars after reform. In 1996, however, the size
of the average contribution increased and with it
the total dollars contributed by businesses and PACs
rose 17% to recover most of the 1994 decline. The
trends in contribution patterns, therefore, is not
yet settled in response to the 1992 reforms.
The independent
expenditures noted on page 3 add another million
dollars to the 1996 mix, largely from businesses
and PACs, which is not shown in these charts. I-134
did not change the reliance of Washington's candidates
on money from businesses and PACs as reformers had
hoped. Nor did it reduce the amount of money that
business and PAC interests spend on Washington politics.
Return
to Table of Contents
Impact
on Elections
Although
the limits did not notably change the total money
contributed to candidates, it did change the ways
in which money was raised and therefore could have
had an impact on the elections themselves. However,
it would seem that the changes that did occur over
the four election cycles were likely not a result
of the contribution limits as they began before
reform and have declined after reform.
Return
to Table of Contents
Money
Still Wins
The candidate
who wins the fund-raising race generally wins the
election and the 1992 reforms did not change the
basic rule. Reformers hope that diminishing the
money in politics will, in essence, have a leveling
effect that removes this advantage, at least in
part. However, in 1994 the candidate who raised
the most money won 88% of the time, two percentage
points higher than before reform. In 1996
it dropped nearly nine percentage points to 79%
of the time, leaving no clear pattern resulting
from reform.
However, the
ratio of funds raised by winning candidates compared
to losing candidates has declined slightly since
the reforms, a positive step toward more competitive
races. In 1990, winners raised 2.22 times as much
money as losers. That rose to 2.73 times as much
in 1992. After reform, the winners raised 2.61 times
as much as losers in 1994 and 2.54 times as much
in 1996. The financial advantage enjoyed by winners
is still overwhelming, with winners raising an average
of $67,763 compared to losers raising $26,699 in
1996.
Return
to Table of Contents
Incumbents
Still Win
It is axiomatic
that incumbents have a number of advantages over
challengers, including a substantial fund-raising
advantage. In Washington, incumbents continue to
raise more than twice as much as their challengers,
although their dollar advantage declined very slightly,
and incumbents continue to run for office and be
returned to office at an even higher rate than before
reform. While many factors are involved in the power
of incumbency, it is clear that the contribution
limits of I-134 did not diminish it at all.
- Fund-raising:
Prior to reform, the ratio of average funds raised
by incumbents to the average funds raised by challengers
was 2.33 to 1 (1990) and 2.97 to 1 (1992). After
reform, the ratio dropped to 2.44 to 1 (1994)
and 2.17 to 1 (1996), showing improvement over
the high of 1992. However, incumbents have retained
a substantial fund-raising advantage over challengers.
The average raised by incumbents declined 1% (from
$65,290 to $64,700) over the four election cycles
and the average for challengers increased nearly
2% over the same period.
Re-election:
Given the fund-raising advantage, it is not surprising
that the number of incumbents re-elected did not
decline after reform, remaining static the first
year and increasing dramatically the second year.
The number of incumbents running was at the lowest
level in all four cycles (79 candidates) in 1992
before the reform took effect, down from 107 incumbent
candidates the previous election, and 71 of those
79 candidates (90%) won. In 1994, after reform,
the exact same number (71) of incumbents won and
the number of incumbents running increased to
93. In 1996, 107 incumbents ran, back up to the
1990 level, and 93 of them won -- the highest
level in all four elections and a 31% increase
over the previous election.
As a percentage
of all winners, the incumbents' success pattern
is similar. Before reform in 1990, 73% of all seats
were won by incumbents. In 1992, that number declined
to 57%. After I-134, incumbents were 58% of the
winners in 1994, and increased to 76% in 1996. Re-elected
incumbents are, therefore, a larger percentage of
the current legislature than they were prior to
the passage of I-134.
It is not clear
how this pattern can be related to the campaign
finance reform as there was a decline prior to reform
that makes post-reform changes hard to analyze.
Typically the year following reform was one in which
no major changes occurred, followed by a year of
dramatic increase. However, it is clear that the
reform did not have the intended effect of curbing
the tremendous power of incumbency and opening the
system up to more challengers by creating a more
even distribution of funds.
Overall, nearly
90% of the winning candidates in the four cycles
were either the candidate who raised the largest
amount of money or the incumbent (often the top
fund-raiser in the last election.) Despite the goals
of the reform measure, the ability to win without
one of those two advantages was not enhanced by
the contribution limits of I-134: there were 13
such winners in 1990, 14 in 1992, 13 in 1994 and
only 9 in 1996.
Return
to Table of Contents
Uncontested
Races Increased
A high rate of
uncontested races is a sign that a political system
is not an open contest of ideas and debate. Reducing
the influence of money in politics should encourage
more candidates to run who do not have the fund-raising
skills of seasoned politicians. Fortunately, the
incidence of uncontested races has not been high
in Washington in any of the cycles studied. However,
the number tripled after reform from 6 in 1992 to
18 in 1994 and 19 in 1996, so it is clear that I-134
did not encourage more challenges and more candidates.
Return
to Table of Contents
Open
Seats Decreased
The number of
open seats in the election cycle, i.e., those with
no incumbent running, is often viewed as a measure
of the openness of the political system, the obverse
of the uncontested races and incumbent-re-election
patterns reformers tried to change. Reforms tailored
to curb the power of incumbents, therefore, should
increase the number of open seats. However, the
pattern in Washington is difficult to plot with
any reference to the reforms that became effective
in 1994, in part because of an extremely high number
of open seats immediately prior to reform in 1992,
when 47 of the 124 races were open races. In the
previous cycle, 1990, there were only 16 open seats,
or little more than one-third that number.
After reform,
the number of open seats declined to 28 and finally
19 in 1996, in both cases higher than 1990 but lower
than 1992. In any event, the reforms did not increase
the number of open seat races.
Return
to Table of Contents
Sources
of Funds by Economic Interest
Despite
the lack of real impact on the amounts of money,
I-134 did make a difference in the sources of funds.
When contributions are divided into sectors by economic
interest of the contributors, the impacts of reform
can be seen shifting away from large business and
labor PACs and into party PACs. However, while contributions
from general business PACs such as United for Washington
declined, the contributions from most of the specific
business sectors increased. It is likely this resulted
from the contribution patterns of those sources
of funds as labor PACs and the large business PACs
typically gave large contributions before reform.
When the limits of I-134 prevented this, the contribution
patterns shifted so that a greater percentage of
funds now come from individual business people and
small companies.
By the 1996
election, labor had increased its contributions
to $1.1 million and had recovered nearly 70% of
the post-reform decline but the big business PACs
regained less than 40%. However, most business sectors
gained steadily despite the limits, making up for
the decline by the general business PACs. Agriculture,
for example, increased 41% after reform and gained
another 4% in 1996. The communications and electronics
sector gained 15% after reform and another 53% in
1996. Construction increased its contributions a
healthy 20% after reform and another 7% in 1996.
Resource development increased 5% after reform and
another 20% in 1996.
On the other
hand, the health sector declined 11% after reform
and another 4% in 1996. Contributions from lawyers
and lobbyists also declined 18% over the four election
cycles, but actually gained in the first election
after the limits were enacted, drawing the cause
of the decline into question.
Return
to Table of Contents
Agriculture
Contributions
from the agriculture sector jumped more than 40%
following reform and another 4% in 1996. the number
of contributions more than doubled from 557 in 1992
to 1208 in 1994, while the size of the average contribution
dropped from $381 to $248. In part, the increase
in the number of contributions is due to an increase
in the contributions from the same PACs and businesses
that had given before. For example, the Hort PAC
made 13 contributions in 1990 and 20 in 1992, but
increased to 116 in 1994 and 69 in 1996. The Veterinarians
PAC increased their activity from 55 and 73 contributions
per year, pre-reform, to 95 and 125 contributions
per year, post-reform. Furthermore, new PACs developed
in post-reform years representing similar interests,
such as the Washington Sustainable Agriculture PAC
and the Yakima Valley Growers and Shippers, as well
as many individuals in the agriculture business.
The number of
separate contributors increased dramatically from
142 and 98 in the pre-reform years to 402 and 356
in the post-reform years. The percentage of the
funds contributed by individuals increased from
20% and 10%, pre-reform, to 29% and 32% post-reform
because of a greater rate of increase in the giving
by individuals. Contributors in the food processing
and sales industry led the sector for the first
three election cycles, but were surpassed in 1996
by contributions from the crop production industry.
While it appears
that I-134 did not diminish the flow of money from
the agricultural sector of Washington politics,
it did draw more contributors and encouraged existing
contributors to make more contributions.
Return
to Table of Contents
Communications
and Electronics
The money contributed
by the communications and electronics sector increased
steadily despite I-134 as a result of the great
increase in the number of contributions. The size
of the average contribution dropped to less than
half its pre-reform amount while the number of contributions
increased nearly two and a half times over. The
contributions from individuals in this sector, especially
in the computer equipment and services industry,
increased at a faster pace than did the business/PAC
contributions. The relative share of funds contributed
by corporations and PACs declined from 94% and 98%
in 1992 and 1994 to 86% and 78% in 1994 and 1996
as the number of individual contributors increased.
Telephone utilities
were the largest source of funds in this business
sector in all four elections, increasing from $131,000
in 1990 to $240,000 in 1996.
Return
to Table of Contents
Construction
Funds from the
construction industry steadily increased over the
four election cycles from $311,000 to $455,000.
The number of contributions increased 2.7 times
over while the size of the average contribution,
$240, fell to less than half its pre-reform amount
of $540. The share of the funds in this sector that
came from businesses or PACs was 87% and 94% before
reform and fell to 74% and 75% after reform. Most
of the money was contributed by general contractors
in all four cycles. with suppliers of building materials
and equipment next highest.
Return
to Table of Contents
Finance,
Insurance and Real Estate
Funds from the
financial sector, including banking, investments,
insurance and real estate, increased slightly after
contribution limits were enacted. Typically, the
size of the average contribution dropped to less
than half, from $509 to $246, and the number of
contributions more than doubled, from 1,962 to 4,444.
In the years before reform, 86% -93% of the funds
came from businesses and PACs and that number dropped
to 83%-85% after reform. The insurance industry
was the top contributor in all four election cycles,
followed by real estate interests.
Return
to Table of Contents
Health
The health sector
was one of the few that actually experienced a decline
in the total money contributed to legislative candidates,
with an 11% decline the first cycle and another
4% decline in 1996. Prior to reform, the average
contribution was $633 in both the 1990 and 1992
elections, higher than most other specific business
sectors, which declined to just one-third as much,
$210. Health professionals were the largest source
of funds in all four cycles, but their share of
the sector's contributions dropped from 89% to 78%
by 1996. Prior to reform 90 - 92% of the funds came
from businesses and PACs but after reform that share
dropped to 75 - 76% with the remainder coming from
individuals in the health care sector.
Return
to Table of Contents
Ideology
Giving by ideological
groups has never been a major part of the funding
of Washington legislative campaigns, supplying just
1.3% of the total at its highest point in 1996.
However, the amount has grown steadily over the
four election cycles, while the average contribution
fell to half of the pre-reform amount and the number
of contributions more than doubled. The groups included
in this category include the National Rifle Association,
the Sierra Club, pro-choice and pro-life groups,
gay rights organizations, tax reform groups and
children's advocates, among others. By the nature
of this category, virtually all the money comes
from PACs because an individual's ideology is not
reported with the contribution.
Return
to Table of Contents
Labor
Labor contributions
declined most dramatically of all the sectors, dropping
43% in 1994. Labor regained most of that decline
in 1996, but remained 13% below the pre-reform level.
The ratio of business to labor contributions had
been 3 to 1 in 1990 and 4.25 to 1 in 1992, but after
reform was passed most business contributions continued
to rise while labor contributions fell, creating
a 7.36 to 1 ratio in 1994 and 5.26 ratio in 1996.
(For purposes of this calculation, the contributions
of the labor sector are compared to all other sectors
except small contributions, party contributions,
those in the "other" category which are typically
non-profits or civil servants, and unknowns. The
business category therefore includes all businesses
and individuals employed in those business sectors.)
Labor groups
were most heavily impacted by the contribution limits
because PACs were responsible for almost all of
the money in those categories and PACs function
by aggregating the contributions of a group of donors
into one large contribution. The average of all
labor contributions in 1990 was $1,181, the highest
of any sector except business associations which,
under the leadership of business PAC United for
Washington, made contributions averaging more than
ten times that amount. After reform, the average
labor contribution was $292 in 1994 and $344 in
1996.
Public sector
unions representing teachers and other government
employees were the largest source of labor contributions
in all four cycles with pre-reform contributions
of $912,000 and $861,000 which dropped to $360,000
and $526,000 after reform. General trade unions,
such as the AFL-CIO and its affiliates gave $677,000
and $323,000 before reform, which dropped to $265,000
and $448,000 after reform. The third category, transportation
unions, gave $174,000 and $115,000 before reform
and similar amounts, $116,000 and $155,000, after
reform. Note that in all three cases, the level
of contributions had already dropped in the year
prior to I-134 but the contribution limits drove
the contributions lower still.
Return
to Table of Contents
Lawyers
and Lobbyists
Contributions
from lawyers and lobbyists rose slightly after the
passage of I-134, from $340,000 to $346,000, and
then declined in 1996 to $284,000, the year in which
most other sectors regained the losses of the previous
election cycle. Therefore, it is unclear whether
the overall decline is connected to the passage
of reform or a result of other forces. As with other
sectors, the size of the contributions dropped to
less than one-third the pre-reform average contribution
and the number of contributions more than tripled.
The percentage of funds from businesses and PACs
declined from 79 - 89% pre-reform to 68 - 72% after
reform.
Return
to Table of Contents
Miscellaneous
Business
The general
business industries grouped in this sector include
manufacturing, sales, food services, beer, wine
and liquor, tobacco, lodging and tourism, recreation,
business services, and general business associations.
One business association, United for Washington,
was the single largest contributor in Washington
politics in 1990 and 1992, with total contributions
of $1.1 million, with individual contributions averaging
over $20,000 in 1990. As a result, that one PAC
accounted for half of the money contributed in this
entire sector in those election cycles. After reform,
however, with average contributions reduced to $500,
United for Washington's total contributions fell
from $588,630 in 1990 and $507,500 in 1992 to $14,000
in 1994 and $1,650 in 1996, accounting for the entire
loss in this sector. In fact, without United for
Washington, the general business sector would have
shown a 42% gain over the four election cycles.
The food and
beverage industry is the next largest source of
campaign contributions and its contributions have
grown steadily, with a small 6% decline in 1994
after reform and a 30% gain in 1996. The beer, wine
and liquor industry contributions have grown from
$70,000 in 1990 to $160,000 in 1996 despite the
contribution limits. Finally, the tobacco industry
contributions have remained steady in the $80,000
- $90,000 per year except for 1994 when they temporarily
fell to $65,000.
Return
to Table of Contents
Other
This sector
includes a variety of contributors that do not fit
into the business, labor or ideological categories,
such as civil servants, retirees, clergy, non-profit
employees, artists, social workers and educators.
The number of contributions increased more than
tenfold from 1992 to 1994 while the size of the
average contribution fell by more than half from
$372 to $140. Most of the contributors in this sector
are individuals and part of the increase following
reform reflects the same phenomenon seen in other
sectors, with a greater percentage of campaign funds
coming from individuals.
In addition,
some unmeasurable part of that increase is also
due to better reporting in identifying individual
contributors as a result of the Public Disclosure
Commission's efforts and, therefore, must be viewed
as a somewhat artificial increase for this sector.
Self-identification in contribution reports is most
important with individual contributors who are otherwise
very difficult to code. The amount of unidentified
contributions declined steeply in the two cycles
that showed an increase in the identifications in
this sector, and although the amounts are not strictly
equal, there is clearly some interrelationship in
those figures.
Contributions
from retirees are the largest group in this sector,
virtually all of it from individuals. The totals
grew rapidly from $38,000 and $14,000 pre-reform
to $178,000 and $236,000 post-reform and it is unclear
how much of that gain is due to better identifications.
Educators were the next largest source of funds
in all four cycles with PACs being a source of roughly
half the funds in that category.
Return
to Table of Contents
Party
Party funds,
which includes contributions by the candidates to
their own campaigns, have tripled over the course
of the four election cycles. Funds raised by party
leadership PACs and distributed to candidates are
the largest source of funds in this sector, increasing
144% in eight years from $827,000 to $2,000,000.
Republicans increased their fund-raising 156% over
the four elections while Democrats gained 134%,
although they raised more money overall.
The Democrats
led the Republicans in these fund-raising efforts
for the first two cycles, with a 21% advantage in
1990 and a 13% advantage in 1992. In 1994, Republicans
out-raised Democrats by 6% but in 1996, the Democrats
again took the lead with an 11% advantage.
With limits
placed on what contributors can give to campaigns,
candidates often resort to using their own funds.
Candidates' personal contributions to their own
campaigns increased dramatically from $158,700 in
1990 to $809,500 in 1996, a more than five-fold
increase. In the first three election cycles, Democratic
candidates used more of their own money than did
Republican candidates, but Republicans led in 1996.
For both parties, the number of candidates contributing
to their own campaigns declined slightly after reform
but then increased to previous levels or higher
in 1996.
Return
to Table of Contents
Resource
Development
Contributions
from those industries that develop natural resources,
such as oil and gas, timber, mining, electric utilities,
livestock, railroads and waste management, grew
steadily over the four election cycles for a total
gain of 34%.
Prior to reform,
95% - 98% of the funds came from businesses and
PACs, but that declined somewhat to 89% - 93% after
reform, while the average contribution dropped from
$499 and $447 to $254 and $299. The oil and gas
industry was the largest source of funds in the
first three of the four elections, but was surpassed
in 1996 by the timber industry.
Oil and gas
contributions, $286,000 in 1990 and $322,000 in
1992, dropped to $277,000 and $294,000 after reform.
Funds from the timber industry seem unaffected by
the reform, rising steadily from $199,000 and $207,000
in 1990 and 1992 to $261,000 and $337,000 in 1996.
Electric utilities were the third industry to contribute
a significant amount, and were also unaffected by
reforms, giving about $125,000 the first three election
cycles but increasing their giving to $174,000 in
1996.
Return
to Table of Contents
Transportation
Funds from the
transportation sector did not increase steadily
over the four cycles, but both post-reform cycles
were higher than the pre-reform cycles while the
percentage supplied by businesses and PACs declined
from 89% - 93% pre-reform to 80% - 83% post-reform.
Air transportation
was the industry that supplied the highest level
of contributions in three of the four cycles. but
contributions declined by about one-third after
I-134 was passed, from $152,000 and $159,000 to
$98,000 and $99,000 after reform. The Boeing Corporation,
which supplied nearly all the funds in this category
in the early cycles, cut its contribution in half
after reform. That accounted for virtually all of
the loss in that industry. The automotive industry
nearly doubled its contributions after reform, from
$51,000 and $60,000 to $112,000 and $98,000 in 1994
and 1996.
Return
to Table of Contents
| |
