You are on page 1of 22

Forimmediaterelease:

Monday,January72013

Formoreinformation:
BillMahoney(518)8173738

CAPITALINVESTMENTS2012

ANALYSISOFCAMPAIGNFUNDRAISINGINTHE2012ELECTION
Endorsedby:
CitizensUnion
CommonCauseNewYork
LeagueofWomenVotersofNewYorkState(LWVNYS)

EXECUTIVESUMMARY

NewYorkerssensethatbigmoneyhasabigimpactonelections,yettheirunderstandingisoftenbased
onreportsaboutoutsizedfundraisingforCongressandthePresident.However,givenNewYorkssky
highcontributionlimits,thestatescampaignfinancesystemoffersevengreateropportunitiesto
cultivateinfluencethroughtheuseofcampaigncontributions.Statelawallowshugecampaign
donationsfarinexcessofthoseallowedinfederalelections.Thegeneralelectiondonationlimitfor
eachtwoyearelectioncycletoanAssemblymemberwhosedistricthasonlyafractionofthe
populationofCongressionaldistrictsissetat$4,100,whileageneralelectiondonationtoa
Congressionalcandidateis$2,500.StateSenatecandidatescanreceive$10,300percontributorforthe
generalelection.Partycommitteesenjoylimitsofover$102,300,andcanreceiveunlimiteddonations
ifthesearedirectedtotheirhousekeepingcommittees.

Thisreportexamineslegislativefundraisingforthe20112012electioncycleasawindowintohowthe
NewYorkcampaignfinancesystemandlawsoperateandtheimplicationsforpublicpolicy.Itiswritten
tohelpthepublicbetterunderstandthestatessystemofcampaignfinance.

SUMMARYOFFINDINGS
Thisreportexaminedthemostrecentelectionperiodforstatelegislativecandidates,specifically
donationsreceivedbetweenDecember2010andNovember2012.Somefilingsmostnotably,thoseof
thelegislativecampaigncommitteeshousekeepingaccountsarenotyetpublicallyavailable.The
reportsthatwereexaminedwerethosethatexistedasofDecember13,2012,tendaysafterthelast
filingperiod;itispossiblethatsomehavesincebeenamended.Nevertheless,thesefilingsare
sufficientlycomprehensivetoprovideadetailedlookatsomeofthebroadtrendsduringthiselection
cycle.

Keyfindingsinclude:
Thetotalfundraisingin201112forlegislativecandidatesandtheirpartycommitteesdecreased
relativetothe200910electioncycle.Totalcontributionsdippedfrom$87millionto$85million;total
receiptsfellfromnearly$117millionto$105million.Seepage3.
Thisdeclinewasduetoadropofnearly21%infundraisingintheSenate.Totalfundraisinginthe
Assemblyincreasedbyalmost10%.IntheSenate,wheretheRepublicanscontrolledthechambermore
tightlythaninthepreviouselectioncycle,totalreceiptsdroppedsignificantlyasdonorsmayhave
abandonedattemptstohedgetheirbets.Seepage3.
Businessesgavethemostmoney.Theyaccountedfor35.90%ofallreceipts,andwerefollowedby
individuals(23.46%)andunions(13.10%).Seepage4.
Amongbusinesses,realestateandconstructioninterestsaccountedforapluralityofdonations.They
werefollowedbybusinessesinthehealthandfinancialsectors.Seepage8.
Mostofthemoneyfromindividualscamefromlargedonors.Overhalfofthemoneycomingfrom
individualscamefromthosegiving$2,500ormore.Seepage11.
NewYorkCityresidentsgaveover40%ofthemoneycomingfromindividuals.ResidentsoftheCapital
Region,Manhattan,Nassau,andWestchestergavethemostpercapita.Seepage11.
SenateMajorityLeaderDeanSkelosraisedmoremoneythananyotherlegislator.Seepage14.
Thelargestdonationsmadebyindividualsappeartohavebeendrivenbygaymarriage.Among
Senators,thefourrecipientsofthemostmaximumdonationswereRepublicanswhosupported
marriageequality.Seepage15.

TOTALFUNDRAISING
Thetotalreceiptsreportedbyalllegislativecandidatesandtheirconferencespartycommittees
declinedrelativetothepreviouselectioncycle:

TotalContributions
TotalReceipts2

Shift
201112
2009101
$85,247,517.95
$87,181,389.52
$105,288,158.32
$116,678,071.57

2.22%
9.76%

Severalfactorsmayhavecontributedtothisdrop.Whileexactnumbersareunavailable,severalgroups,
mostnotablyNYSUT,appeartohavedivertedresourcestowardindependentexpenditures,forwhich
dataisnotavailableandthisreportcannotproperlyanalyze.Additionally,somespecialinterestsmay
havegivenmoneytononcampaignorganizations,suchastheCommitteetoSaveNewYork,thatwould
havetraditionallybeenbudgetedfordirectdonationstocandidates.
Itshouldalsobenotedthatthenatureoftherecentlycompletedelectioncycledifferedfromthatof
twoyearsago.Thepresidentialelectiondrewrecordshatteringdonations,andmayhavediverted
resourcestothefederallevel.Thistheoryisgivencredencebythefactthatthebiggestdropsappearto
havecomeintheclosingweeksoftheelection.Thedisclosurereportsfiled11daysbeforethegeneral
electionin2012includedatotalofabout$11millioninreceipts.Twoyearsprior,thetotalforthesame
filingwasover$17million.
Thebiggestreasonforthisshift,however,seemstobeinthedifferencebetweentheSenateineach
electioncycle.Asthefollowingchartreveals,thetotalraisedbyAssemblymembers,candidates,and
theirpartycommitteesincreased,whilethetotalraisedbytheSenatecounterpartsfellprecipitously:
201112Total

Receipts
Senate
$64,543,122.93
Assembly $40,745,035.39

200910Total
Receipts
$81,614,806.08
$37,372,969.54

In2010,punditswereunsurewhichpartywouldobtainamajorityafterthatyearselections.The
Democratshadcontrolledthechamberformostoftheprecedingtwoyears,yethadrevealedseveral
weaknessesthatseemedtoleavethedooropenforRepublicanstoregaincontrol.Asaresult,donors
mayhavehedgedtheirbets.Twoyearslater,afterrecapturingtheSenate,however,Republicansheld
tightercontroloverthechamberandhadthebenefitofrunninginnewlygerrymandereddistricts.
Additionally,thecreationofanIndependentDemocraticConferencepresentedchallengesthatmight
havepreventedregularDemocratsfromservinginthemajority.Donorsseekingtoinfluencelegislative

Asmentionedabove,housekeepingtotalsfordatesafterJuly11,2012arenotyetavailable.Tokeepthe
comparisonsconstant,housekeepingdonationsforthecomparableperiodin2010arenotincluded.
2
Totalreceiptsisamoreencompassingcategorythancontributionsasitincludesdonationsaswellasinterest,
candidateloans,andtransfersfrompartiesandothercandidatecommittees.

decisions,therefore,werenolongerforcedtobuyaccesstobothparties,astheIDCdecreasedtheir
confidencethatDemocratswouldbeabletowinagoverningmajority.
Indeed,donorsgaveoverwhelminglytothemajoritypartiesineachchamber.WhileSenateDemocrats
outraisedRepublicansbyabout$14millionin200910,RepublicansoutraisedDemocratsbyover$23
millionin201112:
House
Party
Senate
Republicans+ConferenceCommittees
Senate
Democrats+ConferenceCommittees
Senate
IndependentDemocraticConference
Senate
Other3
Assembly
Democrats+ConferenceCommittees
Assembly
Republicans+ConferenceCommittees
Assembly
Other

TotalReceipts
$42,320,138.78
$19,096,121.72
$3,032,480.83
$94,381.60
$29,596,026.04
$11,054,446.12
$94,563.23

ReceiptsbySource
Wehavelabeledthesourceof98.4%ofthereceiptsreportedbycandidatesinthetwoyearspreceding
December1st,2012intooneoftensourcecategories.Businessesaccountedformorethanathirdofall
moneyraisedbycandidates.
TypeofDonor
Business,LLCorTradeAssociation
Individual
Union
NotforProfit
OtherCandidate
Party
DirectlyfromCandidate
FromCandidate'sFamily
Interest&ExpenditureRefunds
NativeAmericanTribes
Loans
UnitemizedbyFiler

TotalGiven
%ofAllMoney
$37,798,813.72
35.90%
$24,705,039.25
23.46%
$13,791,460.07
13.10%
$1,165,673.80
1.11%
$10,045,250.03
9.54%
$8,786,150.83
8.34%
$3,385,102.01
3.22%
$947,140.07
0.90%
$1,119,239.51
1.06%
$422,050.00
0.40%
$90,000.00
0.09%
$1,318,621.65
1.25%

Othercandidatesareprimarilythosethatdidnotruninamajorpartysprimaryin2012andwereonthe
generalelectionballotforeithertheConservative,Independence,orGreenparties.

Themostnotableshiftinthesourceofdonationsovertheprevioustwoelectioncycleshasbeena
decreasedrelianceonloans.Muchofthisisattributabletoseverallargeloanstakenoutbythe
DemocraticSenateCampaignCommitteebeforethe2010election.
TypeofDonor
Business,LLCorTrade
Association
Individuals,Candidates,and
Family
Union
NotforProfit
OtherCandidate
Party
Interest&ExpenditureRefunds
NativeAmericanTribes
Loans
UnitemizedbyFiler

201112Total

201112Pct

200910Total

200910Pct

$37,798,813.72

35.90% $40,086,913.25

33.69%

$29,037,281.33
$13,791,460.07
$1,165,673.80
$10,045,250.03
$8,786,150.83
$1,119,239.51
$422,050.00
$90,000.00
$1,318,621.65

27.58% $30,243,697.06
13.10% $13,836,423.25
1.11% $1,412,267.17
9.54% $12,454,250.15
8.34% $9,938,269.11
1.06% $1,032,809.57
0.40%
$222,405.00
0.09% $6,071,353.22
1.25% $1,379,683.79

25.42%
11.63%
1.19%
10.47%
8.35%
0.87%
0.19%
5.10%
1.16%

Legislativecampaigncommitteesandtheirhousekeepingaffiliatesreliedonindividualsfortheir
donationstoamuchsmallerdegreethancandidatecommittees.Itisclearthatanyattempttoincrease
therolethatindividualsplayinthecampaignfinancesystemmustremovetheloopholesthatletparty
committeesraisehugecontributionsfromdonors,benefitinggroupssuchasbusinessesandunionsthat
canaffordtowritelargerchecks.

SourceofDonation
Business,LLCorTrade
Association
Individuals
Union
NotforProfit
OtherCandidate
Party
NativeAmericanTribes
UnitemizedbyFiler
Loans
Interest
ExpenditureRefunds

Party,Total$
$14,266,081.30
$3,142,394.70
$4,695,682.45
$474,600.00
$7,028,871.24
$916,234.22
$265,000.00
$72,189.77
$0.00
$5,782.11
$187,926.62

%ofParty$
45.75%
10.08%
15.06%
1.52%
22.54%
2.94%
0.85%
0.23%
0.00%
0.02%
0.60%

Candidates,Total$
$23,532,732.42
$21,562,644.55
$9,095,777.62
$691,073.80
$3,016,378.79
$7,869,916.61
$157,050.00
$1,246,431.88
$90,000.00
$503,889.27
$421,641.51

%ofCandidate$4
33.73%
30.90%
13.04%
0.99%
4.32%
11.28%
0.23%
1.79%
0.13%
0.72%
0.60%

Donationsdirectlyfromcandidatesortheirfamilymemberswerenotincludedwhencalculatingthepercentage
raisedbycandidates,sincethesecannotbecomparedtomoneyraisedbyparties.Iftheywereincluded,the
percentageofmoneythatcandidatesraisedfromindividualswouldincreasesignificantly.

IndividualCandidatesSourcesofFunding
Duepartiallytoarelativedearthoftransfersfromothercandidatesandpartycommittees,membersof
theIDCweremorereliantthanmembersofotherconferencesondonationsfrombothunionsand
businesses.

Conference
SenateGOP
SenateDem
SenateIDC5
AssemblyDem
AssemblyGOP

Business%
BusinessTotal ofall$
$11,485,501.70
40.61%
$3,066,579.57
23.01%
$1,350,014.09
44.52%
$5,727,724.20
26.78%
$1,875,809.86
23.80%

Union%
UnionTotal
ofall$
$2,434,876.66
8.61%
$2,244,447.01
16.84%
$583,716.00
19.25%
$3,395,628.23
15.87%
$432,010.72
5.48%

Individual
Individual%
Total
ofall$
$7,518,342.53
26.58%
$4,401,221.34
33.02%
$821,032.89
27.07%
$6,477,856.77
30.28%
$2,293,826.62
29.11%

Committeesthatreceivedthemosttotalmoneyfrombusinesses
Committee
FRIENDSFORTHEELECTIONOFDEANSKELOS
FRIENDSOFSENATORLIBOUSCOMMITTEE(2010)
NEWYORKERSFORKLEIN
FRIENDSOFMARTINGOLDEN
COMMITTEETOELECTMAZIARZSTATESENATE
NEWYORKERSONTHEBALL
CITIZENSFORHANNON
ZELDINFORSENATE
COMMITTEETOREELECTASSEMBLYMANJOE
MORELLE
FRIENDSOFSENATORSEWARD
KENNEDYFORSENATE

Total$fromBusiness
$1,045,809.55
$798,462.13
$703,958.00
$668,099.01
$585,221.58
$424,570.24
$420,773.34
$420,701.80
$418,132.73
$409,710.00
$406,616.00

Forthepurposesofthischart,IDCmemberswerelimitedtothosememberswhodeclaredtheiraffiliationwith
thisconferencebeforeelectionday:SenatorsKlein,Savino,Valesky,andCarlucci,andAlbanyCountyLegislator
ShawnMorse.

Committeesthatreceivedthemosttotalmoneyfromunions
Committee
SAVINOFORNEWYORK
FRIENDSFORTHEELECTIONOFDEANSKELOS
FRIENDSOFMARTINGOLDEN
ABBATEFORASSEMBLY
ADDABBOFORSENATE
FRIENDSOFSENATORLIBOUSCOMMITTEE(2010)
COMMITTEETOELECTMAZIARZSTATESENATE
GUSTAVORIVERAFORSTATESENATE
TEDO'BRIENFORSTATESENATE
FRIENDSOFTOBYSTAVISKY
CITIZENSFORJOSEPHROBACH(SENATE)

Total$fromUnions
$276,225.00
$268,550.00
$254,883.56
$208,157.00
$193,306.00
$138,649.00
$134,230.00
$132,831.00
$129,750.00
$129,733.76
$127,575.00

Committeesthatreceivedthemosttotalmoneyfromindividuals
Committee(s)
SALANDFORSENATE
COMMITTEETOELECTMCDONALDTOTHESENATE
GRISANTIFORSENATE
NEWYORKERSFORKLEIN
FRIENDSOFJIMALESI
FRIENDSFORTHEELECTIONOFDEANSKELOS
FRIENDSOFMARTINGOLDEN
LATIMERFORSENATE+LATIMERFORASSEMBLY
NEWYORKERSONTHEBALL
FRIENDSOFSENATORLIBOUSCOMMITTEE(2010)
FRIENDSOFBOBCOHEN

Total$fromIndividuals
$648,680.50
$642,676.59
$531,235.35
$450,495.14
$419,313.00
$397,300.00
$380,146.21
$377,232.84
$349,168.65
$321,318.13
$312,619.12


BUSINESSDONATIONSBYSECTOR
Wereviewed85.2%($32.2million)ofthe$37.8millionfrombusinessdonorsandcategorizedthem
accordingtothefifteenlabelsfoundbelow.6Basedonthiscategorization,itappearsthatbusinessesin
thefieldsofrealestateandconstructioncontinuedtobethetopsourceofcorporatedonations.Their
leadcanpartiallybeattributedtotheloopholeincampaignfinancelawthatletsLLCsdonatemorethan
otherformsofbusiness.

BusinessSector
RealEstate&Construction
Health&MentalHygiene
Insurance,Financial,Banking
LobbyFirms
Food,Alcohol,orTobaccoProduction
LawFirms7
Entertainment,Tourism,Restaurants
Telecom
Transportation,Shipping,CarDealers
Energy
MiscellaneousServiceSector
GeneralRetail
MiscellaneousIndustry
BusinessAssociationsandChambersof
Commerce
Education

AmountDonated
$7,523,955.25
$6,228,494.00
$4,152,821.36
$2,333,924.24
$2,279,268.31
$2,157,708.70
$1,655,275.37
$1,607,973.70
$1,363,949.15
$813,271.64
$587,282.47
$542,883.42
$525,209.29
$380,704.82
$57,900.00

Ingeneral,thetotalfromdifferentsectorsremainedremarkablyconstantwiththesamefiguresfrom
thepreviouselectioncycle.Themostnotablechangecameinbusinessescategorizedasbeinginthe
entertainmentindustry.Thetotalfromthesebusinessesincreasedalmost50%,duetoasurgein
spendingbycasinosandothergamblingcompanies.

ThesecategoriesarebasedonthoseusedbytheJointCommissiononPublicEthics,whichcategorizeslobbying
clients,withsomechangesaddedbytheauthors.
7
Severallawfirmsaregroupedwithlobbyfirmsforthepurposeofthisanalysis.Whiletheyoftenengagein
similarworktootherlawfirms,thosewhoareregisteredtorepresentclientsbeforethestatelegislaturehavea
fundamentallydifferentrelationshipwiththelawmakerswhomtheycontributeto.

Sector
RealEstate&Construction
Health&MentalHygiene
Insurance,Financial,Banking
LobbyFirms+LawFirms
Food,Alcohol,orTobacco
Production
Entertainment,Tourism,
Restaurants
Telecom
Transportation,Shipping,Car
Dealers
Energy
MiscellaneousServiceSector
GeneralRetail
MiscellaneousIndustry
BusinessAssociationsand
ChambersofCommerce
Education

20112Total 20112%of
$
Business$
$7,523,955.25
19.91%
$6,228,494.00
16.48%
$4,152,821.36
10.99%
$4,491,632.94
11.88%

200910Total 200910%of
$
Business$
$7,610,306.62
18.98%
$6,191,863.27
15.45%
$4,226,249.74
10.54%
$4,103,466.81
10.24%

$2,279,268.31

6.03% $2,882,727.68

7.19%

$1,655,275.37
$1,607,973.70

4.38% $1,104,416.75
4.25% $1,327,524.91

2.76%
3.31%

$1,363,949.15
$813,271.64
$587,282.47
$542,883.42
$525,209.29

3.61% $1,242,459.82
2.15%
$819,681.70
1.55%
$623,962.99
1.44%
$408,208.95
1.39%
$351,963.00

3.10%
2.04%
1.56%
1.02%
0.88%

1.01%
0.15%

1.12%
0.13%

$380,704.82
$57,900.00

$450,161.97
$52,925.00

Formembersofthreeofthefourmajorconferences,thethreemostgenerousbusinesssectorswere
RealEstate&Construction;Health&MentalHygiene;andInsurance,Financial&Banking.Itshouldbe
notedthatsince85.2%ofbusinessdonationswerelabeledbysector,someofthesetotalsmightbe
higher.

Conference/Rank
SenateGOP1
SenateGOP2
SenateGOP3
SenateDem1
SenateDem2
SenateDem3
AssemblyDem1
AssemblyDem2
AssemblyDem3
AssemblyGOP1
AssemblyGOP2
AssemblyGOP3

Sector
RealEstate&Construction
Health&MentalHygiene
Insurance,Financial,Banking
RealEstate&Construction
Health&MentalHygiene
LawFirms
Health&MentalHygiene
RealEstate&Construction
Insurance,Financial,Banking
RealEstate&Construction
Health&MentalHygiene
Insurance,Financial,Banking

%ofConferences
Total$
Business$
$4,525,008.96
24.55%
$2,905,660.77
15.77%
$2,183,319.51
11.85%
$909,419.45
18.64%
$880,665.00
18.05%
$514,616.01
10.55%
$1,880,028.73
18.45%
$1,283,808.28
12.60%
$1,136,363.95
11.15%
$464,993.56
15.91%
$356,020.50
12.18%
$233,028.56
7.97%

ThefollowingtwochartspresentthetoprecipientsofmoneyfromthetwobusinesssectorsReal
Estate&ConstructionandInsurance,Financial,&Bankingthatgavethemostdirectlytocandidate
committees.8

Committee
FRIENDSOFBOBCOHEN
NEWYORKERSONTHEBALL
KENNEDYFORSENATE
FRIENDSOFMARTINGOLDEN
NEWYORKERSFORKLEIN
FRIENDSFORTHEELECTIONOFDEANSKELOS
BOYLEFORSENATE
ULRICHFORSENATE

RealEstate&
ConstructionDonations
$252,882.00
$198,207.49
$194,650.00
$188,850.00
$184,354.00
$183,800.00
$174,547.00
$160,917.00

Committee
FRIENDSOFSENATORSEWARD
FRIENDSFORTHEELECTIONOFDEANSKELOS
COMMITTEETOREELECTASSEMBLYMANJOE
MORELLE
FRIENDSOFSENATORLIBOUSCOMMITTEE(2010)
FRIENDSOFSENATORBRESLIN
FRIENDSOFMARTINGOLDEN
FRIENDSOFSILVER
CITIZENSFORHANNON

Insurance,Financial,&
BankingDonations
$203,555.00
$192,100.00
$150,450.00
$92,700.00
$90,050.00
$80,424.00
$75,550.00
$55,750.00

Alargepercentageofmoneyfrombusinessesinhealth&mentalhygienewentdirectlytopartycommitteesand
theirhousekeepingaccounts.

10

MostIndividualMoneyComesfromLargeDonors
Overhalfofthemoneydonatedbyindividuals,notincludingdonationsmadebycandidatesfamily
membersorthecandidatesthemselves,camefromdonorswhogaveamountsof$2,500ormoreto
legislativecandidates.

AmountDonated
$10,000ormore
$2,500to$9,999
$1,000to$2,499
$250to$999
Lessthan$250

Totalfromalldonorsof
thisamount
Percentage
$7,121,246.63
28.83%
$5,753,590.88
23.29%
$4,400,390.62
17.81%
$4,690,989.85
18.99%
$2,738,820.32
11.09%

44,894uniqueindividualsdonatedtolegislativecandidatesorpartycommitteesoverthepasttwo
years.40,381oftheuniqueindividualdonorshadNewYorkstateaddresses.9
Bycomparison,thisnumberis

LessthenumberofvotestheRentisTooDamnHighcandidateforgovernorreceivedin2010.10
Almost15,000fewerthantheinmatesinstateprisons(55,328).11
Lessthanthepopulationof55NewYorkcounties.
IndividualDonationsByGeographicRegion12
EconomicDevelopmentRegion
CapitalRegion
CentralNY
FingerLakes
LongIsland
MidHudson
MohawkValley
NewYorkCity
NorthCountry
SouthernTier
WesternNY
OutofNYState
NoAddressReported

TotalDonations
PercentageofAll$
$1,637,782.34
6.63%
$504,777.55
2.04%
$746,586.29
3.02%
$2,871,091.92
11.62%
$3,325,006.21
13.46%
$277,249.31
1.12%
$9,917,374.84
40.14%
$151,192.31
0.61%
$358,315.98
1.45%
$1,419,413.35
5.75%
$2,666,892.93
10.79%
$829,356.22
3.36%

1,399didnothaveacompleteaddressesreported.Itislikely,thoughunverifiable,thatmanyoftheseindividuals
livedinNewYork.
10
http://www.elections.ny.gov/NYSBOE/elections/2010/general/2010GovernorRecertified09122012.pdf
11
http://rocdocs.democratandchronicle.com/database/newyorkprisonpopulation
12
Thesetotalsdonotincludedonationsdirectlyfromcandidatesortheirfamilymembers.

11

Ofthesixcountieswhoseresidentsdonatedthemostmoneypercapita,threeAlbany($2.77),
Columbia($1.91),andSaratoga($1.43)areintheCapitalRegionandcontainthehomesofmany
individualscloselytiedtostategovernment.TheotherthreeNewYork($3.75),Westchester($2.28),
andNassau($1.48)havehighnumbersofwealthyresidents.Theamountcontributedbyoutofstate
donorseclipsedthosefromallbutthreeregionsofthestate:NewYorkCity,MidHudsonandLong
Island.
County
Albany
Allegany
Bronx
Broome
Cattaraugus
Cayuga
Chautauqua
Chemung
Chenango
Clinton
Columbia
Cortland
Delaware
Dutchess
Erie
Essex
Franklin
Fulton
Genesee
Greene
Hamilton
Herkimer
Jefferson
Kings
Lewis
Livingston
Madison
Monroe
Montgomery
Nassau
NewYork
Niagara
Oneida
Onondaga

TotalDonations AverageperResident
$841,705.24
$2.77
$12,740.00
$0.26
$384,945.56
$0.28
$197,883.00
$0.99
$21,122.50
$0.26
$46,344.00
$0.58
$78,563.24
$0.58
$39,110.00
$0.44
$21,462.04
$0.43
$27,166.86
$0.33
$120,481.15
$1.91
$27,999.00
$0.57
$24,669.94
$0.51
$373,190.67
$1.25
$1,150,025.96
$1.25
$27,895.00
$0.71
$6,771.00
$0.13
$10,172.00
$0.18
$59,033.00
$0.98
$22,799.67
$0.46
$446.00
$0.09
$29,263.88
$0.45
$54,787.45
$0.47
$1,851,553.51
$0.74
$6,400.00
$0.24
$16,684.00
$0.26
$37,429.00
$0.51
$487,879.29
$0.66
$37,002.85
$0.74
$1,985,509.21
$1.48
$5,952,018.21
$3.75
$156,961.65
$0.73
$139,748.58
$0.59
$370,055.55
$0.79
12

Ontario
Orange
Orleans
Oswego
Otsego
Putnam
Queens
Rensselaer
Richmond
Rockland
Saratoga
Schenectady
Schuyler
Schoharie
Seneca
St.Lawrence
Steuben
Suffolk
Sullivan
Tioga
Tompkins
Ulster
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Westchester
Wyoming
Yates
OutofNYState
NoAddressReported

$121,053.00
$268,125.85
$4,805.00
$22,950.00
$40,222.00
$106,074.10
$1,220,529.37
$118,309.11
$508,328.19
$259,074.00
$313,778.69
$137,629.48
$2,305.00
$20,840.00
$7,305.00
$27,726.00
$44,653.00
$885,582.71
$54,440.12
$7,375.00
$20,858.00
$98,440.29
$66,740.00
$16,339.00
$24,665.00
$2,165,661.18
$16,237.00
$8,925.00
$2,666,892.93
$829,356.22

13

$1.12
$0.72
$0.11
$0.19
$0.65
$1.06
$0.55
$0.74
$1.08
$0.83
$1.43
$0.89
$0.13
$0.64
$0.21
$0.25
$0.45
$0.59
$0.70
$0.14
$0.21
$0.54
$1.02
$0.26
$0.26
$2.28
$0.39
$0.35

SenateCandidates:MostTotalReceiptsDec2010throughNovember2012
Ineachhouse,thetopfundraisersweretypicallyinthemajorityparty.Mostwereeitherleadersorhad
especiallycompetitiveelections.
Candidate
FRIENDSFORTHEELECTIONOFDEANSKELOS
GRISANTIFORSENATE
FRIENDSOFMARTINGOLDEN
FRIENDSOFSENATORLIBOUSCOMMITTEE
(2010)
ULRICHFORSENATE
NEWYORKERSONTHEBALL
FRIENDSOFBOBCOHEN
NEWYORKERSFORKLEIN
FRIENDSOFSEANHANNA
COMMITTEETOELECTMAZIARZSTATESENATE

TotalRaised
$1,780,831.78
$1,647,043.00
$1,416,985.87
$1,413,997.07
$1,400,321.10
$1,356,726.24
$1,340,395.51
$1,338,043.12
$1,262,145.44
$1,055,170.86

AssemblyCandidates:MostTotalReceiptsDec2010throughNovember201213
Candidate
FRIENDSOFSILVER
COMMITTEETOREELECTASSEMBLYMANJOE
MORELLE
SANTABARBARAFORASSEMBLY
FRIENDSOFDIDIBARRETTFORASSEMBLY
FRIENDSOFDANQUART
MARKGJONAJ2012
CITIZENSFORALSTIRPE
FRIENDSOFBRIANKOLB
FRIENDSOFDAVIDBUCHWALD
STECKFORASSEMBLY

13

Thisincludesdonationsreceivedforspecialelectionefforts.

14

TotalRaised
$782,804.33
$683,469.09
$482,082.98
$451,618.60
$436,713.35
$403,885.00
$397,621.40
$389,165.93
$385,812.40
$384,359.29


TheSenate:IndividualsDonatingtheMaximum
Dependingonthenumberofracesinwhichacandidateruns,themaximumamountanonrelativeofa
senatecandidatecangivetoacampaignrangesbetween$10,300and$16,800.137contributionsin
amountsequaltoorgreaterthanthislegalmaximumwerereportedbycandidates.Morethanhalf(71)
ofthesecontributionswenttothefourRepublicansenatorswhosupportedmarriageequality:
McDonald(20),Saland(20),Alesi(16),andGrisanti(15).Noothersenatecandidatereceivedmorethan
fivedonationsatthislevel.
68individualsmadeatleastonemaximumdonation;21ofthemgavecontributionstoatleasttwoof
thefouraforementionedRepublicangaymarriagesupporters.MayorMichaelBloomberg,whogave11
candidatesmaximumdonationstotaling$126,300,madethemostcontributionsofthissort.

Candidate
COMMITTEETOELECTMCDONALDTOTHESENATE
SALANDFORSENATE
FRIENDSOFJIMALESI
GRISANTIFORSENATE
FRIENDSOFBOBCOHEN
KENNEDYFORSENATE
ZELDINFORSENATE
SIMCHANY
FRIENDSOFMARTINGOLDEN
NEWYORKERSONTHEBALL
NEWYORKERSFORKLEIN
FRIENDSOFDAVIDSTOROBIN
FRIENDSOFMIKEGIANARIS
SAVINOFORNEWYORK
FRIENDSOFKATHYMARCHIONECOMMITTEE
CARLUCCIFORNEWYORK
COMMITTEETOREELECTJOHNSAMPSON
Candidateswithonemaximumindividualdonor

15

TotalDonationsatMaximum
LevelorGreater
20
20
16
15
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
25


DonationsbyMonth
Morethanathirdofthecyclescontributionsfromunions,businesses,andindividualswereraisedinthe
firstyearoftheelectioncycle,despitethefactthatmostnonincumbentsdidnotevencreatecampaign
committeesuntilthespringorsummerof2012.Thisillustratestheheadstartthatincumbentshave
overpotentialchallengersthatcontributestotheirhugemonetaryadvantages.Theonlydateoverthe
twoyearelectioncycleinwhichnocontributionswerereportedwasDecember25,2010.

Month
December2010
January2011
February2011
March2011
April2011
May2011
June2011
July2011
August2011
September2011
October2011
November2011
December2011
January2012
February2012
March2012
April2012
May2012
June2012
July2012
August2012
September2012
October2012
November2012

Total
PercentofCycle's
Contributions Contributions
$564,150.93
0.74%
$795,226.26
1.04%
$1,828,045.35
2.40%
$3,001,868.30
3.94%
$1,634,443.90
2.14%
$3,070,853.13
4.03%
$2,964,148.82
3.89%
$3,717,183.06
4.88%
$2,321,765.86
3.05%
$2,272,528.01
2.98%
$2,550,074.21
3.35%
$2,441,309.73
3.20%
$3,382,525.18
4.44%
$3,358,462.29
4.41%
$3,139,926.54
4.12%
$3,771,997.22
4.95%
$2,235,743.97
2.93%
$5,062,874.48
6.64%
$4,054,546.50
5.32%
$5,338,938.37
7.00%
$4,507,221.71
5.91%
$4,596,494.96
6.03%
$7,203,956.29
9.45%
$2,420,480.15
3.18%

16

Recommendation:Enactcomprehensivecampaignfinancereform.
Solution#1:CreateavoluntarysystemofpublicfinancingmodeledonNewYorkCity. Many states
have developed voluntary systems of public financing half the states operate some sort of public
financing program.14 However, New York lawmakers do not have to look far for a model of how to
reform its campaign finance system. As The New York Times commented New York Citys campaign
financesystemranksamongthebestinthecountry.15
In1988,NewYorkCitycreatedavoluntarysystemofpublicfinancinginthewakeofseriesof
politicalcorruptionscandals.NewYorkCitycreatedaCampaignFinanceBoardtobeanindependent,
nonpartisanagencytooverseetheprogram.

Thesystemgrants public matchingfundstoqualifyingcandidates,whoinexchange submitto


strictcontributionandspendinglimitsandafullauditoftheirfinances.Initially,theprogrammatched
every dollar raised by a candidate up to a total of $1,000 per donation. Over time the program
expanded and now matches $6 for every $1 raisedup to $175 per donation. In addition, candidates
runningforcitywideoffice(mayor,comptroller,publicadvocate)mustagreetoparticipateindebates.
Corporatecontributionsarebannedandpoliticalactioncommitteesmustregisterwiththecity.16

Asaresultofthissystem,NewYorkCitynowhascompetitiveelectionsinwhichaveragecitizens
haveashotatelectiveoffice.Moreover,onceinoffice,thoselegislatorsnowowelittletorichspecial
interests.ItisthemodelthatstatelawmakersshouldemulateinAlbany.
Benefit#1:MoreCompetitiveElections.
Keyresultsofthe2009NewYorkCityelections:

Five incumbents were beaten, an unprecedented number for a single election. Other
incumbents won by slimmerthanexpectedmargins. More incumbents faced primaries, fewer
candidatesranunchallenged,andtheaveragemarginsofvictorywere closerthaninprevious
elections.
Underrepresentedvotersgainedsignificantlyinthe2009election.Afterthe2009elections,
theNewYorkCityCouncilhadanonwhitemajorityforthefirsttimeever.17

14

National Conference of State Legislatures, Public Financing of Campaign An Overview, 1/6/10, accessed
12/22/10http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16591.Arizona,Connecticut,Florida,Hawaii,Maine,Maryland,
Massachusetts,Michigan,Minnesota,Nebraska,NewJersey,NewMexico,NorthCarolina,RhodeIsland,Vermont,
and Wisconsin all provide funding to candidates. Arizona, Arkansas, Hawaii, Minnesota, Montana, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon and Virginia provide tax credits for contributions. Arizona, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, New
Mexico,NorthCarolina,RhodeIsland,UtahandVirginiaprovidefundingtopoliticalparties.
15
NewYorkTimeseditorial,QuestionsforDataandField,8/22/09.
16
FormoreinformationonthehistoryoftheNewYorkCitycampaignfinancesystem,see:
http://www.nyccfb.info/press/info/history.aspx.
17
New York City Campaign Finance Board, New Yorkers Make Their Voices Heard: A Report on the 2009
Elections,p.22.

17

Clearly, New York Citys system of public financing is creating a robust, competitive election
atmosphere.Thenumberofcandidatesisup,thepercentageofparticipatingcandidatesisup,andthe
numberofmatchablecontributionsisup.Candidatescannotsimplyoverwhelmtheiropponentswith
truckloads of money. They must compete with shoe leather and policy proposals. In this
environment,thepubliciscertainlythebigwinner.Voterscanchoosecandidateswhosepoliciesthey
agreewith,ratherthanvoteforthecandidatewiththegreatestnamerecognition.
Benefit#2:CitizenEmpowerment.
Inaddition,newresearchontheNewYorkCitycampaignfinancingsystemdocumentsanadditional
benefit:Drawinginvoterswhowouldordinarilynotparticipatebeyondvoting.
Recent US Supreme Court decisions have eroded the benefits of a public financing system. The
Courts 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC allowed interest groups, like the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce,tospendasmuchmoneyastheywantedonbehalfofcandidatesforoffice.Asaresult,the
Courtgreatlydiminishedthebenefitsofpublicfinancingprogramsinreducingtheinfluenceofspecial
interests.

So,ifthe Supreme Courthassharply curtailedthe abilityofpolicymakerstoeliminatetheflowof


specialinterestdollars,isitbeneficialtoenactapublicfinancingsystem?

Thereisinnovativeresearchthatdemonstratesadditionalbenefitsfromapublicfinancingsystem.
The Washingtonbased Campaign Finance Institute18 has released a series of databased reports that
haveidentifiedanewandimportantbenefitofavoluntarysystemofpublicfinancingenhancedvoter
participation.

The Institute has looked at systems that have incentives to get small donors to participate in
elections.Researchshowssmalldonorsaremorerepresentativeofthepublicatlargenotsurprisingly,
since fewcanwritebigcampaigncontributionchecks.TheInstitutealsofoundthatsmalldonorsare
interestedincandidatespositionswhilelargedonorsarefarmoreinterestedintheirowncommercial
or legislative interests. The Institute also found that small donors are more likely to buy into the
candidates campaigns and that there is some evidence that such participation leads to greater
participationinciviclifegenerally.19

Inaddition,theInstituteexaminedhowwellsmalldonorsareinvolvedincampaignfinanceby
comparingparticipationintheNewYorkCitysystemwithNewYorkState.TheInstitutethenshowed
whatimpact theCitysystemwouldhaveon the State ifsuchavoluntarypublicfinancingsystemwas
enacted.

18

FormoreinformationontheInstitute,see:http://www.cfinst.org/.
Wesley, Y., Malbin, M., et al, Do Small Donors Improve Representation? Some Answers from Recent
Gubernatorial and State Legislative Elections, Paper delivered at the 2008 Annual Meeting of the American
PoliticalScienceAssociation.
19

18

CampaignFinanceInstitute:DonorRoleinNewYorkStateLegislativeRaces,Currentvs.
EstablishmentofNYCstyleSystem20
Currentpercentparticipation
ParticipationifNewYorkState
Donationsize
(GubernatorialandLegislative
LoweredContributionsandEnacteda
Candidates,2006).
$4to$1match21
$1$250

7%

35%

$251$999

6%

8%

$1,000+

33%

20%

Nonparty

45%

26%

Party

10%

10%

Asthechartaboveshows,enactmentofavoluntarypublicfinancingsystemmodeledonNew
York City would dramatically increase the participation of small donors. Moreover, the Institute
estimatesthatsuchassystemwouldcostroughly$34millionofpublicfunds.However,ifthestategot
the same small donor rate as New York Citycurrently does, the percentage ofsmall donors jumps to
57%andthecostofthesystemincreasesto$68million.22
Andwhenitcomestocivicparticipation,NewYorkneedsaboost.Inarecentsurveyconductedby
Siena Colleges Research Institute, New York ranked near the bottom in civic participation.23 And
voterparticipationlevelsinthelastelectionplacedNewYorkagainasoneofthenationsworst.24This
reportsanalysisofvotingbyregionshowsthatsomeNewYorkersparticularlythoseinmostupstate
regionsparticipatelessthanthosefromdownstateorAlbany.Asmalldonormatchingsystemwould
leadtoamoreevenbalanceamongindividualsparticipatinginthestatesdemocracy.

Solution #2: Overhaul existing campaign finance law. Moreover, strengthen existing law for those
whooptnottoparticipateinthevoluntarysystem.NewYorkStatecanonlycreateavoluntarysystem

20

Malbin,M.,Brusoe,P.,ShouldNewYorkCitysCampaignFinanceSystembeaModelfortheState?,
PresentationattheNelsonA.RockefellerInstituteofGovernment,12/1/10,accessed12/20/10
http://www.rockinst.org/pdf/public_policy_forums/20101201Malbin_slides.pdf.
21
Forthepurposesofthisanalysis,theCampaignFinanceInstituteusestherequirementsfoundinAssemblybill
8902(2009)andlowerscontributionlimitsto$4,000perelectioncycleforindividualsandlimitsPACsto$10,000.
22
Malbin,M.,Brusoe,P.,ShouldNewYorkCitysCampaignFinanceSystembeaModelfortheState?,
PresentationattheNelsonA.RockefellerInstituteofGovernment,12/1/10,accessed12/20/10
http://www.rockinst.org/pdf/public_policy_forums/20101201Malbin_slides.pdf.
23
SienaResearchInstitute,NewYorkCivicHealthIndex,2010,New York Trails Nation in Two of Five
Civic Health Areas Participation in Civic Responsibilities and Duties Low New Yorkers Highly Social and
InformedEngagementinGroupMeetingsandCommunityParticipationLacking,12/8/10.
24

UnitedStatesElectionProject,2010GeneralElectionTurnoutRates,accessed12/22/10
http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2010G.html.

19

ofpublicfinancing,itcannot force allcandidatestoparticipate.Significant changes must bemade to


theexistingcampaignfinancelawinorderforthebenefitsofapublicfinancingsystemtoberealized.
Bansoftmoney.Thefederalgovernmentnowbanssoftmoneydonationstothepoliticalparties.Yet,
thefederallawallowsstate andlocalpartiestocontinue toreceivethese hugedonations.NewYork
Stateshouldclosethesoftmoneyloophole.
Lower contribution limits. New York States limits should not exceed those for Congressional
candidates.
Close loopholes. Eliminate the loophole that allows corporations to circumvent New Yorks $5,000
annualaggregatecorporatelimitbyfunnelingcontributionsthroughsubsidiariesaswellastheloophole
thatallowsLLCstobesubjecttoindividualcontributionlimits,insteadofcorporatelimits.Candidates
shouldbelimitedtoonecommitteeeach.Allowingcandidatestomaintainmultiplecommitteesserve
onlytoobfuscatetheirtotalfundraising.

Expanddisclosure.Requiredisclosureofthenameoftheemployerortheoccupationofthecontributor
aswellasthenameofanybundlerinvolvedincollectingthecontributions.BothNewYorkCityand
federallawsrequiressuchdisclosures.
LimitPaytoPlay.Lobbyists, whose donationsarepresumably drivensolelybyadesiretoinfluence
legislativeaction,shouldfacetighterlimitsthanotherdonors.
BanfundraisersinAlbanyonsessiondays.Thenumbersaboveshowthatincumbentlegislatorsheavily
relyonthesefundraiserstofundtheircampaigns.Whentheyattendthese,theyaredivertingattention
fromtheirlegislativedutiesandtheconstituentswhowouldlikelyattendfundraisersintheirdistricts.
They are also given a monetary advantage over New Yorkers who might be interested in running for
officebychallengingthem.

Solution #3: Limit the use of campaign contributions to those activities directly involved in
campaigning. New York State law not only allows the use of campaign contributions for purposes
relatingtoacandidacy,but alsotospendingrelatingtoanofficialsrole asapublicorpartyofficial.25
Thisloopholeallowsincumbentswhoarerarelychallengedinelectionstousecampaigndonations
foressentiallypersonaluses.Thisloopholemustbeclosed.

Solution#4:Boostcampaignfinanceenforcement.Asmentionedearlier,NewYorkStatesBoardof
Electionsisunderfundedandlimitedbylawinitsabilitytopunishelectionlawscofflaws.Essentially,
theStateBoardfocusesitseffortsontheformidabletaskofrunningNewYorkStateselections.

Therefore,legislationmustbeenactedthatdevelopsmoreeffectiveenforcementmechanisms,
including:centralizedreportingatthestatelevel;increasedcivilfines;increasedcriminalsanctionsand

25

New York State Election Law 14-130.

20

criminalfinesforwillfulviolationsofArticle14;creationofanindependentandnonpartisanentityfor
administeringbothArticle14complianceandthepublicfundingsystemfinesforexceedingcontribution
limitsandviolationsofcampaignfinancedisclosurelaws,aswellasappropriateandclearlydelineated
criminal sanctions. We also believe that, should you not follow our recommendation and assign
administrationofthepublicfundingsystemtoanotherentity,theStateBoardofElectionmustalsobe
affordedadditionalresourcestobeabletoadequatelyenforcethelawandanynewresponsibilities.

Solution#5:Strengthenthestatescampaignfinancedatabase.TheStateBoardofElectionsshould
perform more comprehensive and thorough checks on the data supplied by the treasurers. Simple
checksincludeusingsoftwaretoverifythataddressesandzipcodesmatchupandareenteredwithout
obvious typos. Software to provide these checks is readily available and commonly found in a wide
varietyofcommercialapplications.

CandidateandPartycommitteesshouldberequiredtorecordthefileridentificationnumberof
thecontributingstateregisteredPAC.ThiswouldaidinthedeterminationoftopPACdonorsandalso
helpcurbthenumberofmisreportedtransactionsonscheduleC.

The database descriptions that are provided with the downloadable ASCII files need to be
updated.TheyfailtomakereferenceofscheduleRs(moneyspentbypartiesonbehalfofcandidates)
inthedatadescriptorfiles.Additionally,outsidepartiesshouldrecordthefileridentificationnumberof
the committee on whose behalf they are spending. Finally, the Board should periodically review
independentexpenditurestomakesuretheyareallproperlyreported.

TheBoardshouldrequirefirmspaidlargesumsbycandidatestodisclose howtheyspent this


money.Therearehundredsofexamplesofpaymentsbeingmadetoconsultantswheredescriptions
of how this money is ultimately spent are vague or nonexistent. In 2010, a major gubernatorial
candidateobfuscatedmostofhisspendingbywritinglargecheckstocorporationsheestablished,and
providingnoitemizationbeyondthesepayments.

Finally,theBoardshouldinvestigatewaysinwhichtheycanmakesimplemodificationstotheir
filing procedures to reflect the modernization of campaigns over the past decade. For example,
treasurers are required to select one of nineteen expenditure purpose codes for each transaction
leaving their committees' bank accounts. While there are separate options for radio, television, and
print advertisements, there is no option to identify an expenditure as an internet ad. Thus, the
increasingamountofmoneyspentbuyingonlineadsisnearlyimpossibletomeasure.
Solution #6: Ensure adequate oversight of independent expenditure efforts. In 2010, the US
Supreme Court ruled that corporations and by extension unions should be allowed to spend as
muchastheywanttosupportoropposecandidates.TheCourtsdecision,knownasCitizensUnited,
struck down federal restrictions on corporate spending on candidates and issues as long as the
spendingisnotcoordinatedwiththosecandidates.

Understatelaw,anyindividual,corporation,unionorotherentitythatwishestospendmoneydirectly
on an election should file disclosure reports with the Board of Elections. Current regulations by the
Board exempt many of these groups, and do not require independent expenditure committees to
21

identify which candidates their spending benefits. Since New York cannot limit spending by these
independentexpenditureefforts,policymakersmustreexaminethisareaoflawtoensurethatpublic
disclosurerequirementscoverthistypeofactivity.

22