Q: Are campaign contributions generally provided to support a particular political party, candidate or ideology?

Or does money simply follow power, implying that the contributor is seeking a return on the investment? A: When the Republican Party held a majority of seats in the New York State Senate in 2008, Republican legislative committee chairs were showered with campaign cash from corporations, including senators who did not face a competitive election. When the Democrats took control in 2009, a big switch occurred: money flowed away from the Republicans and toward the new Democratic committee chairs. When the Republicans regained control in 2011, we witnessed another “big switch.”

A Report By Center for Working Families 1133 Broadway, Suite 332 New York, NY 10010 www.cwfny.org October 2012

Credits Research Mark Treskon, Senior Policy Analyst Analysis and writing Joseph G. Rappaport, Policy Director Additional research Sunshine Ludder, Senior Economic Policy Strategist Stephan Edel, Green and Equitable Economies Organizer Editing, analysis and logo design Dave Palmer, Executive Director Additional assistance Susie Lim, CWF Administrator Jessica Wisneski and Charlie Albanetti, Citizen Action of New York Michael Kink, Strong Economy For All

The Center for Working Families is a non-partisan and independent “think- and do-tank” that conducts research and advocates for policy change in New York State to benefit low- and middle-income people. 2

In

Table of contents

SECTION Summary and recommendations Overall corporate donations Top 15 committee profiles Civil Service and Pensions Codes Commerce, Economic Development and Small Business Consumer Protection Energy and Telecommunications Environmental Conservation Finance Health Housing, Construction and Community Development Insurance Judiciary Racing, Gaming and Wagering Rules Transportation Veterans, Homeland Security and Military Affairs Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Methodology Annual contributions by committee 2008 and 2010 electoral results involving committee chairs Average corporate contributions

PAGE 4 7 8 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 43 48 50

3

In

Summary & recommendations

Q: Are campaign contributions generally provided to support a particular political party, candidate or ideology? Or does money simply follow power, implying that the contributor is seeking a return on the investment? A: When the Republican Party held a majority of seats in the New York State Senate in 2008, Republican legislative committee chairs were showered with campaign cash from corporations, including senators who did not face a competitive election. When the Democrats took control in 2009, a big switch occurred: money flowed away from the Republicans and toward the new Democratic committee chairs. When the Republicans regained control in 2011, we witnessed another “big switch.” For nearly a half-century, power in Albany’s two legislative houses had stayed constant—the Republicans the majority in the senate and the Democrats in the assembly. That ended with the election of 2008, when Democratic candidates won a majority of the senate’s seats and took control of the chamber in 2009. The change-over from Republican to Democratic control, and then back again from Democratic to Republican control in 2011, provided the equivalent of a real-life experiment. While Albany observers might speculate where corporate dollars would go in a change of legislative power, here was a once-in-a-half-century chance to see what would actually occur. Our findings, based on a review of 48,699 campaign finance filings from 2008 to August 2012, show that corporate money did indeed follow the leader. In 2009 and 2010, when the Democrats held power (other than a brief interlude in June and July 2009), corporations switched their allegiance to them from the Republicans. And when the Republicans regained control, corporations switched back. Our key findings include:  A “big switch” took place in 2009 and again in 2011, when the senate changed hands (see chart and table, page 5). -- In 2008, the Republican senate majority collected almost $5 million in corporate donations, while Democrats collected nearly $2.8 million. -- In 2009, when the Democrats took power, corporations sent almost $3.7 million their way. In 2010, the Democrats took in about $4.2 million. Over the two years they held power, their corporate take increased 41 percent annually.

4

Meanwhile, the Republican take in 2009 and 2010 fell by about half, averaging $2.5 million annually. In 2011, when the Republicans regained power, corporations also switched allegiance, donating $4.1 million. In 2012 (through August), another $3.2 million came to the Republicans. Meanwhile, the Democrats took in corporate donations of $1.7 million in 2010 and another $1.4 million through August 2012.  Leadership of the 15 committees (those with the most corporate contributions annually) changed from one party to another 30 times during this period—and in 22 of those handovers, corporate donors redirected the bulk of their funds to the new chair. In the other eight instances, Republicans retained their corporate fund-raising advantage even when the Democrats controlled the committee.  For committees like Transportation or Housing, corporate donors with an interest in the committee’s area typically did not discriminate between Republican and Democrat in giving campaign funds to the chair. Our individual committee profiles outline this. Contributions rolled into the chairs of the top 15 committees—even when they faced little or no opposition at the polls. In the 58 races we reviewed, all but eight of the chairs won by more than 14 percentage points. In 21 of the races, the chairs either ran uncontested or won with more than 80 percent of the vote. On average, corporate donations to Republican senate committee chairs outpaced those to Democratic chairs. In the top 15 committees, Republican chairs received an average of $199,759 in corporate donations in the two full years we examined (2008 and 2011). Meanwhile, Democrats received an average of $167,327 in 2009 and 2010, when they controlled the senate.  Corporate donations to sitting senators made up 66.2 percent of the total value of all non-individual campaign contributions. (By contrast, union donations made up 22.6 percent of such gifts.) When corporate donations are combined with individual gifts of $1,000 or more, they account for nearly seven out of every ten dollars donated to legislative incumbents.

The results of this real-life experiment go to the heart of our political system. Elected officials typically deny that corporate donations—or any donation—to their campaign 5

chests affect the decisions they make in the capitol. And it is difficult to trace a quid pro quo. But with millions in corporate campaign donations given no matter which party is in power, New Yorkers may rightly question who ultimately influences policy in Albany. They might speculate that some bills get taken up or left to languish based on who is giving money, rather than which party is in charge. They may wonder if there is a role for the regular citizen, who legislators are in fact elected to represent. Clearly, though, the men and women who run corporations believe that it’s better to give to candidates, even those who face no real electoral challenges, than to abstain. And, as our report shows, they believe it is best to give to whichever party holds power. To alter the balance of power and lessen the influence of corporate donors, the Center for Working Families has joined with more than 120 other groups in the “Fair Elections” campaign, which has proposed the public financing of elections in New York State and other campaign finance changes. Our specific recommendations follow. RECOMMENDATIONS 1) The single most important reform to lessen the improper influence of large corporate contributions to candidates running for office in New York State is to implement Fair Elections – a system of public financing of elections that would provide qualifying candidates with public matching funds on small donations (e.g., $6 for every $1 of private donation on donations up to $175). 2) Any Fair Elections system must also include other key campaign finance reforms, such as: a. lower contribution limits for participating and non-participating candidates; b. reasonable limits and rules on “housekeeping accounts;” and c. increased enforcement and candidate compliance services.

6

In

All corporate donations

Corporate donors gave more money—nearly $5 million—to Republicans when the party held the senate majority in 2008. But when the Democrats finally took over in 2009 after more than four decades out of power, corporate donors turned to them, and the Democrats out-raised the Republican minority. In 2010, with the Republicans back in power, corporate donors also went back to them. (Solid line indicates party was in power.)

All Senate (all corporate donations) Year Republicans Democrats 2008 $4,968,859 $2,784,380 2009 $1,896,570 $3,660,335 2010 $3,110,693 $4,182,087 2011 $4,101,691 $1,662,392 2012 $3,264,967 $1,398,138 Totals $17,342,780 $13,687,331 2009-2010 $5,007,263 $7,842,421 2011-2012 $7,366,658 $3,060,530

7

In

Top 15 committees

The chairs of these 15 senate committees collected the most corporate dollars on average over the past five years. We determined this by first ranking the senate’s 33 standing committees by the dollar amount committee chairs received in corporate contributions. We identified the amount of corporate contributions given to Republican chairs in 2008, 2011 and January through August 2012 and to Democratic chairs in 2009 and 2010. * We then ranked these contributions to committee chairs annually; the overall ranking is the five-year average of those individual-year rankings. We then used these overall rankings to select the top fifteen committees. (See Appendix A for donation information and methodology for further explanation of our rankings.) Our charts illustrate the path of these corporate donations, with the darker lines representing corporate donations during the period when a senator chaired the committee. Republican senators are represented by red lines and Democratic senators are represented by blue.

*

For sake of simplicity, the analysis does not account for the period in June and July 2009 when Democratic senators joined with Republicans in an effort to switch senate control.

8

In

Civil Service and Pensions

The Civil Service and Pensions committee attracted limited corporate donations from companies we identified as having direct interest in its work. However, the Republican chairs of the committee—senators Joseph Robach in 2009 and Martin Golden in 2011 to August 2012—took in substantial dollars from corporate donors. Both Republicans outraised the Democratic Senator Diane Savino’s corporate take, even when she chaired the committee. While no switch occurred, the Republicans did see some loss in corporate donations when they were out of power, particularly Robach. CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS OVERALL

In 2008: Corporations donated $197,546 to Robach, who chaired the committee. Savino, the ranking minority member, received $33,600. In 2009-2010: Savino brought in $42,125 as chair. Her predecessor, Robach, saw corporate donations decrease to $62,361 during his two years in the minority. In 2011-2012: Golden, now the chair, collected $428,250 in corporate donations. Meanwhile, Savino collected $94,675 as the ranking minority member.

9

(Not surprisingly, unions contributed generously to the Republican chairs and Democrat Diane Savino, who chaired the committee in 2009-2010. In total, however, corporate donations to the chairs exceeded union donations.) MARGIN OF VICTORY Money follows power in the form of campaign contributions, even when an incumbent faces little or no electoral competition at the polls. While Robach faced a real challenge in 2008 and won by only three percentage points, his successor, Savino, won with nearly 79 percent of the vote. Golden won with 66 percent in 2010.

10

In

Codes committee

Since the Codes committee often considers legislation first reviewed by other committees, our review focuses on all corporate contributions to the chairs. Money flowed to power, whether Republican senators Dale Volker or Stephen Saland chaired the committee or Democrat Eric Schneiderman. CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS OVERALL—CODES

In 2008: Volker, chair in 2008, took in corporate donations of $190,349. Schneiderman took in only $22,500 in corporate donations when he held the committee’s ranking minority position in 2008. In 2009 and 2010: Schneiderman’s fortunes didn’t change immediately when he took over the committee in 2009, though he did increase his take by $16,300 for a total of $38,800. By 2010, though, corporations found Schneiderman worthy of their money and gave him $155,250. (Schneiderman ran for attorney general that year, which undoubtedly made him more attractive to corporate donors.) In 2011 and 2012: Saland ascended as chair when the Republicans took back the senate and brought in $181,425 in corporate donations in the next 20 months. Saland’s vote in favor of the Marriage Equality Act may have brought him some additional corporate funding.

11

Why contribute? The Codes committee reviews legislation on changes in New York State law on everything from motor vehicle penalties to drug policy. In the past year, legislation concerning battery recycling and campaign finance came under its purview. Which interests gave money? Whether a Republican or Democrat led Codes, real estate interests and developers donated the most money to them. These tables show the top five contributors by industry when each senator chaired the committee.

Volker
Industry 2008

% of Total

TOTALS
Real Estate and development Health care Construction, contracting, building Legal Lobbyist

$190,349
$68,600 $16,247 $10,650 $9,600 $6,150

100.0% 36.0% 8.5% 5.6% 5.0% 3.2%

Schneiderman
Industry 2009 2010

TOTALS
Real Estate and development Health care Legal Lobbyist Insurance

$38,800
$5,000 $4,500 $9,250 $4,750 $2,100

$155,250
$29,750 $24,500 $15,150 $13,000 $6,600

TOTALS % of Total 100.0% $194,050 17.9% $34,750 14.9% $29,000 12.6% $24,400 9.1% $17,750 4.5% $8,700

Saland
Industry 2011 2012

TOTALS
Real Estate and development Construction, contracting, building Health care Insurance Lobbyist

$98,575
$26,275 $8,625 $4,725 $6,250 8525

$82,850
$26,900 $6,200 $5,200 $2,200 6100

TOTALS % of Total 100.0% $181,425 29.3% $53,175 8.2% $14,825 5.5% $9,925 4.7% $8,450 8.1% $14,625

MARGIN OF VICTORY Money follows power in the form of campaign contributions, even when an incumbent faces little or no electoral competition at the polls. In 2008, Schneiderman won with 91 percent of the vote; in 2010, Saland won with 60 percent of the vote. However, he won in a very close primary this September. 12

In

Commerce committee

Whether the Commerce, Economic Development and Small Business committee was led by Republican senators James Alesi (in 2008 and 2011 to June 2012) and Patrick Gallivan (current chair) or Democrat William Stachowski in 2009-2010, money from corporations flowed into their campaign chests. CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS OVERALL—COMMERCE In 2008, Alesi collected $189,000 in total corporate donations; Stachowski collected $131,435. That changed in 2009-2010, when Stachowski took over the committee and collected $219,397 in corporate donations. Alesi, who became the committee’s ranking minority member, saw his take fall to $156,275. In the two full years Republicans chaired Commerce, they collected an average of $123,565 annually. The Democrat took in $109,699 annually as chair.

INDUSTRY CONTRIBUTIONS* Why contribute? With Commerce’s power to legislate everything from eminent domain law to the publishing of environmental regulations, decisions by the committee’s chairs can affect corporate profits and practices.
*

Since we did not match all contributions to particular interests, industry-specific tallies likely underestimate the overall contribution dollars coming from particular industries.

13

In 2008: As chair in 2008, Alesi collected $64,000 from corporate donors we identified as potentially interested in influencing Commerce legislation. In 2009 and 2010: Stachowski, now the chair, collected $35,885. Meanwhile, Alesi’s take still exceeded Stachowski’s, but fell by more than a quarter to $46,250. In 2011 through August 2012: In 2011-2012, Alesi collected $36,500 from corporate donors with potential interest in Commerce committee legislation. (Gallivan, who took over the committee in July because Alesi announced he would not run in 2012, has collected $46,366 from corporate donors with potential interest in Commerce’s work since he became a senator, though much of that money came before he took over the committee.) Overall: Altogether, Alesi took in an average of $45,625 in the two full years he led the committee. Stachowski took in an average of $17,943 in his two years at the helm. MARGIN OF VICTORY Money follows power in the form of campaign contributions, even when an incumbent faces little or no electoral competition at the polls. Alesi won by a 6-4 margin in 2008, though Stachowski won by a relatively close six percent in 2008 and lost in a 2010 Democratic primary.

14

In

Consumer Protection

No matter who led the Consumer Protection committee—Republicans Charles Fuschillo, Jr. in 2008 and Lee Zeldin in 2011-2012 or Democrats Hiram Monserrate in 2009 and Jose Peralta in 2010—money from corporate donors flowed into their campaign chests. Corporate donors with a likely interest in influencing consumer protection legislation also contributed to their campaigns generously. CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS OVERALL—CONSUMER PROTECTION As chair in 2008, Fuschillo collected $151,928 in corporate donations (including Consumer Protection-related donations), while Zeldin raised $351,925 in his near-two years as chair. In their two full years chairing Consumer Protection, the Republicans raised an average of $146,064 annually. Zeldin also raised $133,600 from corporate donors in his race for the job in 2010. Monserrate and Peralta collected $141,712 in 2009-2010. In their two years at the helm, Democrats raised an average of $70,856 annually. Monserrate also raised $216,659 from corporate donors in his race for the job in 2008. Peralta also raised corporate money in his campaign for his seat in mid-2010.

INDUSTRY CONTRIBUTIONS* Why contribute? The Consumer Protection committee has the power to affect everything from conditions for nail salons employees to the proper disposal of mattresses—questions that affect profits and the operation of small and large businesses alike.
*

Since we did not match all contributions to particular interests, industry-specific tallies likely underestimate the overall contribution dollars coming from particular industries.

15

In 2008: As chair in 2008. Fuschillo collected $27,950 from donors likely to be interested in influencing consumer protection legislation. In 2009 and 2010: Two Democratic senators served as chair and collected $20,500 in all. Monserrate collected only $4,000 in 2009 and no money in 2010. (Monserrate was expelled from the senate in 2010 after a misdemeanor conviction on assault charges.) However, Peralta collected $16,500 when he joined the senate and took over the committee’s helm in 2010. In 2011 and 2012: Zeldin, now the committee’s chair, collected $38,805 from corporate contributors with a potential interest in consumer protection legislation. Peralta’s take decreased to $10,300 during this period. Overall: Republicans who headed the committee received an average of $22,438 in Consumer Protection-related donations during the two full years they’ve headed the committee. Democrats collected an average of $10,250 in such donations during the two years they held power. MARGIN OF VICTORY Money follows power in the form of campaign contributions, even when an incumbent faces little or no electoral competition at the polls. For example, Monserrate had no opponent in 2008, when he received generous corporate donations. Zeldin won his 2010 race by 14 percentage points, though he was facing an incumbent.

16

In

Energy & telecom

The Energy and Telecommunications committee’s chairs attracted more than $1 million dollars in overall corporate donations between 2008 and August 2012. However, unlike other committees we examined, the Republican chair, Senator George Maziarz, never lost his corporate funding advantage to the Democrat, Senator Darrell Aubertine. CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS OVERALL Overall, corporations (including energy and telecommunications-related interests) contributed $1.02 million to Maziarz in the four years he chaired the committee, an average of $254,847 annually. Aubertine received $95,150 in the one year he headed the committee. Unlike many other committees, no “switch” occurred.

INDUSTRY CONTRIBUTIONS* Why contribute? The Energy and Telecommunications committee’s oversight and decisions affect rates for electricity and telephone service, the introduction of new technologies for energy production and jobs programs for “green” retrofits of homes and business. For example, the committee has considered legislation to increase the use of solar energy in New York State and held hearings to close the Indian Point nuclear facility, which attract considerable corporate interest.

*

Since we did not match all contributions to particular interests, industry-specific tallies likely underestimate the overall contribution dollars coming from particular industries.

17

In 2008: As chair in 2008, Maziarz collected $43,000 from energy and telecommunications interests. In 2009: Aubertine, now the chair, received $16,250 from energy and telecommunications interests. Meanwhile, Maziarz’s take fell $25,000 to $18,000, though he still exceeded contributions to Aubertine by $1,750. In 2010: Maziarz assumed leadership of Energy and Telecommunications in 2010, although the Democrats still controlled the chamber. Industry contributions to his campaign fund grew to $57,832. Meanwhile, Aubertine took in $9,820. In 2011 through August 2012: Maziarz stayed on as Energy and Telecommunications chair when the Republican regained the majority. He collected $115,462 over this 20month period. Overall: Altogether, Maziarz collected $216,294 during his four years as chair. In the three full years he led the committee, he collected an average of $60,250 in industryrelated corporate donations. In the one year Aubertine ran the committee, he collected $16,250. MARGIN OF VICTORY Money follows power in the form of campaign contributions, even when an incumbent faces little or no electoral competition at the polls. Maziarz won with 68 percent of the vote in 2008 and 2010. Aubertine won by only six percentage points in 2008; he lost in 2010.

18

In

Environmental Conservation

Corporations gave the chairs of the Environmental Conservation committee— Republican senators Carl Marcellino in 2008 and Mark Grisanti in 2011-2012 and Democrat Antoine Thompson in 2009-2010—nearly a half-million dollars between 2008 and August 2012. Overall corporate donations showed a significant switch depending on which party held power. CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS OVERALL In 2008, corporations gave Marcellino $106,762 and Thompson $104,487, nearly the same amount of money. That changed dramatically in 2009 when Thompson became the committee’s chair, as he received $198,361 over two years. Meanwhile, Marcellino received $84,975 in corporate donations. In 2011, Grisanti took the committee helm and collected $189,770 in corporate donations. In the two full years they’ve led the committee, Republicans received $110,455 annually; the Democrat collected $99,181 annually.

INDUSTRY CONTRIBUTIONS* Why contribute? The Environmental Conservation committee’s purview includes the recycling of electronic goods, water and air quality and the heavily disputed use of hydraulic fracturing to obtain natural gas.

*

Since we did not match all contributions to particular interests, industry-specific tallies likely underestimate the overall contribution dollars coming from particular industries.

19

In 2008: As chair in 2008, Marcellino collected $5,250 from corporate donors we determined had an interest in environmental conservation legislation. Thompson, the ranking minority member, collected $2,428. In 2009 and 2010: Thompson, now the chair, collected $11,855 in industry donations. Meanwhile, industry contributions to Marcellino, now the ranking minority member, increased to $6,750. His take trailed Thompson’s by $5,105. In 2011 through August 2012: Grisanti, now the committee’s chair, collected $8,329 in industry contributions. Overall: Republicans chairs collected $13,579 from corporations we determined had an interest in Environmental Conservation-related matters, an average of $6,790 annually over the three full years they have run the committee. The Democratic chair collected $5,928 annually in his two years as chair. MARGIN OF VICTORY Money follows power in the form of campaign contributions, even when an incumbent faces little or no electoral competition at the polls. In 2008, Thompson won by a 6-4 margin; however, Grisanti defeated him in the 2010 election by a less than a percentage point.

20

\ In

Finance committee

Senator Owen Johnson, the Republican Finance committee chair in 2008, took in limited dollars from corporate interests. But his successor in 2009-2010, Democratic Senator Carl Kruger, took in hundreds of thousands of dollars. In 2011-2012, Republican Senator John DeFrancisco also took in substantial corporate contributions as chair, though nowhere close to Kruger’s take. The Finance committee attracted limited corporate donations from companies we identified as having direct interests in its work. CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS OVERALL

Corporations flipped the bulk of their contributions to the chairs based on who was in power. Overall, they contributed $1.5 million to Johnson, Kruger, and DeFrancisco from 2008 to August 2012. That includes $676,665 for Kruger during his one term as chair and $281,424 for DeFrancisco in 2011 through August 2012. In 2008: Corporations donated $73,775 to Owen Johnson, who chaired the committee. In 2009-2010: Kruger brought in $676,665 in his two years as chair. Kruger had bargained with his Democratic colleagues to take over the Finance committee when the party won the majority and corporate donors clearly responded to his influential position. Meanwhile, his predecessor, Johnson, saw corporate donations decrease to $38,400 during his two years in the minority. 21

In 2011-2012: DeFrancisco, now the chair, collected $281,424 in corporate donations. (Kruger resigned from the Senate in December 2011 after a federal indictment on corruption charges. He was convicted earlier this year.) Overall: In the two full years Republicans led Finance, they collected an average of $116,337 annually. Democrat Kruger vastly outraised them, with an average of $408,258 annually in the two years he was chair. MARGIN OF VICTORY Money follows power in the form of campaign contributions, even when an incumbent faces little or no electoral competition at the polls. In 2008 Johnson had a 20 percent margin of victory and Kruger won with 93.3 percent of the vote. DeFrancisco received more than 60 percent of the vote in both 2008 and 2010.

22

In

Health committee

The Health committee’s chairs attracted hefty campaign contributions from pharmaceutical companies, pharmacies, health insurance and other health-related interests between 2008 and 2012. Republican Kemp Hannon took in $258,950 as chair in 2008 and 2011-2012; his Democratic counterpart, Thomas Duane, took in $94,350 as chair in 2009-2010. CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS OVERALL Overall, Hannon has attracted about double the amount of corporate donations as Duane. But corporations, health-related and otherwise, did start sending campaign cash Duane’s way after the Democrats took power in 2009. He received $131,300 in corporate dollars that year, and another $76,775 in 2010. But Hannon proved a strong fund-raiser, even in the second year his party was out of power. Altogether, he has collected $677,625 in corporate donations from 2008 to 2012; Duane’s take was $326,750. Between the two senators, they have collected about $1 million.

INDUSTRY CONTRIBUTIONS* Why contribute? The Health committee can determine policy on medical and dental treatment, nursing homes, women’s health care and prescription drugs rules, among other things. These issues can affect funding and practices in a wide range of for-profit corporations.
*

Since we did not match all contributions to particular interests, industry-specific tallies likely underestimate the overall contribution dollars coming from particular industries.

23

In 2008: Hannon’s take as committee chair in 2008 of $121,950 outpaced industry contributions to ranking minority member Duane by a 17-1 margin. Duane brought in only $7,300. In 2009: A year later, Duane led the committee, which gave his industry fund-raising a shot in the arm. He received $57,050, a two-to-one advantage over ranking minority member Hannon’s $28,800. In 2010: That trend reversed itself sooner than for other committees, however. In 2010, Hannon’s campaign coffers grew by $83,200 in health-related industry contributions, while Duane took in only $37,300. In 2011: Hannon again took the Health committee’s helm when the Republicans gained control of the senate. As chair in 2011, he brought in another $88,650—more than six times Duane’s $13,750 take as ranker. Overall, the two senators brought in industry contributions of about a half-million dollars—$496,350—between 2008 and 2012, with Hannon collecting about two-thirds. MARGIN OF VICTORY Money follows power in the form of campaign contributions, even when an incumbent faces little or no electoral competition. Hannon did face a tough race in 2008, winning with only 51 percent of the vote. But in 2010, he beat his Democratic opponent by a three-to-two margin. Duane never faced a viable opponent, winning 86 percent of the vote in 2008 and 85 percent in 2010. He is retiring from the senate this year.

24

In

Housing committee

The foundation of a sturdy campaign chest in New York State often starts with generous donations from corporations promoting real estate and construction interests. The chairs of the senate’s Housing, Construction and Community Development committee— Republicans John Bonacic in 2008 and Catherine Young in 2011- 2012 and Democrat Pedro Espada Jr. in 2009-2010—can attest to this. CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS OVERALL Other corporations flipped the bulk of their contributions from Bonacic to Espada to Young, depending on who was in power. Overall, corporations (including housing interests) contributed $1.04 million to Bonacic, Espada and Young from 2008 to August 2012. That includes $389,215 for Republicans Bonacic and Young when they were chairs of Housing; Espada collected $223,500 when he chaired the committee.

INDUSTRY CONTRIBUTIONS* Why contribute? With the Housing committee’s power over rent regulation in New York City, grants and other housing-related matters, it’s no wonder its chairs attract significant contributions from the industry.

*

Since we did not match all contributions to particular interests, industry-specific tallies likely underestimate the overall contribution dollars coming from particular industries.

25

In 2008: As chair, Bonacic collected $57,600 from industry-related interests. Meanwhile, Espada saw no industry-related money that year. In 2009 and 2010: Espada, now the chair, collected $112,625 from contributors we identified as having real-estate related interests, including $92,725 in his first year in the job. Meanwhile, Bonacic’s take dipped to $52,655 as the committee’s ranking minority member. In 2011 through August 2012: Young, now the committee’s chair, collected $123,556 from real-estate interests. She had collected $12,675 in 2009-2010. Overall: Altogether, the Housing chairs collected $293,781 since 2008 from the housingrelated interests we identified. In the two full years they’ve held the position, Republicans Bonacic and Young collected an average of $77,515 annually. Espada, the Democrat, collected an average of $56,313 in his two years at the helm. MARGIN OF VICTORY Money follows power in the form of campaign contributions, even when an incumbent faces little or no electoral competition at the polls. In 2008, Bonacic faced no opposition and Espada won with 97.5 percent of the vote. Young won by an 85-15 percent margin in her 2010 race.

26

In

Insurance committee

Senators angling for a lucrative committee to lead should consider the Insurance committee. No matter who led the committee—Republican James Seward in 2008 and 2011-2012 or Democrat Neil Breslin in 2009-2010—money from insurance interests that we identified and other corporations flowed into their campaign chests. CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS OVERALL Corporations flipped the bulk of their contributions from Seward to Breslin and back again to Seward, based on who was in power. Overall, corporations (including insurance interests) contributed $1.4 million to Breslin and Seward from 2008 to August 2012. That includes $379,459 for Breslin during his one term as chair; Seward has collected $571,261 during his two terms.

INDUSTRY CONTRIBUTIONS* Why contribute? With the power to affect rates, health insurance coverage and other industry practices, the committee’s chairs clearly get the attention of insurance companies. For example, the Insurance committee in 2010 considered a proposal requiring prior approval for health-insurance rate increases, which many insurers vigorously opposed. Eventually, Governor Paterson included prior approval in his 2010-2011 budget and signed it into law.
*

Since we did not match all contributions to particular interests, industry-specific tallies likely underestimate the overall contribution dollars coming from particular industries.

27

In 2008: As chair, Seward collected at least $102,280 from insurance interests that we identified—almost five times the $21,900 that Breslin, the ranking minority member, received from them. In 2009 and 2010: Breslin, now the chair, collected $156,050 from insurance interests— three-and-half times his take when he was in the minority. Meanwhile, Seward’s take dipped to $89,320 as the ranker. In 2011 through August 2012: Seward, again the committee’s chair, collected $175,755 from insurance interests. Breslin, back in the minority, collected $63,150 during the same period. Overall: Altogether, Seward has received $278,035 from insurance interests as chair, an average of $99,305 annually in the two full years he has been chair; he’s on pace to top that in 2012. Breslin, at $156,050, averaged $78,025 annually during his two years in the job. MARGIN OF VICTORY Money follows power in the form of campaign contributions, even when an incumbent faces little or no electoral competition at the polls. For example, Seward faced no opposition in the 2010 election and won with 72.1 percent of the vote. Breslin won with 72.4 percent of the vote in 2008, though he narrowly won in 2010 and faced a primary in 2012.

28

In

Judiciary committee

Corporate contributions to the Judiciary committee’s chairs totaled nearly $1.8 million between 2008 and August 2012. Republican senators John DeFrancisco and John Bonacic collected $283,890 of that, while Democratic senator John Sampson took in the rest—almost $1.3 million—in his two years as chair. Sampson held the position while he also led the Democratic majority starting in July 2009, which is the reason for his very substantial corporate fund-raising. CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS OVERALL

In 2008: DeFranciso, the committee’s chair, took in corporate donations of $113,875, while Sampson took in $40,730 in corporate donations. In 2009 and 2010: Sampson took over the committee and collected close to $1.3 million—$1,276,770—in his two years as chair. Corporations particularly focused on contributions to Sampson once he ascended to lead the majority after the “coup” in mid-2009. Meanwhile, DeFrancisco collected $56,570 in corporate money. In 2011 and 2012: Bonacic assumed the helm and has collected $170,015 between January 2011 and August 2012. No longer the majority leader, Sampson collected $196,400 over the same period. Why contribute? The Judiciary committee reviews judicial nominations and oversees the state’s courts. It also passes legislation on legal questions that can affect contractors, retailers and other 29

commercial interests. However, Sampson’s leadership position clearly attracted most corporate donors, not the committee’s own business. Which interests gave money? For Sampson, entities we identified as representing health care and assisted living interests, which we listed separately, made up 28.7 percent of his corporate take. Real estate and development interests contributing about half that. Bonacic received about three of every 10 corporate dollars from real estate and development interests, with another 11.1 percent from related construction, contracting and building interests. DeFrancisco took in more health care dollars, with real estate and development close behind.

Bonacic
name 2008

% of Total

TOTALS
Real Estate and development Construction, contracting, building Legal Gambling and racing Assisted living

$128,300
$40,350 $14,200 $7,600 $2,000 $900

100.0%
31.4% 11.1% 5.9% 1.6% 0.7%

Sampson
name 2009

TOTALS
Assisted living Real Estate and development Health care Legal Insurance

$454,190
$98,140 $48,350 $72,250 $22,025 $15,000

TOTALS % of Total 100.0% $822,580 $1,276,770
2010 $88,659 $132,750 $107,668 $37,000 $66,500 $186,799 $181,100 $179,918 $59,025 $81,500 14.6% 14.2% 14.1% 4.6% 6.4%

DeFrancisco
name 2011

TOTALS
Health care Real Estate and development Lobbyist Insurance Legal

$158,899
$18,050 $22,300 $11,250 $10,050 $12,750

TOTALS % of Total 100.0% $122,525 $281,424
2012 $18,500 $13,500 $12,750 $8,700 $4,350 $36,550 $35,800 $24,000 $18,750 $17,100 13.0% 12.7% 8.5% 6.7% 6.1%

MARGIN OF VICTORY Money follows power in the form of campaign contributions, even when an incumbent faces little or no electoral competition at the polls. In 2008, DeFrancisco won seven of every 10 votes in the November election; Sampson, his successor, won his seat with 95 percent. Sampson won with 93 percent in 2010, while Bonacic won by a 6-4 margin.

30

In

Racing & wagering

Overall corporate contributions to the committee’s chairs—Republicans William Larkin Jr. in 2008 and John Bonacic in 2011-2012 and Democrat Eric Adams in 2009-2010— outpaced most committees. Beyond that, the change in donation patterns effectively illustrates how corporate donors switched from Republican to Democrat to Republican. CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS OVERALL All three senators raised significant funds from corporations beyond their take from the racing industry itself. As chair, Adams had a higher average annual take ($120,143) than Larkin ($92,961) and Bonacic ($84,507) when they led Racing. Overall, though, Bonacic hit the jackpot with about $100,000 more in corporate contributions than either Larkin or Adams over the nearly five years we examined. Corporations gave Bonacic $429,050, while Larkin placed with $332,791 and Adams showed with $330,060. From 2008 to 2012, the three senators have collected $1,091,901 in corporate campaign donations.

INDUSTRY CONTRIBUTIONS* Why contribute? The Racing committee’s power over off-track betting, racetracks and casino gambling proposals also affects hoteliers and other tourism interests.

*

Since we did not match all contributions to particular interests, industry-specific tallies likely underestimate the overall contribution dollars coming from particular industries.

31

In 2008: As chair in 2008, Larkin received $7,940 from industry-related interests we identified. Meanwhile, Adams received no industry money that year. In 2009 and 2010: Adams, now the chair, collected $38,800 from racing and other related interests. That was five times the amount of campaign cash given to the Republican ranking minority member, Senator John Bonacic, who received $7,600 during his two years as the ranker. In 2011 through August 2012: Bonacic, now the committee’s chair, collected $54,170 from racing and other contributors with an interest in the industry. Adams, now the ranker, pulled in only $7,750. Overall: Between 2008 and 2012, industry interests gave a total of at least $100,910 to Racing & Wagering chairs. In the two full years they’ve held the position, Republicans Larkin and Bonacic collected an average of $27,195 annually. Adams, the Democrat, collected an average of $19,400 in his two years as chair. MARGIN OF VICTORY Money follows power in the form of campaign contributions, even when an incumbent faces little or no electoral competition at the polls. Adams faced no primary and won with 93.1 percent of the vote in the general election in 2008, just before he took over Racing. Before Bonacic became chair, he beat his opponent by 19 points.

32

In

Rules committee

As a rule, the Rules committee chair also serves as the senate’s majority leader, the most powerful position in the chamber. No surprise, then, that the committee’s current and past chairs—Republicans Joseph Bruno in early 2008 and Dean Skelos in late 2008 and again in 2011-2012 and Democrat Malcolm Smith in 2009-2010--garnered $3.2 million in corporate cash between 2008 and August 2012. CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS OVERALL In 2008: As chair in 2008, Bruno collected $227,900 in corporate money in 2008, until he resigned from his post to fight an indictment on corruption charges. His successor, Skelos, collected $427,400 in 2008 (including corporate funds donated before he took over from Bruno). Democrat Senator Malcolm Smith tallied almost as much as Skelos’s 2008 corporate take as the committee’s ranking minority member; he collected $421,400. However, our analysis shows that the bulk of those funds came after the Democrats won control of the house in the 2008 election.

In 2009 and 2010: As chair, Smith collected $535,819 in corporate donations, with $422,369 of that money coming in 2009. However, Smith lost his leadership standing after mid-year upheaval in the senate, including a short-lived “coup” in which two Democrats voted to replace Smith with Skelos as the chamber’s chief. Smith’s corporate take dropped to $113,450 in 2010. When the committee chair’s power was diluted in mid-2009, corporations shifted their campaign donations to Majority Leader Sampson. 33

In 2011 and 2012: Skelos, again Rules chair, collected $545,393 in 2011 and another $347,650 so far in 2012. Meanwhile, Smith, now in the minority, collected $87,950 in 2011 and $10,600 in 2012. Why contribute? Most legislation before the senate passes through Rules. Since the senate’s majority leader controls which bills go through Rules and to the floor of the senate, corporations donate generously. When the committee chair’s power was diluted in mid-2009, corporations shifted their campaign donations to Sampson. Which interests gave money? Whether a Republican or Democrat led Rules, real estate and developers gave donated the most money to them.

Bruno
Industry 2008

% of Total

TOTALS
Insurance Real Estate and Development Finance Health care Lobbyist

$227,900
$28,000 $26,500 $16,850 $15,000 $14,500

100.0%
12.3% 11.6% 7.4% 6.6% 6.4%

Skelos
Industry 2008 2011

TOTALS
Insurance Real Estate and Development Health care Alcohol Lobbyist

$457,400
$56,200 $27,850 $52,200 $14,300 $25,300

$545,393
$61,350 $79,800 $54,000 $26,050 $24,250

TOTALS % of Total 100.0% $347,650 $1,350,443
2012 $53,500 $37,550 $24,700 $46,250 $20,100 $171,050 $145,200 $130,900 $86,600 $69,650 12.7% 10.8% 9.7% 6.4% 5.2%

Smith
Industry 2009

TOTALS
Construction, contracting, building Real Estate and Development Health care Legal Lobbyist

$422,369
$83,250 $39,140 $32,000 $23,650 $13,500

TOTALS % of Total 100.0% $113,450 $535,819
2010 $33,250 $37,000 $5,300 $4,000 $11,200 $116,500 $76,140 $37,300 $27,650 $24,700 21.7% 14.2% 7.0% 5.2% 4.6%

MARGIN OF VICTORY Money follows power in the form of campaign contributions, even when an incumbent faces little or no electoral competition at the polls. In 2008, Smith ran uncontested, while in 2010 Skelos received 66 percent of the vote.

34

In

Transportation committee

No matter who led the Transportation committee—Republican senators Thomas Libous in 2008 and Charles Fuschillo, Jr. in 2011-2012 or Democrat Martin Malave Dilan in 2009-2010—money from transportation and other corportations flowed into their campaign chests. While corporate donations to Republicans did decrease significantly when the party was out of power, Dilan never outpaced them in fund-raising. CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS OVERALL Corporations gave generously to the Transportation chairs, whether or not we identified them as transportation-related corporations. In 2008, Libous received $366,825 from corporations, while Fuschillo received $251,609 in 2011 to August 2012. In 2009-2010, Dilan received $120,350 in corporate donations. In the two full years they led the committee, Republicans collected $270,567 in corporation donations annually. The Democrat collected $60,175 annually.

INDUSTRY CONTRIBUTIONS* Why contribute? The Transportation committee influences funding for road repair and capital projects for highways, bridges and mass transit and legislates rules for the state’s roadways and railroad rights-of-way, among other transportation-related matters.
*

Since we did not match all contributions to particular interests, industry-specific tallies likely underestimate the overall contribution dollars coming from particular industries.

35

In 2008: As chair, Libous collected at least $110,980 from transportation interests. His successor, Dilan, received just $2,000. In 2009 and 2010: Dilan, now the chair, collected $19,100 from transportation interests. Meanwhile, transportation industry contributions to Libous fell to $47,650—still higher than Dilan’s take but a loss of $63,330 from the year before. In 2011 through August 2012: Fuschillo, now the committee’s chair, collected $64,125 from transportation interests. Dilan, once again in the minority, collected just $3,000 during the same period. Overall: Altogether, the Republican’s chairs received $138,125 from transportationrelated interests in 2008 and 2011-August 2012. In the two full years they led the committee, they collected $59,513 annually. The Democrat collected $20,800 in 20092010—$10,400 annually. MARGIN OF VICTORY Money follows power in the form of campaign contributions, even when an incumbent faces little or no electoral competition at the polls. Dilan won with nearly 93 percent of the vote in 2008, while Fuschillo won by more than a two-to-one margin in 2010.

36

In

Veterans committee

The chairs of the Veterans, Homeland Security and Military Affairs committee collected little money we could identify as related to committee business. But no matter who led the committee—Republican senators Vincent Leibell in 2008 and Greg Ball in 2011-2012 or Democrat Eric Adams in 2009-2010—corporate money from real estate, insurance and other interests flowed into their campaign chests. CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS OVERALL In 2008: As chair, Leibell collected $145,231 in corporate money in 2008. His successor, Adams, collected $18,375 as a member of the Democratic minority. In 2009-2010: Adams, now the chair, collected $240,785 in his two years at the helm. Adams also played a leadership role in the Democratic majority. Leibell’s take decreased to $85,110 in 2009; he ran for local office in 2010 and collected only $30,705. (Leibell later pled guilty to two felony corruption charges and is now in federal prison.)

In 2011 through August 2012: Ball, now the committee’s chair, collected $323,854 from corporations for his campaign chest. Overall: Altogether, Republicans collected $469,085 in corporate contributions in 2008 and from 2011 to August 2012. In the two full years they’ve led the committee, they collected $171,562 annually. The Democrat collected an average of $120,393 in the two years he led the committee. 37

Why contribute? Leibell and Adams played leadership roles in their conference. Ball, new to the chamber, is considered a key senator if the Republicans wish to hold the majority. These tables show the top contributors by industry when each senator chaired Veterans.

Leibell
Industry 2008

% of Total

TOTALS
Real Estate and Development Insurance Construction, contracting, building Health care Legal

$145,231
$46,843 $13,325 $12,415 $8,250 $6,325

100.0%
32.3% 9.2% 8.5% 5.7% 4.4%

Adams
Industry

TOTALS
Real Estate and Development Gambling and racing Lobbyist Construction, contracting, building

TOTALS $107,200 $133,585 $240,785
2009 2010 $35,500 $16,800 $4,050 $3,000 $40,600 $19,500 $10,500 $10,550 $76,100 $36,300 $14,550 $13,550

% of Total

100.0%
31.6% 15.1% 6.0% 5.6%

Ball
Industry

TOTALS
Real Estate and Development Construction, contracting, building Health care Business services and accounting Legal

TOTALS $197,892 $125,962 $323,854
2011 2012 $47,350 $25,700 $25,250 $8,500 $8,762 $27,550 $23,200 $18,450 $5,500 $3,000 $74,900 $48,900 $43,700 $14,000 $11,762

% of Total

100.0%
23.1% 15.1% 13.5% 4.3% 3.6%

MARGIN OF VICTORY Money follows power in the form of campaign contributions, even when an incumbent faces little or no electoral competition at the polls. Leibell ran uncontested and Adams received 93 percent of the vote in 2008. However, Ball won by only two percent in his 2010 race.

38

APPENDIX A: Methodology
The Big Switch traces one way in which corporations may attempt to influence the legislative process in New York State: through contributing money directly to the campaign coffers of elected officials who lead the New York State Senate’s 33 standing committees. There are many other ways a corporate entity can influence policy through campaign contributions, whether through contributing to lobbyists (who may then contribute to legislators), party committees or to those in leadership positions. Our report strictly analyzes the direct contributions of corporations to these elected officials. State contributions data Contribution data come from financial disclosure reports available from the New York State Board of Elections.* We combined data from between January 1, 2008, and August 31, 2012 and included data on all sitting senators and successful candidates. † The Board of Elections data include information on the name and address of the contributor, the contribution date and amount, and the recipient elected official or candidate. In a small number of cases, the data do not include a full address. The Board of Elections uses a number of categories for contributions. For this report we looked at two: “monetary contributions from corporations” (Schedule “B”) and “monetary contributions from all other contributors” (Schedule “C”), which include contributions from political committees, political action committees (PACs), Limited Liability Corporations (LLCs), unions, foundations, and other non-corporate organizations. We do not analyze monetary contributions from individuals, nonmonetary contributions (such as services rendered), other receipts (such as proceeds from a sale) or transfers between political committees. Our analysis focuses on corporate and business entities only and we do not analyze political committees, nonprofit or fraternal organizations, or unions. We do this for two reasons. First, corporate contributions accounted for the bulk (66.2%) of non-individual contributions (unions contributed 22.6% and other entities contributed 11.2%). Second, unions, because they are made up of and represent individuals, and political committees and other non-corporate organizations, because they lack a profit motive, contribute for inherently different reasons than do corporations. Identification We identified 48,699 contributions for $46,893,136 to senators between 2008 and August 2012. From this we identified 21,549 contributors by combining multiple contributions from those with the same name. This figure somewhat overstates the actual number of contributions, because the data contain a number of alternate names, alternate spellings and misspellings which result in multiple names for single entities.

* http://www.elections.ny.gov/CFViewReports.html † Our analysis included contributions to successful senate candidates in the year running up to the election.

39

Our next step was to “code” the contributions by industry and organizational type. We used a two-step process. The first step was to create a broad set of categories useful for analyzing contributions from corporate interests, lobbyists and special interests and professional groups with corporate (or industry) ties. These included:       Corporate Lobbyist Special interest Political committee (including candidate funds) Union Professional group (non-union)

The second step was to identify an industry category for the particular contributor. We created broad categories designed to include a range of related business types. Some contributors were easy to identify: “The Coca Cola bottling Company of New York,” for example, was categorized as “food and beverage production” (businesses involved in the production, distribution or selling of alcoholic beverages were considered separately). Obvious misspellings (such as “The Coco-Cola Bottling Company of NY PAC”) were similarly categorized. Other contributors were identified through internet searches using both the entity name and address. When in doubt, we refrained from categorizing a business. Given the size of the database we were not able to identify 100% of the contributors, although we did link 91% of the overall contribution dollar amount to a particular contributor category. We were left with three sets of unidentified contributors:    Unidentified corporations (those identified under Schedule “B”) Unidentified non-corporate Limited Liability Companies (LLCs under Schedule “C”)* Other unidentified non-corporate contributions (Schedule “C”)

When analyzing overall analysis of corporate contributions, we included the first two categories but excluded the third category. Because our industry-specific analysis requires a more detailed level of identification, those numbers likely understate industry-specific contribution amounts due to contributors unmatched to particular industries.

*

Previous studies have shown that LLCs are commonly used by real estate developers. These entities, which are difficult to link to a particular interest, have become increasingly common as sources of campaign donations in recent years. See: http://www.thenewyorkworld.com/2012/09/12/litwin-senatespending/

40

The top ten categories in descending order are: 1. Real Estate and Development ($5,651,252) 2. Health care ($2,965,169) 3. Construction and contracting ($2,258,747) 4. Legal ($2,241,039) 5. Insurance ($1,840,334) 6. Assisted living ($938,481) 7. Lobbyists ($935,428)* 8. Energy ($905,401) 9. Alcohol ($898,685) 10. Transportation ($871,929) Committee selection and analysis Our next step was to rank the senate’s 33 committees by the dollar amount committee chairs received from corporate contributions. We identified the amount given to Democratic chairs in 2009 and 2010 and Republican chairs in 2008, 2011 and 2012.† Senators serving as committee chairs on multiple committees at the same time were counted separately for each committee. We first ranked contributions to committee chairs annually, and the overall ranking is the five-year average of those individual-year rankings. While we could have simply taken the average dollar amount over the five years, we chose this method for two reasons. First, it limits the ability of any outlier to skew the overall rankings, especially when senators in leadership positions received corporate contributions for other reasons. Second, it allows us to directly compare our partial-year data from 2012 with the entire-year data from previous years. We used the overall rankings to select the top fifteen committees in terms of corporate dollars. (We excluded Alcoholism and Drug Abuse because it did not exist as a standalone committee prior to 2011 and therefore had no potential “switch.”) For the fifteen committees we analyzed in detail, we traced corporate contributions to senators who serve as committee chairs at any point during the five-year 2008-2012 period. We first attempted to identify a particular corporate interest or industry likely interested in influencing the work of that committee. From there were conducted two analyses: the first traced the annual contribution trends from that industry, and the second traced the annual contribution trends from all corporate interests.

*

We treated lobbyists as a stand-alone corporate interest, even though significant numbers also selfidentify as law firms. While lobbyists may represent either corporate or non-corporate interests, they are themselves businesses. † For sake of simplicity, the analysis does not account for the period in June and July 2009 when Democratic senators joined with Republicans in an effort to switch senate control.

41

There were four committees where straight-forward industry-committee relationships did not exist: codes, judiciary, veterans and rules. For these we did not undertake an industry-specific analysis, although we did indicate industries that donated most heavily to committee chairs. Election results We reviewed 2008 and 2010 primary and general election result data, available from the New York State Board of Elections.* We looked at the electoral results for all contests involving the senate’s committee chairs, tallying up vote counts, margin of victory and whether or not the election was contested.

* See http://www.elections.ny.gov (Election Results)

42

Appendix B: Annual Contributions by Committee*
Civil Service and Pensions Insurance and legal industry contributions
Senator Robach Savino Golden Senator Robach Savino Golden 2009 2010 2011 2012** $3,350 $1,500 $7,750 $17,050 $3,750 $2,850 $7,500 $3,750 $19,400 $11,150 $21,775 $12,225 All corporate contributions 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** $197,546 $29,710 $32,651 $85,000 $67,800 $33,600 $27,650 $14,475 $62,575 $32,100 $202,308 $175,250 $160,855 $258,500 $169,750 2008 $29,300 $8,250 $27,050 Total $58,950 $26,100 $91,600 Total $412,707 $170,400 $966,663

Codes All corporate contributions Senator 2008 2009 2010 2011 Volker $190,349 $24,211 $21,600 $0 Schneiderman $22,500 $38,800 $155,250 $0 Saland $116,150 $45,025 $177,555 $98,575 (See profile for industry chart)

2012** $0 $0 $82,850

Total $236,160 $216,550 $520,155

Commerce, Economic Development and Small Business Real estate, construction, gambling and racing, and other business corporate contributions Senator 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** Total Alesi $64,000 $18,650 $27,600 $27,250 $9,250 $146,750 Stachowski $30,928 $11,670 $24,215 $0 $0 $66,813 Gallivan $0 $0 $25,178 $23,043 $23,323 $71,544 All corporate contributions Senator 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** Total Alesi $189,000 $54,300 $101,975 $101,450 $32,900 $479,625 Stachowski $131,435 $107,680 $111,717 $1,100 $0 $351,932 Gallivan $0 $0 $46,214 $58,126 $60,187 $164,527

*

Since we did not match all contributions to particular interests, industry-specific tallies likely underestimate the overall contribution dollars coming from particular industries. ** January to August only

43

Senator Fuschillo Monserrate Peralta Zeldin Senator Fuschillo Monserrate Peralta Zeldin

Consumer Protection Legal and insurance industry contributions 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** $27,950 $14,950 $19,400 $17,200 $6,550 $12,909 $4,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,500 $7,000 $3,300 $0 $1,150 $4,500 $16,925 $21,880 All corporate contributions 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** $151,928 $91,500 $94,150 $173,859 $77,300 $216,659 $37,562 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $104,150 $44,800 $51,120 $0 $16,975 $133,600 $140,200 $211,725

Total $86,050 $16,909 $26,800 $44,455 Total $588,737 $254,221 $200,070 $502,500

Senator Maziarz Aubertine Senator Maziarz Aubertine

Energy and Telecom Energy and telecommunications industry contributions 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** Total $43,000 $18,000 $57,832 $79,920 $35,542 $234,294 $2,650 $16,250 $9,820 $0 $0 $28,720 All corporate contributions 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** Total $226,510 $156,269 $227,321 $388,415 $177,142 $1,175,657 $101,995 $95,150 $127,900 $0 $0 $325,045 Environmental Conservation Energy industry contributions 2008 2009 2010 2011 $5,250 $2,650 $4,100 $1,450 $2,428 $9,175 $2,680 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,850 All corporate contributions 2008 2009 2010 2011 $106,762 $25,450 $59,525 $42,525 $104,487 $123,296 $75,065 $0 $0 $0 $8,572 $114,147

Senator Marcellino A. Thompson Grisanti Senator Marcellino A. Thompson Grisanti

2012** $1,500 $0 $3,479 2012** $52,675 $0 $75,623

Total $14,950 $14,284 $8,329 Total $286,937 $302,848 $198,342

** January to August only

44

Senator O. Johnson Kruger DeFrancisco Senator O. Johnson Kruger DeFrancisco

Finance Finance industry contributions 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** $4,500 $0 $0 $500 $1,000 $0 $11,000 $13,300 $0 $0 $4,675 $2,425 $5,375 $6,250 $7,500 All corporate contributions 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** $73,775 $10,600 $27,800 $20,000 $12,700 $130,350 $334,200 $342,465 $9,500 $0 $114,125 $56,570 $66,075 $158,899 $122,525

Total $6,000 $24,300 $26,225 Total $144,875 $816,515 $518,194

Health Health, health insurance, pharmacy and pharmaceutical industry contributions Senator 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** Total Hannon $121,950 $28,800 $83,200 $88,650 $48,350 $370,950 Duane $7,300 $57,050 $37,300 $13,750 $10,000 $125,400 All corporate contributions Senator 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012* Total Hannon $174,050 $45,850 $165,075 $157,750 $134,900 $677,625 Duane $58,150 $131,300 $76,775 $40,475 $20,050 $326,750 Housing, Construction and Community Development Real estate and construction industry contributions 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** $57,600 $18,325 $34,330 $17,315 $14,435 $0 $92,725 $19,900 $0 $0 $16,775 $7,750 $4,925 $97,431 $26,125 All corporate contributions 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** $128,300 $54,025 $76,810 $114,405 $51,610 $0 $157,600 $65,900 $0 $0 $76,193 $30,953 $24,994 $173,701 $87,214 Insurance Insurance industry contributions 2009 2010 2011 $47,580 $41,740 $96,330 $63,600 $92,450 $30,150 All corporate contributions 2009 2010 2011 $102,330 $109,980 $195,066 $149,800 $229,659 $72,800

Senator Bonacic Espada Young Senator Bonacic Espada Young

Total $142,005 $112,625 $153,006 Total $425,150 $223,500 $393,055

Senator Seward Breslin Senator Seward Breslin

2008 $101,280 $21,900 2008 $202,741 $73,225

2012** $79,425 $33,000 2012** $173,454 $111,790

Total $366,355 $241,100 Total $783,571 $637,274

45

Judiciary All corporate contributions Senator 2008 2009 2010 2011 DeFrancisco $114,125 $56,570 $66,075 $158,899 Sampson $40,730 $454,190 $822,580 $111,500 Bonacic $128,300 $54,925 $76,810 $116,905 (See profile for industry chart)

2012** $122,525 $84,900 $53,110

Total $518,194 $1,513,900 $430,050

Senator Larkin Adams Bonacic Senator Larkin Adams Bonacic

Racing, Gaming and Wagering Racing, gaming and hospitality industry contributions 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** $7,940 $0 $200 $120 $1,120 $0 $18,300 $20,500 $3,500 $4,250 $3,300 $4,750 $2,850 $46,450 $7,720 All corporate contributions 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012* $92,961 $45,711 $73,234 $45,555 $75,330 $18,375 $106,700 $133,585 $40,150 $31,250 $128,300 $54,925 $76,810 $115,905 $53,110

Total $9,380 $46,550 $65,070 Total $332,791 $330,060 $429,050

Rules All corporate contributions Senator 2008 2009 2010 2011 Bruno $227,900 $0 $0 $0 Smith $421,982 $422,369 $113,450 $87,950 Skelos $457,400 $179,275 $372,100 $545,393 (See profile for industry chart)

2012** $0 $10,600 $347,650

Total $227,900 $1,056,351 $1,901,818

Senator Libous Dilan Fuschillo Senator Libous Dilan Fuschillo

Transportation Transportation and construction contributions 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** $110,980 $47,650 $28,075 $54,625 $37,600 $4,625 $19,100 $1,700 $3,000 $12,750 $11,775 $13,300 $14,000 $45,025 $19,100 All corporate contributions 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** $366,825 $212,475 $159,775 $317,300 $223,975 $22,875 $73,000 $47,350 $9,900 $46,100 $151,928 $91,500 $94,150 $174,309 $77,300

Total $278,930 $41,175 $103,200 Total $1,280,350 $199,225 $589,187

** January to August only

46

Veterans, Homeland Security and Military Affairs All corporate contributions Senator 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** Leibell $145,231 $20,770 $10,205 $490 $0 Adams $85,110 $107,200 $133,585 $40,150 $31,250 Ball $30,705 $0 $169,909 $197,892 $125,962 (See profile for industry chart)

Total $176,696 $397,295 $524,468

** January to August only

47

Appendix C—2008 and 2010 electoral results involving committee chairs Senator
Adams (Democratic, Working Families) Adams (D, WFP) Alesi (Republican, Independent, Conservative) Alesi (R, I, C) Aubertine (D, WFP) - general Aubertine (D, WFP) - special Ball – R primary Ball (R, C) Bonacic (R, I, C) Bonacic (R, I, C) Breslin (D, WFP) Breslin (D, WFP, I) DeFrancisco (R, C, I) DeFrancisco (R, C, I) Dilan (D) Dilan (D) Duane (D, WFP) Duane (D, WFP) Espada (D) Espada (D) - primary Fuschillo (R, I, C) Fuschillo (R, I, C, Tax Revolt Party) Gallivan (R) - primary Gallivan (R, I, C) - general Golden (R, I, C) Grisanti (R, C) Hannon (R, I, C) Hannon (R, I, C, TRP) Johnson, O. (R, C, I) Kruger (D) Larkin (R, I, C) Leibell (R, I, C)

Year
2008 2010 2008 2010 2008 2008 2010 2010 2008 2010 2010 2008 2008 2010 2008 2010 2008 2010 2008 2010 2008 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2008 2010 2008 2008 2008 2008 48

Votes
79,000 51,598 85,403 57,025 52,908 29,504 10,087 50,705

Vote Share
93.1% 92.2% 60.3% 53.2% 53.0% 52.53% 61.1% 51.1%

Margin of Victory
86.1% 84.4% 20.6% 6.4% 6.0% 5.1% 22.2% 2.2% 19.0% 14.1% 79.7% 38.0% 29.6% 85.0% 82.2% 71.4% 70.3% 94.8% NA -- lost 21.1% 29.0% 4.3% 28.3% 31.7% 0.8% 2.6% 20.5% 20.2% 86.5% 22.2%

ran uncontested 52,533 59.5% 53,724 101,794 87,795 58,892 57,762 31,483 114,103 71,645 52,090 74,374 53,439 8,250 59,208 28,270 33,243 60,590 45,970 60,007 42,066 72,952 57.1% 89.9% 69.0% 64.8% 92.5% 91.1% 85.7% 85.2% 97.4% 60.5% 64.5% 37.3% 58.8% 65.8% 50.4% 51.3% 60.3% 59.0% 93.3% 61.1% ran uncontested

Senator
Marcellino (R, I, C) Maziarz (R) - primary Maziarz (R, I, C, WFP) Maziarz (R, I, C, WFP) Monserrate (D, WFP) Peralta (D, WFP) - general Peralta (D, WFP) - special Robach (R, I, D) Saland (R, I, C) Sampson (D) Sampson (D, WFP, I) Savino (D, WFP) Savino (D, I, WFP) Schneiderman (D, WFP) Seward (R, I, C) Seward (R, I, C) Skelos (R, I, C) Smith (D, WFP) Smith (D, WFP) Stachowski (I, WFP) Stachowski (D, WFP) Thompson, A. (D) - primary Thompson, A. (D, WFP) Thompson, A. (D, WFP) Young (R, I, C) Zeldin (R, I, C)

Year
2008 2008 2008 2010 2008 2010 2010 2008 2010 2008 2010 2008 2010 2008 2008 2010 2010 2008 2010 2010 2008 2008 2008 2010 2010 2010

Votes
79,645 10,179 78,798 59,097 23,962 10337 62,383 56,680 69,811 43,450 46,386 80,832 73,814 59,252

Vote Share
60.90% 81.1% 68.2% 67.6%

Margin of Victory
21.8% 62.2% 36.5% 35.1% 65.6% 42.0% 3.5% 19.4% 90.3% 86.8% 57.2% 81.3% 27.0% 31.6% 60.0% NA - lost 6.0% 45.1% 20.1% NA - lost 69.4% 14.2%

ran uncontested 82.8% 71.0% 51.7% 59.7% 95.1% 93.4% 78.6% ran uncontested 90.6% 63.5% ran uncontested 65.8%

ran uncontested 43,356 73.2% 6,611 64,116 18,083 76,835 32,724 67,212 41,063 7.3% 53.0% 72.6% 60.0% 49.6% 84.7% 57.1%

* Lost September 2010 primary; vote information not available on Board of Elections site.

49

Appendix D: Average corporate contributions
Republican leadership: 2008 and 2011 average $228,023 $144,462 $145,225 $146,064 $307,463 $110,455 $116,337 $165,900 $151,001 $198,904 $115,515 $104,433 $615,346 $346,531 $171,562 Democratic leadership: 2009 and 2010 average $21,063 $97,025 $109,698 $70,856 $95,150* $99,181 $338,333 $104,038 $111,750 $189,729 $638,385 $120,143 $267,910 $60,175 $120,393

Committee Civil Service and Pensions Codes Commerce, Economic Development and Small Business Consumer Protection Energy and Telecommunications Environmental Conservation Finance Health Housing, Construction and Community Development Insurance Judiciary Racing, Gaming and Wagering Rules Transportation Veterans, Homeland Security and Military Affairs

* Based on 2009 data only (committee reverted to Republican chair in 2010).

50