capital investments 2012

7/30/2019 Capital Investments 2012

1/22

1

For immediate release: For more information:

Monday, January 7 2013 Bill Mahoney (518) 817-3738

CAPITAL INVESTMENTS 2012

ANALYSIS OF CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING IN THE 2012 ELECTION

Endorsed by:

Citizens Union

Common Cause New York

League of Women Voters of New York State (LWVNYS)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

New Yorkers sense that big money has a big impact on elections, yet their understanding is often based

on reports about outsized fundraising for Congress and the President. However, given New Yorks sky

high contribution limits, the states campaign finance system offers even greater opportunities to

cultivate influence through the use of campaign contributions. State law allows huge campaign

donations far in excess of those allowed in federal elections. The general election donation limit for

each two-year election cycle to an Assemblymember whose district has only a fraction of the

population of Congressional districts is set at $4,100, while a general election donation to a

Congressional candidate is $2,500. State Senate candidates can receive $10,300 per contributor for thegeneral election. Party committees enjoy limits of over $102,300, and can receive unlimited donations

if these are directed to their housekeeping committees.

This report examines legislative fundraising for the 2011-2012 election cycle as a window into how the

New York campaign finance system and laws operate and the implications for public policy. It is written

to help the public better understand the states system of campaign finance.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

This report examined the most recent election period for state legislative candidates, specifically

donations received between December 2010 and November 2012. Some filings most notably, those of

the legislative campaign committees housekeeping accounts are not yet publically available. The

reports that were examined were those that existed as of December 13, 2012, ten days after the last

filing period; it is possible that some have since been amended. Nevertheless, these filings are

sufficiently comprehensive to provide a detailed look at some of the broad trends during this election

cycle.


2/22

2

Key findings include:

The total fundraising in 2011-12 for legislative candidates and their party committees decreased

relative to the 2009-10 election cycle. Total contributions dipped from $87 million to $85 million; total

receipts fell from nearly $117 million to $105 million. See page 3.

This decline was due to a drop of nearly 21% in fundraising in the Senate. Total fundraising in the

Assembly increased by almost 10%. In the Senate, where the Republicans controlled the chamber more

tightly than in the previous election cycle, total receipts dropped significantly as donors may have

abandoned attempts to hedge their bets. See page 3.

Businesses gave the most money. They accounted for 35.90% of all receipts, and were followed by

individuals (23.46%) and unions (13.10%). See page 4.

Among businesses, real estate and construction interests accounted for a plurality of donations. They

were followed by businesses in the health and financial sectors. See page 8.

Most of the money from individuals came from large donors. Over half of the money coming from

individuals came from those giving $2,500 or more. See page 11.

New York City residents gave over 40% of the money coming from individuals. Residents of the Capital

Region, Manhattan, Nassau, and Westchester gave the most per capita. See page 11.

Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos raised more money than any other legislator. See page 14.

The largest donations made by individuals appear to have been driven by gay marriage. Among

Senators, the four recipients of the most maximum donations were Republicans who supported

marriage equality. See page 15.


3/22

3

TOTAL FUNDRAISING

The total receipts reported by all legislative candidates and their conferences party committees

declined relative to the previous election cycle:

2011-12 2009-101 Shift

Total Contributions $85,247,517.95 $87,181,389.52 -2.22%

Total Receipts2 $105,288,158.32 $116,678,071.57 -9.76%

Several factors may have contributed to this drop. While exact numbers are unavailable, several groups,

most notably NYSUT, appear to have diverted resources toward independent expenditures, for which

data is not available and this report cannot properly analyze. Additionally, some special interests may

have given money to non-campaign organizations, such as the Committee to Save New York, that would

have traditionally been budgeted for direct donations to candidates.

It should also be noted that the nature of the recently-completed election cycle differed from that oftwo years ago. The presidential election drew record-shattering donations, and may have diverted

resources to the federal level. This theory is given credence by the fact that the biggest drops appear to

have come in the closing weeks of the election. The disclosure reports filed 11 days before the general

election in 2012 included a total of about $11 million in receipts. Two years prior, the total for the same

filing was over $17 million.

The biggest reason for this shift, however, seems to be in the difference between the Senate in each

election cycle. As the following chart reveals, the total raised by Assemblymembers, candidates, and

their party committees increased, while the total raised by the Senate counterparts fell precipitously:

2011-12 Total

Receipts

2009-10 Total

Receipts

Senate $64,543,122.93 $81,614,806.08

Assembly $40,745,035.39 $37,372,969.54

In 2010, pundits were unsure which party would obtain a majority after that years elections. The

Democrats had controlled the chamber for most of the preceding two years, yet had revealed several

weaknesses that seemed to leave the door open for Republicans to regain control. As a result, donors

may have hedged their bets. Two years later, after recapturing the Senate, however, Republicans held

tighter control over the chamber and had the benefit of running in newly-gerrymandered districts.Additionally, the creation of an Independent Democratic Conference presented challenges that might

have prevented regular Democrats from serving in the majority. Donors seeking to influence legislative

1As mentioned above, housekeeping totals for dates after July 11, 2012 are not yet available. To keep the

comparisons constant, housekeeping donations for the comparable period in 2010 are not included.2Total receipts is a more encompassing category than contributions as it includes donations as well as interest,

candidate loans, and transfers from parties and other candidate committees.


4/22

4

decisions, therefore, were no longer forced to buy access to both parties, as the IDC decreased their

confidence that Democrats would be able to win a governing majority.

Indeed, donors gave overwhelmingly to the majority parties in each chamber. While Senate Democrats

outraised Republicans by about $14 million in 2009-10, Republicans outraised Democrats by over $23

million in 2011-12:

House Party Total Receipts

Senate Republicans + Conference Committees $42,320,138.78

Senate Democrats + Conference Committees $19,096,121.72

Senate Independent Democratic Conference $3,032,480.83

Senate Other3 $94,381.60

Assembly Democrats + Conference Committees $29,596,026.04

Assembly Republicans + Conference Committees $11,054,446.12

Assembly Other $94,563.23

Receipts by Source

We have labeled the source of 98.4% of the receipts reported by candidates in the two years preceding

December 1st, 2012 into one of ten source categories. Businesses accounted for more than a third of all

money raised by candidates.

Type of Donor Total Given % of All Money

Business, LLC or Trade Association $37,798,813.72 35.90%

Individual $24,705,039.25 23.46%

Union $13,791,460.07 13.10%

Not for Profit $1,165,673.80 1.11%

Other Candidate $10,045,250.03 9.54%

Party $8,786,150.83 8.34%

Directly from Candidate $3,385,102.01 3.22%

From Candidate's Family $947,140.07 0.90%

Interest & Expenditure Refunds $1,119,239.51 1.06%

Native American Tribes $422,050.00 0.40%

Loans $90,000.00 0.09%Unitemized by Filer $1,318,621.65 1.25%

3Othercandidates are primarily those that did not run in a major partys primary in 2012 and were on the

general election ballot for either the Conservative, Independence, or Green parties.


5/22

5

The most notable shift in the source of donations over the previous two election cycles has been a

decreased reliance on loans. Much of this is attributable to several large loans taken out by the

Democratic Senate Campaign Committee before the 2010 election.

Type of Donor 2011-12 Total 2011-12 Pct 2009-10 Total 2009-10 Pct

Business, LLC or TradeAssociation $37,798,813.72 35.90% $40,086,913.25 33.69%

Individuals, Candidates, and

Family $29,037,281.33 27.58% $30,243,697.06 25.42%

Union $13,791,460.07 13.10% $13,836,423.25 11.63%

Not for Profit $1,165,673.80 1.11% $1,412,267.17 1.19%

Other Candidate $10,045,250.03 9.54% $12,454,250.15 10.47%

Party $8,786,150.83 8.34% $9,938,269.11 8.35%

Interest & Expenditure Refunds $1,119,239.51 1.06% $1,032,809.57 0.87%

Native American Tribes $422,050.00 0.40% $222,405.00 0.19%

Loans $90,000.00 0.09% $6,071,353.22 5.10%Unitemized by Filer $1,318,621.65 1.25% $1,379,683.79 1.16%

Legislative campaign committees and their housekeeping affiliates relied on individuals for their

donations to a much smaller degree than candidate committees. It is clear that any attempt to increase

the role that individuals play in the campaign finance system must remove the loopholes that let party

committees raise huge contributions from donors, benefiting groups such as businesses and unions that

can afford to write larger checks.

Source of Donation Party, Total $ % of Party $ Candidates, Total $ % of Candidate $4

Business, LLC or Trade

Association $14,266,081.30 45.75% $23,532,732.42 33.73%

Individuals $3,142,394.70 10.08% $21,562,644.55 30.90%

Union $4,695,682.45 15.06% $9,095,777.62 13.04%

Not for Profit $474,600.00 1.52% $691,073.80 0.99%

Other Candidate $7,028,871.24 22.54% $3,016,378.79 4.32%

Party $916,234.22 2.94% $7,869,916.61 11.28%

Native American Tribes $265,000.00 0.85% $157,050.00 0.23%

Unitemized by Filer$72,189.77 0.23% $1,246,431.88 1.79%Loans $0.00 0.00% $90,000.00 0.13%

Interest $5,782.11 0.02% $503,889.27 0.72%

Expenditure Refunds $187,926.62 0.60% $421,641.51 0.60%

4Donations directly from candidates or their family members were not included when calculating the percentage

raised by candidates, since these cannot be compared to money raised by parties. If they were included, the

percentage of money that candidates raised from individuals would increase significantly.


6/22

6

Individual Candidates Sources of Funding

Due partially to a relative dearth of transfers from other candidates and party committees, members of

the IDC were more reliant than members of other conferences on donations from both unions and

businesses.

Conference Business Total

Business %

of all $ Union Total

Union %

of all $

Individual

Total

Individual %

of all $

Senate GOP $11,485,501.70 40.61% $2,434,876.66 8.61% $7,518,342.53 26.58%

Senate Dem $3,066,579.57 23.01% $2,244,447.01 16.84% $4,401,221.34 33.02%

Senate IDC5 $1,350,014.09 44.52% $583,716.00 19.25% $821,032.89 27.07%

Assembly Dem $5,727,724.20 26.78% $3,395,628.23 15.87% $6,477,856.77 30.28%

Assembly GOP $1,875,809.86 23.80% $432,010.72 5.48% $2,293,826.62 29.11%

Committees that received the most total money from businesses

Committee Total $ from Business

FRIENDS FOR THE ELECTION OF DEAN SKELOS $1,045,809.55

FRIENDS OF SENATOR LIBOUS COMMITTEE (2010) $798,462.13

NEW YORKERS FOR KLEIN $703,958.00

FRIENDS OF MARTIN GOLDEN $668,099.01

COMMITTEE TO ELECT MAZIARZ STATE SENATE $585,221.58

NEW YORKERS ON THE BALL $424,570.24

CITIZENS FOR HANNON $420,773.34

ZELDIN FOR SENATE $420,701.80

COMMITTEE TO RE-ELECT ASSEMBLYMAN JOE

MORELLE $418,132.73

FRIENDS OF SENATOR SEWARD $409,710.00

KENNEDY FOR SENATE $406,616.00

5For the purposes of this chart, IDC members were limited to those members who declared their affiliation with

this conference before election day: Senators Klein, Savino, Valesky, and Carlucci, and Albany County Legislator

Shawn Morse.


7/22

7

Committees that received the most total money from unions

Committee Total $ from Unions

SAVINO FOR NEW YORK $276,225.00

FRIENDS FOR THE ELECTION OF DEAN SKELOS $268,550.00

FRIENDS OF MARTIN GOLDEN $254,883.56ABBATE FOR ASSEMBLY $208,157.00

ADDABBO FOR SENATE $193,306.00


COMMITTEE TO ELECT MAZIARZ STATE SENATE $134,230.00

GUSTAVO RIVERA FOR STATE SENATE $132,831.00

TED O'BRIEN FOR STATE SENATE $129,750.00

FRIENDS OF TOBY STAVISKY $129,733.76

CITIZENS FOR JOSEPH ROBACH (SENATE) $127,575.00

Committees that received the most total money from individuals

Committee(s) Total $ from Individuals

SALAND FOR SENATE $648,680.50

COMMITTEE TO ELECT MCDONALD TO THE SENATE $642,676.59

GRISANTI FOR SENATE $531,235.35


FRIENDS OF JIM ALESI $419,313.00



LATIMER FOR SENATE + LATIMER FOR ASSEMBLY $377,232.84



FRIENDS OF BOB COHEN $312,619.12


8/22

8

BUSINESS DONATIONS BY SECTOR

We reviewed 85.2% ($32.2 million) of the $37.8 million from business donors and categorized them

according to the fifteen labels found below.6 Based on this categorization, it appears that businesses in

the fields of real estate and construction continued to be the top source of corporate donations. Their

lead can partially be attributed to the loophole in campaign finance law that lets LLCs donate more than

other forms of business.

Business Sector Amount Donated

Real Estate & Construction $7,523,955.25

Health & Mental Hygiene $6,228,494.00

Insurance, Financial, Banking $4,152,821.36

Lobby Firms $2,333,924.24Food, Alcohol, or Tobacco Production $2,279,268.31

Law Firms7 $2,157,708.70

Entertainment, Tourism, Restaurants $1,655,275.37

Telecom $1,607,973.70

Transportation, Shipping, Car Dealers $1,363,949.15

Energy $813,271.64

Miscellaneous Service Sector $587,282.47

General Retail $542,883.42

Miscellaneous Industry $525,209.29

Business Associations and Chambers ofCommerce $380,704.82

Education $57,900.00

In general, the total from different sectors remained remarkably constant with the same figures from

the previous election cycle. The most notable change came in businesses categorized as being in the

entertainment industry. The total from these businesses increased almost 50%, due to a surge inspending by casinos and other gambling companies.

6These categories are based on those used by the Joint Commission on Public Ethics, which categorizes lobbying

clients, with some changes added by the authors.7

Several law firms are grouped with lobby firms for the purpose of this analysis. While they often engage in

similar work to other law firms, those who are registered to represent clients before the state legislature have a

fundamentally different relationship with the lawmakers whom they contribute to.


9/22

9

Sector

2011-2 Total

$

2011-2 % of

Business $

2009-10 Total

$

2009-10 % of

Business $

Real Estate & Construction $7,523,955.25 19.91% $7,610,306.62 18.98%

Health & Mental Hygiene $6,228,494.00 16.48% $6,191,863.27 15.45%

Insurance, Financial, Banking $4,152,821.36 10.99% $4,226,249.74 10.54%

Lobby Firms + Law Firms $4,491,632.94 11.88% $4,103,466.81 10.24%Food, Alcohol, or Tobacco

Production $2,279,268.31 6.03% $2,882,727.68 7.19%

Entertainment, Tourism,

Restaurants $1,655,275.37 4.38% $1,104,416.75 2.76%

Telecom $1,607,973.70 4.25% $1,327,524.91 3.31%

Transportation, Shipping, Car

Dealers $1,363,949.15 3.61% $1,242,459.82 3.10%

Energy $813,271.64 2.15% $819,681.70 2.04%

Miscellaneous Service Sector $587,282.47 1.55% $623,962.99 1.56%

General Retail $542,883.42 1.44% $408,208.95 1.02%

Miscellaneous Industry $525,209.29 1.39% $351,963.00 0.88%

Business Associations and

Chambers of Commerce $380,704.82 1.01% $450,161.97 1.12%

Education $57,900.00 0.15% $52,925.00 0.13%

For members of three of the four major conferences, the three most generous business sectors were

Real Estate & Construction; Health & Mental Hygiene; and Insurance, Financial & Banking. It should be

noted that since 85.2% of business donations were labeled by sector, some of these totals might be

higher.

Conference/ Rank Sector Total $

% of Conferences

Business $

Senate GOP 1 Real Estate & Construction $4,525,008.96 24.55%

Senate GOP 2 Health & Mental Hygiene $2,905,660.77 15.77%

Senate GOP 3 Insurance, Financial, Banking $2,183,319.51 11.85%

Senate Dem 1 Real Estate & Construction $909,419.45 18.64%

Senate Dem 2 Health & Mental Hygiene $880,665.00 18.05%

Senate Dem 3 Law Firms $514,616.01 10.55%

Assembly Dem 1 Health & Mental Hygiene $1,880,028.73 18.45%

Assembly Dem 2 Real Estate & Construction $1,283,808.28 12.60%

Assembly Dem 3 Insurance, Financial, Banking $1,136,363.95 11.15%Assembly GOP 1 Real Estate & Construction $464,993.56 15.91%

Assembly GOP 2 Health & Mental Hygiene $356,020.50 12.18%

Assembly GOP 3 Insurance, Financial, Banking $233,028.56 7.97%


10/22

10

The following two charts present the top recipients of money from the two business sectors Real

Estate & Construction and Insurance, Financial, & Banking - that gave the most directly to candidate

committees.8

Committee

Real Estate &

Construction DonationsFRIENDS OF BOB COHEN $252,882.00


KENNEDY FOR SENATE $194,650.00




BOYLE FOR SENATE $174,547.00

ULRICH FOR SENATE $160,917.00

Committee

Insurance, Financial, &

Banking Donations

FRIENDS OF SENATOR SEWARD $203,555.00



MORELLE $150,450.00


FRIENDS OF SENATOR BRESLIN $90,050.00

FRIENDS OF MARTIN GOLDEN $80,424.00FRIENDS OF SILVER $75,550.00

CITIZENS FOR HANNON $55,750.00

8A large percentage of money from businesses in health & mental hygiene went directly to party committees and

their housekeeping accounts.


11/22

11

Most Individual Money Comes from Large Donors

Over half of the money donated by individuals, not including donations made by candidates family

members or the candidates themselves, came from donors who gave amounts of $2,500 or more to

legislative candidates.

Amount Donated

Total from all donors of

this amount Percentage

$10,000 or more $7,121,246.63 28.83%

$2,500 to $9,999 $5,753,590.88 23.29%

$1,000 to $2,499 $4,400,390.62 17.81%

$250 to $999 $4,690,989.85 18.99%

Less than $250 $2,738,820.32 11.09%

44,894 unique individuals donated to legislative candidates or party committees over the past two

years. 40,381 of the unique individual donors had New York state addresses.9

By comparison, this number is

- Less the number of votes the Rent is Too Damn High candidate for governor received in 2010.10

- Almost 15,000 fewer than the inmates in state prisons (55,328). 11

- Less than the population of 55 New York counties.

Individual Donations By Geographic Region12

Economic Development Region Total Donations Percentage of All $

Capital Region $1,637,782.34 6.63%Central NY $504,777.55 2.04%

Finger Lakes $746,586.29 3.02%

Long Island $2,871,091.92 11.62%

Mid-Hudson $3,325,006.21 13.46%

Mohawk Valley $277,249.31 1.12%

New York City $9,917,374.84 40.14%

North Country $151,192.31 0.61%

Southern Tier $358,315.98 1.45%

Western NY $1,419,413.35 5.75%

Out of NY State $2,666,892.93 10.79%

No Address Reported $829,356.22 3.36%

91,399 did not have a complete addresses reported. It is likely, though unverifiable, that many of these individuals

lived in New York.10

http://www.elections.ny.gov/NYSBOE/elections/2010/general/2010GovernorRecertified09122012.pdf11

http://rocdocs.democratandchronicle.com/database/new-york-prison-population12

These totals do not include donations directly from candidates or their family members.
http://www.elections.ny.gov/NYSBOE/elections/2010/general/2010GovernorRecertified09122012.pdfhttp://www.elections.ny.gov/NYSBOE/elections/2010/general/2010GovernorRecertified09122012.pdfhttp://www.elections.ny.gov/NYSBOE/elections/2010/general/2010GovernorRecertified09122012.pdfhttp://rocdocs.democratandchronicle.com/database/new-york-prison-populationhttp://rocdocs.democratandchronicle.com/database/new-york-prison-populationhttp://rocdocs.democratandchronicle.com/database/new-york-prison-populationhttp://rocdocs.democratandchronicle.com/database/new-york-prison-populationhttp://www.elections.ny.gov/NYSBOE/elections/2010/general/2010GovernorRecertified09122012.pdf


12/22

12

Of the six counties whose residents donated the most money per capita, three Albany ($2.77),

Columbia ($1.91), and Saratoga ($1.43) are in the Capital Region and contain the homes of many

individuals closely tied to state government. The other three New York ($3.75), Westchester ($2.28),

and Nassau ($1.48) have high numbers of wealthy residents. The amount contributed by out-of-state

donors eclipsed those from all but three regions of the state: New York City, Mid-Hudson and Long

Island.

County Total Donations Average per Resident

Albany $841,705.24 $2.77

Allegany $12,740.00 $0.26

Bronx $384,945.56 $0.28

Broome $197,883.00 $0.99

Cattaraugus $21,122.50 $0.26

Cayuga $46,344.00 $0.58

Chautauqua $78,563.24 $0.58

Chemung $39,110.00 $0.44Chenango $21,462.04 $0.43

Clinton $27,166.86 $0.33

Columbia $120,481.15 $1.91

Cortland $27,999.00 $0.57

Delaware $24,669.94 $0.51

Dutchess $373,190.67 $1.25

Erie $1,150,025.96 $1.25

Essex $27,895.00 $0.71

Franklin $6,771.00 $0.13

Fulton $10,172.00 $0.18

Genesee $59,033.00 $0.98

Greene $22,799.67 $0.46

Hamilton $446.00 $0.09

Herkimer $29,263.88 $0.45

Jefferson $54,787.45 $0.47

Kings $1,851,553.51 $0.74

Lewis $6,400.00 $0.24

Livingston $16,684.00 $0.26

Madison $37,429.00 $0.51

Monroe $487,879.29 $0.66

Montgomery $37,002.85 $0.74

Nassau $1,985,509.21 $1.48

New York $5,952,018.21 $3.75

Niagara $156,961.65 $0.73

Oneida $139,748.58 $0.59

Onondaga $370,055.55 $0.79


13/22

13

Ontario $121,053.00 $1.12

Orange $268,125.85 $0.72

Orleans $4,805.00 $0.11

Oswego $22,950.00 $0.19

Otsego $40,222.00 $0.65

Putnam $106,074.10 $1.06

Queens $1,220,529.37 $0.55

Rensselaer $118,309.11 $0.74

Richmond $508,328.19 $1.08

Rockland $259,074.00 $0.83

Saratoga $313,778.69 $1.43

Schenectady $137,629.48 $0.89

Schuyler $2,305.00 $0.13

Schoharie $20,840.00 $0.64

Seneca $7,305.00 $0.21

St. Lawrence $27,726.00 $0.25

Steuben $44,653.00 $0.45

Suffolk $885,582.71 $0.59

Sullivan $54,440.12 $0.70

Tioga $7,375.00 $0.14

Tompkins $20,858.00 $0.21

Ulster $98,440.29 $0.54

Warren $66,740.00 $1.02

Washington $16,339.00 $0.26

Wayne $24,665.00 $0.26

Westchester $2,165,661.18 $2.28

Wyoming $16,237.00 $0.39

Yates $8,925.00 $0.35

Out of NY State $2,666,892.93

No Address Reported $829,356.22


14/22

14

Senate Candidates: Most Total Receipts Dec 2010 through November 2012

In each house, the top fundraisers were typically in the majority party. Most were either leaders or had

especially competitive elections.

Candidate Total Raised

FRIENDS FOR THE ELECTION OF DEAN SKELOS $1,780,831.78

GRISANTI FOR SENATE $1,647,043.00

FRIENDS OF MARTIN GOLDEN $1,416,985.87

FRIENDS OF SENATOR LIBOUS COMMITTEE

(2010) $1,413,997.07

ULRICH FOR SENATE $1,400,321.10

NEW YORKERS ON THE BALL $1,356,726.24

FRIENDS OF BOB COHEN $1,340,395.51

NEW YORKERS FOR KLEIN $1,338,043.12

FRIENDS OF SEAN HANNA $1,262,145.44

COMMITTEE TO ELECT MAZIARZ STATE SENATE $1,055,170.86

Assembly Candidates: Most Total Receipts Dec 2010 through November 201213

Candidate Total Raised

FRIENDS OF SILVER $782,804.33


MORELLE $683,469.09

SANTABARBARA FOR ASSEMBLY $482,082.98

FRIENDS OF DIDI BARRETT FOR ASSEMBLY $451,618.60FRIENDS OF DAN QUART $436,713.35

MARK GJONAJ 2012 $403,885.00

CITIZENS FOR AL STIRPE $397,621.40

FRIENDS OF BRIAN KOLB $389,165.93

FRIENDS OF DAVID BUCHWALD $385,812.40

STECK FOR ASSEMBLY $384,359.29

13This includes donations received for special election efforts.


15/22

15

The Senate: Individuals Donating the Maximum

Depending on the number of races in which a candidate runs, the maximum amount a non-relative of a

senate candidate can give to a campaign ranges between $10,300 and $16,800. 137 contributions in

amounts equal to or greater than this legal maximum were reported by candidates. More than half (71)

of these contributions went to the four Republican senators who supported marriage equality:

McDonald (20), Saland (20), Alesi (16), and Grisanti (15). No other senate candidate received more than

five donations at this level.

68 individuals made at least one maximum donation; 21 of them gave contributions to at least two of

the four aforementioned Republican gay marriage supporters. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who gave 11

candidates maximum donations totaling $126,300, made the most contributions of this sort.

Candidate

Total Donations at Maximum

Level or GreaterCOMMITTEE TO ELECT MCDONALD TO THE SENATE 20

SALAND FOR SENATE 20

FRIENDS OF JIM ALESI 16

GRISANTI FOR SENATE 15

FRIENDS OF BOB COHEN 5

KENNEDY FOR SENATE 4

ZELDIN FOR SENATE 4

SIMCHA NY 4

FRIENDS OF MARTIN GOLDEN 4

NEW YORKERS ON THE BALL 3NEW YORKERS FOR KLEIN 3

FRIENDS OF DAVID STOROBIN 3

FRIENDS OF MIKE GIANARIS 3

SAVINO FOR NEW YORK 2

FRIENDS OF KATHY MARCHIONE COMMITTEE 2

CARLUCCI FOR NEW YORK 2

COMMITTEE TO RE-ELECT JOHN SAMPSON 2

Candidates with one maximum individual donor 25


16/22

16

Donations by Month

More than a third of the cycles contributions from unions, businesses, and individuals were raised in the

first year of the election cycle, despite the fact that most non-incumbents did not even create campaign

committees until the spring or summer of 2012. This illustrates the head-start that incumbents have

over potential challengers that contributes to their huge monetary advantages. The only date over the

two-year election cycle in which no contributions were reported was December 25, 2010.

Month

Total

Contributions

Percent of Cycle's

Contributions

December 2010 $564,150.93 0.74%

January 2011 $795,226.26 1.04%

February 2011 $1,828,045.35 2.40%

March 2011 $3,001,868.30 3.94%

April 2011 $1,634,443.90 2.14%

May 2011 $3,070,853.13 4.03%

June 2011 $2,964,148.82 3.89%

July 2011 $3,717,183.06 4.88%

August 2011 $2,321,765.86 3.05%

September 2011 $2,272,528.01 2.98%

October 2011 $2,550,074.21 3.35%

November 2011 $2,441,309.73 3.20%

December 2011 $3,382,525.18 4.44%

January 2012 $3,358,462.29 4.41%

February 2012 $3,139,926.54 4.12%

March 2012 $3,771,997.22 4.95%

April 2012 $2,235,743.97 2.93%

May 2012 $5,062,874.48 6.64%

June 2012 $4,054,546.50 5.32%

July 2012 $5,338,938.37 7.00%

August 2012 $4,507,221.71 5.91%

September 2012 $4,596,494.96 6.03%

October 2012 $7,203,956.29 9.45%

November 2012 $2,420,480.15 3.18%


17/22

17

Recommendation: Enact comprehensive campaign finance reform.

Solution #1: Create a voluntary system of public financing modeled on New York City. 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 TheNew York Timescommented New York Citys campaign

finance system ranks among the best in the country.15

In 1988, New York City created a voluntary system of public financing in the wake of series of

political corruption scandals. New York City created a Campaign Finance Board to be an independent,

nonpartisan agency to oversee the program.

The system grants public matching funds to qualifying candidates, who in exchange submit to

strict contribution and spending limits and a full audit of their finances. Initially, the program matched

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 raised up to $175 per donation. In addition, candidates

running for citywide office (mayor, comptroller, public advocate) must agree to participate in debates.

Corporate contributions are banned and political action committees must register with the city.16

As a result of this system, New York City now has competitive elections in which average citizens

have a shot at elective office. Moreover, once in office, those legislators now owe little to rich special

interests. It is the model that state lawmakers should emulate in Albany.

Benefit #1: More Competitive Elections.

Key results of the 2009 New York City elections:

Five incumbents were beaten, an unprecedented number for a single election. Other

incumbents won by slimmer-than-expected margins. More incumbents faced primaries, fewer

candidates ran unchallenged, and the average margins of victory were closer than in previous

elections.

Under-represented voters gained significantly in the 2009 election. After the 2009 elections,

the New York City Council had a non-white majority for the first time ever.17

14National 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, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, 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, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Utah and Virginia provide funding to political parties.15

New York Timeseditorial, Questions for Data and Field, 8/22/09.16

For more information on the history of the New York City campaign finance system, 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.
http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16591http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16591http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16591http://www.nyccfb.info/press/info/history.aspxhttp://www.nyccfb.info/press/info/history.aspxhttp://www.nyccfb.info/press/info/history.aspxhttp://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16591


18/22

18

Clearly, New York Citys system of public financing is creating a robust, competitive election

atmosphere. The number of candidates is up, the percentage of participating candidates is up, and the

number of matchable contributions is up. Candidates cannot simply overwhelm their opponents with

truckloads of money. They must compete with shoe leather and policy proposals. In this

environment, the public is certainly the big winner. Voters can choose candidates whose policies they

agree with, rather than vote for the candidate with the greatest name recognition.

Benefit #2: Citizen Empowerment.

In addition, new research on the New York City campaign financing system documents an additional

benefit: Drawing in voters who would ordinarily not participate beyond voting.

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, to spend as much money as they wanted on behalf of candidates for office. As a result, the

Court greatly diminished the benefits of public financing programs in reducing the influence of special

interests.

So, if the Supreme Court has sharply curtailed the ability of policymakers to eliminate the flow of

special interest dollars, is it beneficial to enact a public financing system?

There is innovative research that demonstrates additional benefits from a public financing system.

The Washington-based Campaign Finance Institute18 has released a series of data-based reports that

have identified a new and important benefit of a voluntary system of public financing enhanced voter

participation.

The Institute has looked at systems that have incentives to get small donors to participate in

elections. Research shows small donors are more representative of the public at large not surprisingly,

since few can write big campaign contribution checks. The Institute also found that small donors are

interested in candidates positions while large donors are far more interested in their own commercial

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

participation in civic life generally.19

In addition, the Institute examined how well small donors are involved in campaign finance by

comparing participation in the New York City system with New York State. The Institute then showed

what impact the City system would have on the State if such a voluntary public financing system was

enacted.

18For more information on the Institute, see:http://www.cfinst.org/.

19 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

Political Science Association.
http://www.cfinst.org/http://www.cfinst.org/http://www.cfinst.org/http://www.cfinst.org/


19/22

19

Campaign Finance Institute: Donor Role in New York State Legislative Races, Current vs.

Establishment of NYC-style System20

Donation size Current percent participation

(Gubernatorial and Legislative

Candidates, 2006).

Participation if New York State

Lowered Contributions and Enacted a

$4 to $1 match21

$1-$250 7% 35%

$251-$999 6% 8%

$1,000+ 33% 20%

Non-party 45% 26%

Party 10% 10%

As the chart above shows, enactment of a voluntary public financing system modeled on New

York City would dramatically increase the participation of small donors. Moreover, the Institute

estimates that such as system would cost roughly $34 million of public funds. However, if the state got

the same small donor rate as New York City currently does, the percentage of small donors jumps to

57% and the cost of the system increases to $68 million.22

And when it comes to civic participation, New York needs a boost. In a recent survey conducted by

Siena Colleges Research Institute, New York ranked near the bottom in civic participation. 23 And

voter participation levels in the last election placed New York again as one of the nations worst.24 This

reports analysis of voting by region shows that some New Yorkers particularly those in most upstate

regions - participate less than those from downstate or Albany. A small donor matching system wouldlead to a more even balance among individuals participating in the states democracy.

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

who opt not to participate in the voluntary system. New York State can only create a voluntarysystem

20Malbin, M., Brusoe, P., Should New York Citys Campaign Finance System be a Model for the State?,

Presentation at the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, 12/1/10, accessed 12/20/10

http://www.rockinst.org/pdf/public_policy_forums/2010-12-01-Malbin_slides.pdf.21

For the purposes of this analysis, the Campaign Finance Institute uses the requirements found in Assembly bill

8902 (2009) and lowers contribution limits to $4,000 per election cycle for individuals and limits PACs to $10,000.22 Malbin, M., Brusoe, P., Should New York Citys Campaign Finance System be a Model for the State?,

Presentation at the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, 12/1/10, accessed 12/20/10

http://www.rockinst.org/pdf/public_policy_forums/2010-12-01-Malbin_slides.pdf.23

Siena Research Institute, New York Civic Health Index, 2010, New York Trails Nation in Two of Five

Civic Health Areas Participation in Civic Responsibilities and Duties LowNew Yorkers Highly Social andInformed; Engagement in Group Meetings and Community Participation Lacking, 12/8/10.

24United States Election Project, 2010 General Election Turnout Rates, accessed 12/22/10

http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2010G.html .
http://www.rockinst.org/pdf/public_policy_forums/2010-12-01-Malbin_slides.pdfhttp://www.rockinst.org/pdf/public_policy_forums/2010-12-01-Malbin_slides.pdfhttp://www.rockinst.org/pdf/public_policy_forums/2010-12-01-Malbin_slides.pdfhttp://www.rockinst.org/pdf/public_policy_forums/2010-12-01-Malbin_slides.pdfhttp://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2010G.htmlhttp://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2010G.htmlhttp://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2010G.htmlhttp://www.rockinst.org/pdf/public_policy_forums/2010-12-01-Malbin_slides.pdfhttp://www.rockinst.org/pdf/public_policy_forums/2010-12-01-Malbin_slides.pdf


20/22

20

of public financing, it cannot force all candidates to participate. Significant changes must be made to

the existing campaign finance law in order for the benefits of a public financing system to be realized.

Ban soft money. The federal government now bans soft money donations to the political parties. Yet,

the federal law allows state and local parties to continue to receive these huge donations. New York

State should close the soft money loophole.

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

annual aggregate corporate limit by funneling contributions through subsidiaries as well as the loophole

that allows LLCs to be subject to individual contribution limits, instead of corporate limits. Candidates

should be limited to one committee each. Allowing candidates to maintain multiple committees serve

only to obfuscate their total fundraising.

Expand disclosure. Require disclosure of the name of the employer or the occupation of the contributor

as well as the name of any bundler involved in collecting the contributions. Both New York City and

federal laws requires such disclosures.

Limit Pay-to-Play. Lobbyists, whose donations are presumably driven solely by a desire to influence

legislative action, should face tighter limits than other donors.

Ban fundraisers in Albany on session days. The numbers above show that incumbent legislators heavily

rely on these fundraisers to fund their campaigns. When they attend these, they are diverting attention

from their legislative duties and the constituents who would likely attend fundraisers in their districts.

They are also given a monetary advantage over New Yorkers who might be interested in running for

office by challenging them.

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

relating to a candidacy, but also to spending relating to an officials role as a public or party official. 25

This loophole allows incumbents who are rarely challenged in elections to use campaign donations

for essentially personal uses. This loophole must be closed.

Solution #4: Boost campaign finance enforcement. As mentioned earlier, New York States Board of

Elections is underfunded and limited by law in its ability to punish election law scofflaws. Essentially,

the State Board focuses its efforts on the formidable task of running New York States elections.

Therefore, legislation must be enacted that develops more effective enforcement mechanisms,

including: centralized reporting at the state level; increased civil fines; increased criminal sanctions and

25New York State Election Law 14-130.


21/22

21

criminal fines for willful violations of Article 14; creation of an independent and nonpartisan entity for

administering both Article 14 compliance and the public funding system fines for exceeding contribution

limits and violations of campaign finance disclosure laws, as well as appropriate and clearly delineated

criminal sanctions. We also believe that, should you not follow our recommendation and assign

administration of the public funding system to another entity, the State Board of Election must also be

afforded additional resources to be able to adequately enforce the law and any new responsibilities.

Solution #5: Strengthen the states campaign finance database. The State Board of Elections should

perform more comprehensive and thorough checks on the data supplied by the treasurers. Simple

checks include using software to verify that addresses and zip codes match up and are entered without

obvious typos. Software to provide these checks is readily available and commonly found in a wide

variety of commercial applications.

Candidate and Party committees should be required to record the filer identification number of

the contributing state-registered PAC. This would aid in the determination of top PAC donors and also

help curb the number of misreported transactions on schedule C.

The database descriptions that are provided with the downloadable ASCII files need to be

updated. They fail to make reference of schedule Rs (money spent by parties on behalf of candidates)

in the data descriptor files. Additionally, outside parties should record the filer identification number of

the committee on whose behalf they are spending. Finally, the Board should periodically review

independent expenditures to make sure they are all properly reported.

The Board should require firms paid large sums by candidates to disclose how they spent this

money. There are hundreds of examples of payments being made to consultants where descriptions

of how this money is ultimately spent are vague or nonexistent. In 2010, a major gubernatorialcandidate obfuscated most of his spending by writing large checks to corporations he established, and

providing no itemization beyond these payments.

Finally, the Board should investigate ways in which they can make simple modifications to their

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

increasing amount of money spent buying online ads is nearly impossible to measure.

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 asmuch as they want to support or oppose candidates. The Courtsdecision, known as Citizens United,

struck down federal restrictions on corporate spending on candidates and issues as long as the

spending is not coordinated with those candidates.

Under state law, any individual, corporation, union or other entity that wishes to spend money directly

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


22/22

22

identify which candidates their spending benefits. Since New York cannot limit spending by these

independent expenditure efforts, policymakers must re-examine this area of law to ensure that public

disclosure requirements cover this type of activity.

capital investments 2012

Documents