Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
Mega-donors Get Mixed Election Returns
Wealthy Contributors Find that Big Bucks Sometimes Backfire
Michigan
architect Jon Stryker didn't bother with the fund-raising circuit last year when
he launched a political nonprofit group to support Democratic candidates and
oppose conservative ballot measures. The billionaire simply chipped in $4.6
million of his own money.
Stryker was among a bevy of big donors to pour some of their personal fortunes
into last year's gubernatorial, state legislative and ballot-measure contests.
But the super-rich had a mixed record in their single-handed efforts to sway
election outcomes. In some cases, the motives of wealthy donors even backfired
against their candidates or causes.
Through his PAC and other individual contributions, Stryker gave at least $6.4
million to candidates or political committees in at least a dozen states,
including Michigan, where he can boast that Democrats gained a majority in the
Michigan House of Representatives for the first time in 12 years. But Texas' top
two donors spent nearly $12 million in 2006, mostly on Republican candidates for
the statehouse, only to see the GOP lose five seats.
A West Virginia coal magnate spent nearly $3.2 million in a failed personal
quest to oust Democrats from the West Virginia Legislature. Meanwhile, in
Oregon, a Las Vegas resident pitched in $1.25 million for two losing libertarian
ballot initiatives and the unsuccessful campaigns of two Republican
gubernatorial challengers.
The scope of wealthy donors' contributions nationwide is difficult to tally
because there is no comprehensive database of state campaign finances. In
addition, most of the largess flows outside contributions to candidates'
campaigns. Many individuals give money to nonprofit political groups --
so-called 527s -- that may disclose their contributors to the Internal Revenue
Service instead of the state. Other nonprofit groups that participate in the
political process are not required to reveal their donors at all.
Well-heeled donors use campaign contributions to build statehouse influence on
specific policies, to make an ideological point or just to flex their financial
muscles, said Ed Bender, director of the nonprofit Institute for Money in State
Politics, which tracks individual contributions to state-level campaigns and
ballot initiatives. "It just becomes a power thing. They have the money and
they're going to do it," he said.
Stryker, one of
the heirs to a medical products fortune, succeeded in getting bang for his buck
in 2006. Michigan State Republican Chairman Saul Anuzis said Stryker's money
"played a huge role" in the Democrats' takeover of the Michigan House.
Importantly, his bankrolling never became an issue. "I would argue most
people didn't know this guy, Stryker, was paying for the campaign ads,"
Anuzis told Stateline.org.
Stryker's sister, Pat, also contributed $500,000 to her brother's organization,
Michigan Coalition for Progress. She is one of a handful of wealthy donors
credited with helping Democrats win a surprise majority in the Colorado
Legislature in 2004.
Outside of his
political action committee, Stryker sent thousands of dollars to state-level
Democrats in California, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania and Washington, according to data from the Institute on Money in
State Politics. Democrats gained legislative seats in all of those states,
except Oklahoma, and new legislative majorities in chambers in Iowa and
Pennsylvania. Nationally, Democrats made a net gain of more than 350 state
legislative seats and new majorities in 10 statehouse chambers.
Stryker also sent at least $750,000 to groups opposing gay-marriage bans on the
ballots in Arizona, Colorado and Virginia. Arizona became the first state ever
to reject a gay marriage ban at the ballot box.
Stryker supports a broad agenda of social justice and civil rights issues, not
just gay rights, said Lisa Turner, Stryker's political advisor and a veteran of
the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, which works to boost the party's
statehouse numbers nationally. His group plans to grade lawmakers on those
issues in states where it is active, she said.
Unlike Stryker, some deep-pocketed Republicans found themselves swimming against
last year's partisan tide, including Texas developer Bob Perry, one of the
founders of the Swift Boat Vets group that sidetracked 2004 presidential
candidate U.S. Sen. John Kerry (D). Perry increased his state campaign donations
in Texas by 44% from the 2004 elections, pouring money into 146 legislative
races and 17 state political action committees, according to Texans for Public
Justice (TPJ), a campaign-finance watchdog group. He gave 92% of his money to
Republicans, but only one seat that he targeted switched for the GOP.
But Perry also gave two-thirds of the $750,000 spent by a political nonprofit
group that slammed Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Mike Hatch (D), who lost.
And Perry gave $225,000 to the failed gubernatorial bid of Pennsylvania
Republican Lynn Swann (R) and more than $22,000 to Calif. Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger's (R) successful re-election.
Successful or not, million-dollar donors can have a chilling impact on
lawmakers' decisions, said Craig McDonald, executive director of the Texas
watchdog group. Texas legislators worry that one wrong vote will make them the
next target of Perry or private school-voucher advocate James Leininger, who
spent more than $5 million on Texas Republican candidates and conservative
political action committees, McDonald said. In the 2006 primary, Leininger
backed conservative challengers who defeated two GOP incumbents in the state
Legislature who had voted against publicly funded vouchers for students to
attend private schools. In the general election, however, three sitting
legislators backed by Leininger lost their seats to Democrats.
In the wake of this year's flood of campaign cash, a Texas bill to cap
individual campaign contributions at $100,000 is gaining momentum, McDonald
said. Texas is one of a dozen states that have currently no limits on individual
campaign contributions.
In West Virginia,
only one of more than three dozen incumbent Democratic state lawmakers targeted
by Don Blankenship -- CEO of Massey Energy Co., one of the state's largest
employers -- lost. And that was losing candidate was an 80-year-old woman
admitted to an assisted-living facility during the campaign, according to press
accounts. In fact, Democrats gained a total of six seats in the state
legislature.
Voters were skeptical of Blankenship's money and motives, said state Democratic
Party Chairman Nick Casey. He has become a political celebrity, of sorts,
spending millions in an effort to influence the state's tax and regulatory
policies and filing lawsuits against Gov. Joe Manchin (D) and all five of the
state's Supreme Court justices. In 2005, Blankenship helped defeat a $5.5
billion bond referendum supported by Manchin. Massey Coal was fined $50 million
in 2002 for forcing a smaller company out of business and has come under
increasing scrutiny for safety violations and 13 deaths in coal mine accidents
over the past five years.
One of Oregon's top campaign donors is Las Vegas resident Loren Parks, who has
contributed more than $7.1 million to Oregon campaigns over the past decade,
according to data from the secretary of state. In 2006, Parks backed two losing
ballot measures, providing the vast majority of money to groups pushing a state
income-tax deduction for Oregonians and a measure to bar insurance companies
from using credit scores to determine premium rates, according to the nonprofit
Money in Politics Research Action Project. Both failed because voters viewed
Parks as an outsider with no business in the state's politics, said House
Speaker Jeff Merkley (D).
A wealthy reclusive New York real-estate developer, Howard Rich, is linked to several nonprofit groups that spent an estimated $15 million to push 35 ballot initiatives limiting state spending and strengthening individual property rights, according to the left-leaning Ballot Initiative Strategy Center. Several of the measures were barred from the ballot because of fraudulent signature-gathering, and only one of those measures was approved -- an Arizona initiative requiring state and local governments to pay property owners whose land values were diminished by land-use restrictions.
While Rich has either launched or helped direct all these groups -- including Americans for Limited Government, Club for Growth State Action, U.S. Term Limits and Fund for Democracy -- the organizations are not required to reveal their donors' names. Americans for Limited Government has repeatedly claimed widespread support for its measures. The Center for Public Integrity charged recently that tax documents show 99% of that group's funds came from just three individuals, although the names are not revealed in the tax filings.
Source: Pewresearch.org
The Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan "fact tank" that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world. It does so by conducting public opinion polling and social science research; by reporting news and analyzing news coverage; and by holding forums and briefings. It does not take positions on policy issues.