We are not fiscal experts. We are campaign reformers concerned about our nation’s current deficit crisis who see a structural barrier to achieving long-term fiscal sustainability in Washington: the undue influence of special interest money on government and the basic conflict of interest it creates for Members of Congress. By exploring a range of ideas for deficit reduction put forward by respected budget experts from across the political spectrum, this report seeks to demonstrate the critical connection between fiscal and campaign finance reform for our nation’s future.

Americans agree that our current fiscal path is unsustainable and damaging to our long-term future. Americans also agree that the road to fiscal responsibility must be marked by shared sacrifice and fair play in the public interest. Americans will never agree in full on the specific pathways to achieving fiscal sustainability in the present Congress–but that need not obscure the considerable common ground we already share, nor should it stand in the way of reasoned compromise where we disagree. There is a larger, structural barrier to achieving long-term fiscal reform that transcends ideological difference.

Under the present system of privately financed campaigns, Members of Congress depend for reelection upon large contributions from special interest groups with a vested tax- and spending-interest before the committees on which they serve. Less than one percent of Americans fund campaigns and more money is raised in Washington, DC than in thirty-two states combined. Private contributions distort budgetary priorities and help sustain a multibillion dollar system of special tax breaks and government spending programs that benefit a few while costing the taxpayers at large. So long as special interest contributors continue to enjoy outsized influence in Washington, politicians will be unable to enact wholesale deficit reduction in the public interest.

To meet our nation’s daunting fiscal challenge, Congressional leaders and the President have expressed broad agreement on the need to reduce the federal deficit by roughly $4 trillion over the next ten years. While substantial differences remain over specific areas of deficit reduction, both sides agree that at least half of those reductions will have to come in the area of direct and indirect federal spending, and that the time for Washington to act is long overdue.

This report only addresses the spending side of the equation. We identify $2 trillion in potential savings over 10 years, or $200 billion per year, drawn from recommendations made by diverse interest groups across the political spectrum. The cuts in question span agriculture, energy, defense, labor, and healthcare and include programs and policies that are favored by both parties. The programs are found to disproportionately benefit a small set of organized corporate and labor interests engaged in targeted campaign contributions and lobbying. They have been termed rent-seeking by economists on the political right and left for their anti-competitive effects in violation of free-market principles.

By surveying a broad set of potential reductions in federal spending which disproportionately benefit narrow special interests, the report argues that a central, if overlooked, site in the struggle for fiscal responsibility is the undue influence enjoyed by organized lobbies’ use of political donations in the budget and policy-making process. America’s fiscal problem is also a campaign finance problem.

The report concludes by recommending a set of commonsense reforms to the system of financing federal elections for which there is broad bipartisan support.

View a pdf of the ACR Report – Fiscal and Campaign Finance Reform

• Voters in Arizona strongly support the Citizens Clean Elections Act, and even more so after they hear basic information about the law—with strong super majorities of support across party lines.
  
  When read with no description (see below for question wording), Clean Elections are supported by 52% of Arizonans, with just 7% opposed and 42% undecided.  Importantly, self-identified independents support the Clean Elections law by a margin of 53%-9%, as do a majority of Democrats (64%-1%) and a plurality of Republicans (42%-15%).

  After getting a short description (see below for question wording) support rises with 77% of Arizonans in favor, 14% opposed, and just 9% undecided.  Again, independents very strongly support Clean Elections with a description (79% favor, 12% oppose), as do Democrats (80%-7%) and Republicans (74%-19%).

• Support for Clean Elections is more than just an issue preference for Arizona voters, it is a core value to them as shown by the intensity of their support.
  
  On the Clean Elections with a description, a majority (57%) say they strongly favor, as well as a majority (54%) who strongly oppose a repeal.

• The demand for reform becomes stronger when voters consider a gift ban. Arizona voters are near unanimous in support of a law that would ban any candidate or public official from receiving any gifts from lobbyists.  Just under nine out of ten voters (68%) support with only 8% opposed and 6% undecided.  Again, support remains strong across party lines with 91% of Democrats in favor, 88% of independents in favor, and 81% of Republicans in favor.

• The ballot referendum for repeal of Clean Elections is a non-starter with voters. When asked about a possible repeal of Clean Elections (text below) almost two-thirds of Arizona voters (66%) oppose the repeal, with only 16% in favor and 19% undecided.  Opposition toward the repeal ranges from 59% to 79% across party lines.

• Arizona voters, including independent voters, are ready to punish candidates who support a repeal of Clean Elections at the polls. By a margin of 45% to 5%, independent voters would be less likely to support a candidate who favors repeal of Clean Elections.  Republicans (47% would be less likely to support such a candidate) and Democrats (64%) agree.

Incumbents Out-Raise Challengers 5 to 1

• Incumbent candidates for the House raised an average of $1.4 million in 2008, more than four times the amount raised by challengers and more than twice the amount raised by open seat candidates.
• Incumbent candidates for the Senate raised an average of $8.7 million, almost six times more than challengers and nearly four times more than open seat candidates.
• In keeping with historical trends, incumbents were overwhelmingly reelected in 2008, winning 94% of House races and 86% of Senate races.

Major Industries Strongly Favor Incumbents

• Incumbent candidates received the lion’s share of campaign contributions from major industry groups in 2008, regardless of political party.
• Energy industry contributors, including oil, gas, electric, and coal interests, directed 82 percent of their campaign contributions to incumbents in 2008.
• Wall Street contributors, including the finance and insurance industry, directed 74 percent of their campaign contributions to incumbents in 2008.
• Pharmaceutical industry contributors directed 89 percent of their giving to incumbents in 2008.

Industry Targets Key Committee Members

• Energy interests contributed an average of $393,000 and $280,000 to Senate and House members of the key energy and environmental committees, 3 to 6 times their average giving to all Members.
• Finance and insurance interests contributed an average of $2.2 million and $1.5 million respectively to Senate and House members of key financial, banking, and tax committees, 10 times their average for all Members.
• Pharmaceutical interests contributed an average of $210,432 and $163,280, respectively, to Senate and House members of key health, tax, and regulatory committees, 3 to 6 times their average for all Members.

Sources: Analysis of Federal Election Commission and Center for Responsive Politics data

Less than 1% of Americans Contribute 80% of Funds

• Less than 0.5 percent of the U.S. population contributed $200 or more to federal candidates in 2008, or 82 percent of total itemized contributions.
• Less than 0.1 percent of Americans contributed $2,300 or more in 2008, or 60 percent of the total.
• Approximately 4 percent of Americans made contributions in any amount in 2008.
• Men contributed 68 percent of all money to federal candidates, compared with 32 percent from women.

Geographic Concentration of Major Donors

• The top 5 metro areas for contributions to federal candidates in 2008 — New York, Washington, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Boston — contributed $726 million, more than the bottom 36 states combined.
• Residents of Manhattan’s Upper East Side (top 5 zip codes) contributed $72 million in 2008, more than each of the bottom 39 states and approximately 50 times the national per capita rate of $9.90.
• A study of racial/ethnic distribution of campaign contributions in the 2000-2004 elections found that 89.4 percent of money came from predominantly non-Hispanic white zip codes and 10.6 percent came from predominantly racial/ethnic minority zip codes.

Major Industries Top 2008 Contributors

• The top contributing industry sectors — finance and real estate, lawyers and lobbyists, healthcare, communications, and energy and transportation — provided a combined $1.2 billion in campaign money to federal candidates in 2008.
• Contributions from the top five sectors accounted for nearly 50 percent of the total $2.4 billion in 2008, compared with 10 percent from ideological/single issue groups and 3 percent from labor unions.
• Industry giving to the two major political parties was roughly even across sectors, with Democrats receiving 56 percent of total contributions.

Sources: Federal Election Commission, Center for Responsive Politics, Public Campaignʼs “The Color of Money” Project

Energy Industry Invests $3 billion in Washington

• The energy industry, including oil and gas, electric utilities, mining, and waste management, contributed $455 million to federal candidates between 1990-2006
• The energy industry spent $2.3 billion to lobby the federal government between 1998-2008
• 63% of energy industry contributions between 1990-2008 came from PACs and soft money; the remaining 37% came in large individual contributions
• Members of the U.S. House and Senate received an average of $43,658 and $161,423, respectively, in 2008 energy industry contributions as of July 28, 2008

Energy Industry Outspends Environment 20:1

• The energy industry contributed $20 to federal candidates for every $1 contributed by environmental groups between 1990-2008
• The energy industry spent $225 million to lobby the federal government in 2008 compared with $11 million by environmental groups, a factor of 21:1
• The disparity in energy industry versus environmental contributions to members of Congress rose to 30:1 in the lead-up to landmark 2005 energy legislation

Energy Money Targets Regulators, Incumbents

• 82% of energy industry contributions in 2008 were given to incumbents in both parties
• Eight of the top ten House recipients in 2008 were members of the House Natural Resources, Energy & Commerce, and Transportation committees responsible for energy policy; the remaining two top recipients were members of senior leadership in both parties
• Eight of the top ten Senate recipients in 2008 were members of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources, Environment & Public Works, and Transportation committees (excluding presidential candidates)
• The average contribution to top ten recipients was $280,000 and $393,000 for House and Senate, respectively, or between 3-6 times the congressional average

Energy Money Follows Partisan Trends

• Although overall energy industry contributions favored Republicans between 1990-2008, the proportion given to each party followed partisan trends
• When Democrats controlled Congress, they received an average of 40% of total contributions, compared with 26% when they were in the minority

Source: Center for Responsive Politics analysis of campaign finance disclosures filed with the Federal Election Commission, 1990-2008

Wall Street Tops Campaign Finance Charts

• Individuals and PACs in finance, insurance, and real estate have contributed over $2 billion to federal campaigns since 1990, the largest sector by a factor of two
• Wall Street contributions increased five-fold from $60 million in 1990 to $311 million in 2008
• Members of the U.S. House and Senate received an average $142,663 and $1,042,663, respectively, in Wall Street contributions as of July 28, 2008

Both Parties Profit from Wall Street Funds

• Wall Street donors consistently favored the political party in power with higher contributions in eight out of ten elections between 1990-2008
• Republicans received 55% of total Wall Street funds from 1990-2008, compared with 44% for Democrats
• The top twenty recipients of Wall Street contributions include Senators and Representatives regarded as among the most liberal and the most conservative Members in Congress

Wall Street Donors Favor Incumbents

• Incumbent Members of Congress received three-quarters (74%) of the $225 million in Wall Street contributions in 2008, consistent with recent trends
• With the exception of two House challengers in highly contested campaigns, every one of the top forty Wall Street-backed candidates running for Congress in 2008 was an incumbent, as of July 28, 2008

Wall Street Targets Regulatory Committees

• Wall Street contributions to House and Senate candidates in 2008 were heavily concentrated on members of the relevant banking, commerce, and tax committees responsible for industry regulation
• Nine of the top ten House recipients of Wall Street contributions in 200808 served on the Financial Services (6) or Ways and Means (3) committees
• Top-ten members of the relevant House committees received an average $1.5 million from Wall Street in 2008, ten times the overall average in the House
• The top ten Senate recipients of Wall Street contributions in 2008 were either candidates for President or members of the Commerce, Banking, Finance, and Budget committees, or in Senate leadership; average contributions received was $14.3 million, incl. presidential candidates

Source: Center for Responsive Politics analysis of campaign finance disclosures filed with the Federal Election Commission, 1990-2008

1. Earmarks, Campaign Money, and Lobbying Expenditures Doubled Since 1998

   • The number of federal government earmarks–appropriations inserted by Members of Congress not subject to regular budgetary procedures–tripled between 1998-2006 from 4,219 to 12,852
   • The amount of earmark spending nearly doubled from $28 billion in 1998 to $47 billion in 2006
   • Total contributions to federal candidates and federal lobbying expenditures increased by similar margins from $750 million and $1.5 billion in 1998 to $1.4 billion and $2.6 billion in 2006, respectively
   • Taxpayers spent an estimated $271 billion in total earmark appropriations between 1991-2008, according to Citizens Against Government Waste

2. Top Defense Earmark Recipients Spent Heavily on Candidates and Lobbying

   • The top ten recipients of defense industry earmarks in 2008 contributed an average of $2.7 million each to candidates for federal office from 2003-2008
   • The top ten recipients spent an average of $4.9 million each to lobby federal elected officials in 2008
   • The top ten recipients received an average of $88 million in earmark spending in 2008, or $13 for every $1 spent to influence federal elected officials
   • The largest FY2008 defense industry earmark, $588 million to accelerate production of Navy submarines, was inserted against U.S. Navy requests: “In a report to Congress, the Navy said boosting the production of submarines early would disrupt its overall shipbuilding plan by shifting [funding] from other important programs.” (The Hill, 2/13/07)

3. Congressional Appropriators Received Targeted Support from Earmark Recipients

   • Defense industry earmark recipients contributed disproportionately to Members of the House and Senate Appropriations and Armed Services Committees, the primary defense appropriators, regardless of party
   • The top five Senators providing earmarks in 2008 received an average of $259,573 in campaign contributions from defense industry earmark recipients
   • The top five Representatives providing earmarks in 2008 received an average of $699,935 from defense industry earmark recipients

Sources: Center for Responsive Politics, Center for Public Integrity, Senate Office of Public Records, Citizens Against Government Waste

]]> http://www.acrreform.org/research/money-in-politics-government-waste/feed/ 0 http://www.acrreform.org/research/money-in-politics-prescription-drugs/ http://www.acrreform.org/research/money-in-politics-prescription-drugs/#comments Wed, 15 Dec 2010 21:38:26 +0000 Original Gravity http://www.acrreform.org/?p=161 Download this fact sheet as a PDF

Pharmaceuticals Invested Nearly $2 billion in Campaign Contributions and Lobbying

• Individuals, lobbyists, and political action committees in the pharmaceutical industry contributed $167 million to federal candidates from 1990 to 2008
• Members of the House and Senate received an average of $25,277 and $81,891, respectively, in pharmaceutical industry contributions in 2008
• Pharmaceutical industry spending to lobby the federal government exceeded $1.5 billion from 1998 to 2008, more than any other industry
• The ratio of pharmaceutical industry lobbyists to Members of Congress is approximately 2:1

Pharmaceutical Industry Money Targeted Key Committees and Incumbents

• Pharmaceutical industry contributions were targeted at members of the relevant commerce and tax committees responsibility for industry regulation
• The top ten Senate recipients of industry contributions in 2008 served on the key oversight committees: Appropriations, Budget, Finance, or Commerce
• Members of the relevant Senate committees received an average of $210,432 in industry contributions, nearly three times the Senate average of $81,891
• Nine of the top ten targeted House recipients in 2008 served on the Energy and Commerce or Ways and Means Committees, or in House leadership
• Targeted Members received an average of $163,280 in industry contributions, six times the House average
• Pharmaceutical industry contributions favored incumbents by a factor of nine to one (89%)

Pharmaceutical Industry Contributions Pegged to Key Legislation

• Industry contributions rose to $29.6 million prior to Congressional approval of the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) of 2003, which featured the $400-$600 billion Medicare Part D prescriptions program
• The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Assoc. (PhRMA) spent $30.3 million on lobbying from 2002-2003, among the top 5 spenders overall
• 15 members of Congress, congressional staff, and federal officials involved in MMA passage accepted jobs as pharmaceutical lobbyists after passage, including the former Medicare director and the chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee

Sources: Center for Responsive Politics analysis of Federal Election Commission data; Center for Public Integrity; Senate Office of Public

]]> http://www.acrreform.org/research/money-in-politics-prescription-drugs/feed/ 0 http://www.acrreform.org/research/healthcare-industry-money-in-politics/ http://www.acrreform.org/research/healthcare-industry-money-in-politics/#comments Wed, 15 Dec 2010 21:24:35 +0000 Original Gravity http://www.acrreform.org/?p=156 Download this fact sheet as a PDF

1. Health Industry Invests $5b in Washington

   • The healthcare industry — including HMOs, health professionals, hospitals and nursing homes, and pharmaceuticals — contributed $825 million to candidates for federal office from 1990-2008.
   • The healthcare industry spent $3.4 billion to lobby the federal government on health policy matters from 1998-2008, including $480 million in 2008 alone.
   • Annual contributions from the healthcare industry increased sevenfold from $21.9 million in 1990 to nearly $150 million in 2008, placing it in the top three contributing industries to Congress and the President.

2. Healthcare Money Favors Party in Power

   • In nine out of ten election cycles from 1990-2008, the healthcare industry directed the majority of its campaign contributions to the political party in power.
   • Republicans received 57% of total healthcare industry contributions while Democrats received 43% of industry contributions from 1990-2008.
   • The top twenty recipients of healthcare industry contributions from 1990-2008 included an equal number of Democrats and Republicans.

3. Incumbents Profit from Healthcare Largesse

   • Incumbent Members of the U.S. House and Senate received an average of $103,250 and $508,852, respectively, in healthcare industry contributions in 2008.
   • Congressional incumbents received 82 percent of the total $127 million in healthcare industry contributions in 2008, compared with 18 percent for challengers and open seat candidates combined.
   • 39 out of the top 40 recipients of healthcare industry contributions in 2008 were incumbents.

4. Healthcare Industry Targets Key Committees

   • Healthcare industry contributions heavily favored incumbent Members of the House and Senate health, commerce, and tax committees, which are primarily responsible for healthcare industry regulation.
   • The top 20 House and Senate beneficiaries of healthcare industry contributions received an average $557,210 and $1.3 million, respectively, more than twice the Senate average and almost five times the House average.
   • The top 20 House and Senate recipients of healthcare industry contributions consisted primarily of chairmen and senior members of the health, commerce, and tax committees, House and Senate leaders, and major party presidential candidates.

Source: Center for Responsive Politics; analysis of campaign finance disclosures filed with the Federal Election Commission, 1990-2008

]]> http://www.acrreform.org/research/healthcare-industry-money-in-politics/feed/ 0 http://www.acrreform.org/research/publicly-financed-elections-in-the-states/ http://www.acrreform.org/research/publicly-financed-elections-in-the-states/#comments Thu, 09 Dec 2010 15:44:10 +0000 Original Gravity http://www.acrreform.org/?p=135 ]]> Download this fact sheet as a PDF



All State Races Arizona1 – adopted 1988, 1998 Connecticut1 – adopted 2005 Hawaii – adopted 1978 Maine1 – adopted 1973, 1996 Minnesota – adopted 1974, 2003 Wisconsin – adopted 1977 Statewide Races only Florida – adopted 1985, 1991 New Mexico2 – adopted 2005 Rhode Island – adopted 1988, 1992 Governorships only Kentucky – adopted 1992 Maryland – adopted 1974 Michigan – adopted 1976, 1989 New Jersey – adopted 1974, 2004 Vermont1 – adopted 1997

Legislative Races only Nebraska – adopted 1992 New Jersey1,3 – adopted 2004 Judicial Races only North Carolina – adopted 2002 Political Party Committees Alabama – adopted 1983 California – adopted 1982 Idaho – adopted 1975 Iowa – adopted 2003 Indiana – Adopted 1976 Kentucky – adopted 1976 Missouri – adopted 1974 Montana – adopted 1974 New Mexico – adopted 1992 North Carolina – adopted 1975 Rhode Island – adopted 1973 Ohio – adopted 1987 Oregon – adopted 1977

Political Parties (cont.) Texas – adopted Utah – adopted 1973 Virginia – adopted 1982 Local Jurisdictions Albuquerque, NM1 – adopted 2005 Austin, TX – adopted 1995 Boulder, CO – adopted 1999 Cincinnati, OH – adopted 2001 Long Beach, CA – adopted 1994 Los Angeles, CA – adopted 1990 Miami-Dade Cty, FL – adopted 2001 New York, NY – adopted 1988 New Haven, CT – adopted 2005 Oakland, CA – adopted 1999 Petaluma, CA – adopted 2000 Portland, OR1 – adopted 2003 San Francisco, CA – adopted 2000 Suffolk County, NY – adopted 1998 Tucson, AZ – adopted 1985

¹ Fair Elections-style full public funding
² Public Regulation Commission elections
³ Pilot Project for Two Legislature Districts in 2005 Financing of Elections.”

Source: Wyatt, Benjamin “The Origins of State Public
Wesleyan University (2002)

]]> http://www.acrreform.org/research/publicly-financed-elections-in-the-states/feed/ 0