The National Institute on
Money in State Politics
Constructing a New Paradigm
2 013 A n n u a l R e p o r t
w w w. F o l l o w T h e M o n e y. o r g
Mission
The National Institute on Money in State Politics is the only
nonpartisan, nonprofit organization revealing the influence
of campaign money on state-level elections and public policy
in all 50 states. Our comprehensive and verifiable campaignfinance database and relevant issue analyses are available for
free through our website FollowTheMoney.org. We encourage
transparency and promote independent investigation of
state-level campaign contributions by journalists, academic
researchers, public-interest groups, government agencies,
policymakers, students and the public at large.
Constructing a
New Paradigm
The Institute dove into its engineering trenches this past year, completely
rethinking our underlying data architecture that archives 30 million
records documenting $28 billion reported in political campaign money.
We wanted more speed, more cross-analyses, more options. Our goal
was to make the quality of the data impossibly better. In
short,
we want you to be able to ask anything and find
answers, fast.
And so, the Institute spent this past year deep in the twists and turns of
source codes, to knit and entwine our data pathways in new ways. We
closed our eyes and imagined an entirely fresh way of perceiving. We
mined the data, reimagined the substructure, sketched possibilities, and
wore out markers and erasers on whiteboards.
We gave the beta version to academics, journalists, and other major
users with instructions to find weaknesses, to probe and try to unravel
it, then we braided it into a stronger net, a solid labyrinth of
unimpeachable integrity.
Go ahead, try it. We promise you will be
amazed: www.FollowTheMoney.org
1
The Infrastructure
of Democracy
Building and maintaining a healthy democracy is hard work.
The National Institute on Money in
Baseline building blocks from all 50 states
Much work remains to be done for the
State Politics gave the nation its first
already collected by the Institute include:
infrastructure of democracy to show citizens
comprehensive look at who was donating
to candidates running for state office in
all 50 states in the 2000 elections, who
was giving to lawmakers across state
lines, and early sketches of how major
industries and groups were strategically
donating to politicians in multiple states
to move specific policy agendas. We saw
energy deregulation policy initiatives
that gave us a fundamental restructuring
of energy markets in 24 states, and the
Enron scandal. Three-strikes and
mandatory-minimum tough-on-crime
measures got politicians elected across
the country, spurred the expansion of
prison privatization, and gave a handful of
companies tidy profits, at taxpayer expense.
Thirteen years later, the Institute continues
to create and maintain the nation’s only
50-state, state-level donor database,
and continues to do the heavy lifting
for good government and transparency
Donors to all state-level legislative,
gubernatorial, attorney general, and
other candidates to constitutional
offices
a clear roadway to greater accountability of
lawmakers and governments. More heavy
lifts need to be added to the ongoing data
collection:
Donors to Democratic and Republican
state party and caucus committees
Compile lobbyist expenditure data in
Donors to ballot measure committees
in the states that allow popular
initiatives
Compile independent expenditure
Registered lobbyists in all 50 states,
correlated to their clients and their
donations to candidates
advocacy spending, such as TV and
Donors correlated to legislative
committee members
Expand best practices in reporting and
Independent spending reports from
committees in 30 states in 2012
Pilot projects include compiling state
PAC donors in 20 states, lobbyist
expenditures in a dozen more, and local
level data in Los Angeles and Orange
County, and New York City
advocates. It is quickly building additional,
a majority of states
reports from additional states
Build a process for compiling issueradio buys and mass-mailers, for
representative districts in each state
disclosure of all election and policydebate-related information
Correlate introduced legislation to
sponsors with key votes
Correlate subsidy and contract lists
with campaign donor lists
Engage citizens to participate in the
democratic processes
necessary infrastructure to provide essential
information about who supports major
candidates and policy initiatives and
how those donations may affect policy
outcomes that ultimately impact taxpayers.
It is leveraging the many eyes of social
media—with a mountain of high-quality
data at www.FollowTheMoney.org—to make
it more and more difficult for politicians to
The value of all this work is strengthening our democracy
through an engaged citizenry who hold lawmakers accountable over a long period
of time. Like the interstate highway system that spans and connects our country, the
Institute’s free-flowing, multi-layered, and evolving information highway can lead to
more efficient government, greater accountability of elected leaders, and a more robust
debate about issues that affect our everyday lives.
dole out taxpayer-funded favors to high-
Our 21st century democracy looks very different from the past, but the corrosive effects
dollar donors.
of power and money are unrelenting. It will take hard work to maintain a healthy,
Engaged, active citizens now have an
vibrant democracy. We’ll hold up our end of the load.
unprecedented ability to match donors
and their agendas with politicians eager to
get elected. Those citizens can change the
course of our nation.
—Edwin Bender, Executive Director
2
FollowTheMoney is a MARS Best Free
Reference Web Sites of 2012 winner!
—Erica Danowitz, Chair, Best Free Web Sites Committee,
Emerging Technologies, American Library Association
Window on the Year
This was a year like no other. We broke all our own records to compile electronic data from
the state disclosure agencies as near to “real time” as possible, providing reporters and activists
the best data for analyzing 2012 elections and issues. As of Nov. 5, 2012, we had compiled an
average of 90 percent of all reports due across the states.
In the same time frame, we responded to an urgent request to compile new state PAC data in
the 24 states that provided meaningful data with reasonable access.
FollowTheMoney.org provided a clear window into the $2.78 billion reported by candidates and
political party committees in the 50 states that conducted regular or special elections for state
office in 2012. That eye-popping total includes:
$241.8
$122.4
$982.5
million raised by gubernatorial
candidates & officeholders
million for other statewide offices
million for legislative seats
million given to political
party committees
. . . . . . . . . . Democrat
$168.1 million . . . . . . . . . . Republican
$530,462,395
Democrat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $444,947,121
Independent and Third Party . . . $7,002,072
Nonpartisan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
$342.5
$174.4 million
Republican . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$49.8
Plus, we posted:
$4,169,239
million raised by appellate and
high court candidates
Additionally, we documented:
$934.2
million raise by 371 ballot measure
committees in 39 states
As is typical, California led the pack, with 77 groups
that raised $455.8 million around 13 measures.
s
The June 2012 Wisconsin recall election raised the most money of
any gubernatorial race, by far. Republican incumbent Scott Walker
and Democratic challenger Tom Barrett combined to raise $44.2
million in contributions: $37.6 million for Walker and $6.6
million for Barrett.
The race for two high court seats in West Virginia
generated $3.7 million in contributions.
We recorded more than $55 million raised by about
1,200 lower court candidates.
In the ten states for which the Institute has
contributions data for all three levels of courts,
high court candidates averaged $323,180,
appellate court candidates averaged $82,548,
lower court candidates averaged $44,605.
Two-thirds of the legislative races were
contested in the general election: 3,752 of
nearly 5,700 races.
Legislative incumbents enjoyed an 89
percent success rate: 4,185 of the 4,707
who sought reelection to the same
office won.
High
Financially, the most evenly matched gubernatorial
candidates in 2012 ran in New Hampshire, where Democrat
Maggie Hassan raised $1.88 million and Republican Ovide
Lamontagne raised $1.87 million. The resulting difference
was the equivalent of only three-tenths of a percent of the
combined total.
light
2012 Bits & Pieces
Really,
Really Smart
The Institute’s new, unique entity resolution
system is our own artificial intelligence, created by
our staff computer whizzes to find and resolve the
chronic issue of donors listing multiple variations
of the same name. This customized software
quickly resolves the obvious ones, but sends the
sticky ones to our researchers who provide the
full-on brainwork to resolve them. For instance, we
found an astonishing 2,337 ways to report AT&T
and its state affiliates; 1,406 ways to list Verizon;
1,206 ways to say Hospital Corp of America; 878
versions of International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers. The list goes on—but thanks to the entity
resolution system, the speed of our standardizing
work has increased exponentially.
Data staff took on the unenviable task of
testing new elements of our re-engineered data
architecture while it was being developed. The big
payoff came when we uploaded more records in
three months than had been previously possible to
upload in four years!
www.FollowTheMoney.org
4
Highlights
Nailing the Facts
Twelve years of 50-state contribution
records (16,000+ candidates per election),
six years of 50-state lobbying interests
(100,000+ entities annually), and six years
of independent spending records (21 states)
provided powerful facts for public policy
debates.
When the Florida State Legislature was
moving to privatize 19 state-run prisons,
opponents asked the Institute, “What does
$1 million buy in Florida campaigns?” Our
data supplied facts that were persuasive
enough to help stop Florida’s private prison
legislation in its tracks.
Health care issues lead the news in all
50 states. The Institute provided hands-on
assistance to seven health policy advocacy
and media grantees of The California
Endowment, and basic services to its
entire network. We also discovered that
more than 50 health insurance companies,
trade associations, HMOs and their affiliated
political action committees (PACs), and
nearly 730 employees of these entities,
gave $14.6 million to California’s state-level
candidates and ballot measure campaigns
from 2000 to 2010.
In general, state and local lawmakers and
officials determine the regulations and
permitting requirements for oil and gas
drillers. As fracking jars the nation, we
looked at the industry’s lobbying efforts
and campaign giving. Donors from the
oil and gas industry gave $1.3 million to
state-level candidates and officeholders
in California in 2012, with Chevron Corp.,
California Independent Petroleum Assoc.,
and Occidental Oil and Gas topping the list.
The Institute pointed out industry giving to
Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, whose
Oil and Gas Conservation Commission filed
to sue the city of Longmont in an attempt
to overturn that city’s ordinances regulating
drilling in residential neighborhoods and
mandating water-quality monitoring at
fracking sites. The Texas-based Wilks family
gave contributions to 70 percent of Montana’s
Republican legislators and 42 percent of the
Montana legislative body as a whole in 2012
elections. The Wilkses own a fracking firm and
have recently bought large tracts of land in
Montana.
5
Judicial Elections
Judicial candidates raised an unprecedented
amount of money during the 2011 and
2012 elections: 3,291 candidates topped
$110 million. The Institute expanded data
collection to include lower courts in ten
states, providing an essential, strategic tool
for fair courts activists. Surprisingly, the
numbers of lower-court candidates, records,
and contributions in just ten states total more
than the combined appellate/high court
records and contributions for nearly double
the number of states.
143,271 records document $55.4 million
reported by 1,930 lower court candidates
in 10 states
Scorecard: Essential Disclosure Requirements
for Independent Spending, 2013
We updated and upgraded our comprehensive
assessment of essential independent spending
disclosure requirements. Our analysis found
that only 15 states require full disclosure
of express advocacy and electioneering
communications. Unfortunately, 26 states
continue to fail to ensure meaningful
disclosure of this spending.
Our new report co-published by the Center
for Public Integrity shows that 35 states
have independent spending disclosure laws
that are less stringent than federal election
law, meaning shadowy nonprofit groups
and big-spending super PACs are able to do
business virtually undetected in some races.
62,336 records document $33.1 million
reported by 358 high court candidates in
24 states
41,900 records document $21.5 million
reported by 1,003 appellate court
candidates in 17 states
The American Constitution Society for Law
and Policy published Justice at Risk, An
Empirical Analysis of Campaign Contributions
and Judicial Decisions, which relied heavily
on Institute judicial contribution records to
document how candidates’ campaign funds
correlate with judicial decisions involving
donor interests.
The Institute identified disclosure
practices for lower court contributions
in the 39 states where judges are elected.
Our straightforward table provides a
comprehensive, at-a-glance reference for
pursuing this money path. In addition, we
looked at who funded the campaigns of
lower court judges in California, Florida,
Illinois, Michigan, New York, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington, and
Wisconsin in 2011–2012 campaigns.
Raising Standards by
Grading the States
Just days after we published this “report card,”
13 publications had picked up on it and several
states had already begun taking action to
improve their systems. For instance, WIBC.com
published Indiana News: Independent
Campaign Finance Spending to Face Scrutiny:
“Senate Elections Chairman Sue Landske
(R-Cedar Lake) says she was blindsided
to discover Indiana [F – 0 points] doesn’t
require financial disclosure from those
groups. She notes 15 states already
have disclosure requirements, and says
a legislative study committee is likely to
request data from those states this summer.”
Alaska Public Offices Commission sent the
message below confirming that our practice
produces positive results of highlighting transparency advances already achieved by states:
“I must admit that seeing Alaska’s scorecard
[A – 100 points] gave me warm fuzzy
feelings. Thank you for putting this together
and validating our efforts for transparency
up here!”
www.FollowTheMoney.org
Pilot Projects
Contributions are just one way to influence
policy. Several pilot projects this year took
us to independent spending and lobbying
expenditures, enabling the public to see the
full picture of an entity’s political influence.
We expanded collection of independent
spending records from 21 to 30 states.
In a groundbreaking pilot project, we
created another first-ever resource
for investigative journalists and public
policy groups by collecting all lobbying
expenditures filed in 13 target states by
natural resources and related companies
whose economic interests are affected
by laws and regulations relevant to clean
energy, global warming (climate change),
and energy development.
The 2011-2012 election cycle was the first
for which the Institute collected Political
Action Committee (PAC) reports in 24
states. We compiled 265,845 reports that
document $1,608,127,579 from 16,678
committees. We plan to continue collecting
PAC reports for the 2013-2014 elections.
Local Data
Legal Challenges
We cut our teeth on collecting local
campaign data in California, starting with all
contributions to candidates for the Orange
County Board of Supervisors and Los
Angeles’ municipal elections. In addition,
we obtained the records for committees
working to promote or oppose ballot
measures in two California counties (both
measures seeking to tax soda pop failed).
Widespread dissemination of this data has
lit a flame under Orange County. We have
set our sights on local races elsewhere, as
well, focusing next on Chicago, and the New
York City mayoral race.
The Institute’s archives provided indisputable
facts that may change the law. In the wake
of consequences from the U.S. Supreme
Court decision, Citizens United v. FEC, state
attorneys general and public interest law
centers relied on the political contribution
records at FollowTheMoney.org to defend
state campaign-finance disclosure laws and
contribution limits and to inform public policy
debates. The Institute’s data and research
were used as evidence in 2013 legislative
debates on campaign-finance reform in
several states. For instance, Executive Director
Edwin Bender provided expert witness
testimony for Montana’s defense of the state’s
low contribution limits from a challenge
in federal court by American Tradition
Partnership, represented by attorney James
Bopp. The Ninth Circuit Court ultimately
issued a stay in the case, allowing Montana’s
low contribution limits to stand.
Scorecard: Essential Disclosure Requirements for Independent Spending, 2013
Raising Standards by
Grading the States
A
90-100
B
80-89
C
70-79
D
60-69
F
0-59
6
Building Stories
The Institute in the News
The 2012 campaigns attracted enormous
amounts of money: $2.78 billion reported
by candidates and party committees; and
$878.2 million raised around ballot measures.
The Institute’s data was cited repeatedly in
the news, invigorating the debate about the
role money plays in elections and public
policy decisions.
Our attention to the tedious details required
to create accurate, comprehensive data
archives has been rewarded by its clear
adoption as a primary resource by the
national press, and inclusion as a training
resource for journalism schools, fueling still
more dissemination.
More than 3,900 reporters and 7,600
myFollowTheMoney subscribers are signed
up to receive releases and reports on specific
states or topics. This past year, we sent
108 press releases, and 22 email alerts to
subscribers.
The Institute’s communications database
includes 3,913 reporters signed up to receive
releases and reports relevant to their specific
states or topics. The resulting stories include
articles published by Bloomberg Business
Week, Center for Public Integrity, CNN Money,
Investigative News Network, Los Angeles
Times, Mother Jones, NBC News, The Nation,
The New York Times, and more. Columbia
Journalism Review profiled FollowTheMoney.
org at its Online News Startups.
and policymakers. For example, the San
Francisco Chronicle published an AP story
by Matt Gouras, Feb. 10, 2013, “Billionaire
fracking brothers top political donors.” It
summarized research that we published
Feb. 1, Texas Fracking Billionaires Gave
Money to 70 Percent of Montana Republican
Legislators. The AP article was widely
circulated. Our report, and the articles it
generated, helped the public learn about the
political contributions so that it can monitor
whether legislative votes on regulation of
fracking appear to correlate with benefits to
the public or to the elected officials’ political
donors.
A report by CNN Money, “NRA Power and
Money Goes A Long Way in States,” Dec. 20,
2012, cited our data to give a 50-state context
on influence of the National Rifle Association
in Wisconsin’s recall election:
“The NRA and its campaign arm, the
Political Victory Fund, have given nearly
$3 million to state-level campaigns,
political committees, and candidates
over the past nine years, according
to the National Institute on Money in
State Politics, a watchdog group. That
doesn’t include hundreds of thousands
of dollars spent on lobbying various
state legislatures in the same period. The
money has helped win owners expanded
rights to carry guns outside of their
home in 41 states, more than double the
number from two decades ago.”
Reporters use our research to investigate
issues and write articles to educate the public
Website visitors increased 385 percent
in four years
Unique Visitors to FollowTheMoney.org,
2009-2012
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
2009
2010
2011
2012
The Institute’s Public Face:
FollowTheMoney.org
From Jan. 2009 to Dec. 2012, we achieved
a 385 percent increase in visitors to
FollowTheMoney.org. We maintain an active
social media presence by posting frequently,
often daily. The Institute had 1,700 Facebook
fans and 4,600 Twitter followers, reflecting a
growth of 50 percent for each, Jan. – Dec. 2012.
The Institute in Action
Each year we convene a select group of national
advisors and foundation officers for intensive
roundtable discussions. Presenters pose
solutions to challenges to elections, judicial
independence, government and corporate
451 Media Citations of FollowTheMoney.org
July 1, 2012-June 30, 2013
80
70
I wanted to send you a link to our story that examines the political
60
influence of private prison companies and the growing immigration
40
Blogs
50
New Media
Traditional
Media
30
detention industry, and thank you again for your help. Our story,
20
10
Ju
l-1
2
ug
Se 12
p1
O 2
ct
-1
N 2
ov
D 12
ec
Ja 12
n
Fe 13
bM 13
ar
A 13
pr
M 13
ay
Ju 13
n13
—Garance Burke, Reporter, The Associated Press
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/08/02/2926854/
immigrants-prove-big-business.html
0
A
published last Thursday, got great play nationwide.
www.FollowTheMoney.org
The Institute was cited in these publications, among others, during the past year: St. Louis Beacon CNBC P
Times Free-Times The Guardian The Atlantic NBC News Portland Press Herald San Francisco Chronicle Wall Street
Star Miami Herald Atlanta Journal Constitution Denver Post Mother Jones The Plain Dealer Wall Street Journal W
7
accountability, investigative journalism, and
civic engagement. Our 2013 Summary of
Proceedings reflects the widespread concern
that corporate influence on elections has
reached a tipping point.
Institute staff traveled to 40 events this year
to introduce new tools and expand use of
the resources to a wide range of participants:
news reporters, policy advocates, community
organizers, immigrant rights groups, Tea Party
activists, law school students, state ethics
officials, and many more. A few examples
include:
Managing Director Denise Roth Barber
showcased three agencies that have
been successful at providing campaign
finance data, lobbying expenditures, and
independent spending, presented to
state ethics officers attending the annual
conference of the Council on Governmental
Ethics Laws (COGEL).
discussed linking and analyzing data,
using data to inform public discourse,
how to promote greater transparency
in government and elections, how to
discuss accountability, and how to build in
performance standards.
Montana Law Review symposium,
“Debating Democracy’s Future,” invited
Bender to participate as a panelist with four
attorneys on the topic, “Administration of a
Republican Form of Government.” Harvard
Law School Professor Lawrence Lessig
provided the keynote and acknowledged
the value of the Institute’s resources.
Executive Director Edwin Bender presented
“Transparency in Action: Pinpointing the
Influence of Money in State Politics,” at
the Society of Professional Journalists/
Radio Television Digital News Association
conference.
The Institute presented our data and
resources at the Harvard-Georgetown
Market Democracy Project academic
conference, followed by panels that
FollowTheMoney.org
13.5% Increase in Unique Visitors
2012 Elections
When 1% = 50%
$4
680,000
660,000
$3
620,000
600,000
Billions
640,000
670,449
580,000
590,664
560,000
540,000
FY2013
FY2012
$2
$1
$0
POLITICO NPR Los Angeles Times Associated Press U.S. News & World Report Bloomberg Businessweek New York
Journal Bloomberg News CNN Money MSNBC Tampa Bay Times Washington Post Huffington Post Lincoln Journal
Washington Post Bloomberg Oregon Public Broadcasting Cincinnati Enquirer Texas Public Radio The Nation
8
Framework for Success
The Institute uses its multistate, multiyear databases to research trends in political giving, examine how
contributions drive public policy debates in the states and the nation, and see how special interests give across state
lines. We relentlessly pursue information that puts campaign contributions in context, such as legislative committee
assignments and lobbyist/client relationships. We hope to soon link lawmakers with their proposed legislation.
Strong Collaborations
Years of cooperation with other groups
paid off, seen in these impactful, recent
collaborative projects and reports.
We consulted with the Center for Public
Integrity for its State Integrity Investigation
that assesses corruption risk. Some of the 14
factors assessed used our Best Practices
studies for baseline information on which to
evaluate state laws governing political
contributions and lobbying.
A project with the Center for Effective
Government (formerly OMB Watch) used
Institute data to fuel analysis of how money
and politics intersect with state actions to
regulate fracking practices. Our 2011 report,
Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale Advisory
Commission, documented contributions
given by oil and gas executives and lobbyists
who were appointed to sit on the governor’s
commission.
Data gathered and supplied by the Institute
provided the foundation for The Impact of
Citizens United in the States: Independent
Spending in State Elections, 2006-2010, by
Keith Hamm, Michael J. Malbin, Jaclyn Kettler,
and Brendan Glavin, presented at the 2012
meeting of the American Political Science
Association:
“There can be no denying the profound
changes in U.S. campaign financing since
the U.S. Supreme Court’s January 2010
decision in Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission. This paper begins
to disentangle the strands through an
analysis of independent expenditures
in elections at the state level in 2006
and 2010.”
In Jan. 2013, we coordinated release of our
report, Big Tobacco Wins Tax Battles, with
the American Lung Association’s report,
State of Tobacco Control 2013, which tracks
progress on key tobacco control policies
at the state and federal levels, and assigns
grades based on tobacco control laws and
regulations. Money emerges as the core
theme.
Another study relied on Institute data,
“Taking Opt-In Rights Seriously: What Knox
v. SEIU Could Mean for Post-Citizens United
Shareholder Rights,” by Ciara Torres-Spelliscy,
Montana Law Review, April 22, 2013.
Spelliscy argues that the Supreme Court has
treated inequitably the political speech of
corporations and of unions, and makes the
case for improved regulation of corporate
political speech.
Campaign Finance
The Institute’s data and research were used
as evidence in 2013 legislative debates
on campaign-finance reforms in Florida,
Montana, New York, and more. The Palm
Beach Post, Jan. 22, 2013, reported, “Florida
lawmakers consider lifting cap, adding
restrictions on campaign cash”:
“The political fund-raising arms run by
lawmakers, known as committees of
continuous existence (CCEs)…open the
door to unlimited amounts of industry
contributions… The Senate Ethics &
Elections Committee approved new
regulations on CCE spending Tuesday, as
part of a sweeping new ethics proposal
(CS/SB 7006). The National Institute on
Money in State Politics has said Florida’s
committee system creates a ‘Russian doll
syndrome,’ where money is nested and
passed from one committee to another.
The average voter has little chance of
following the source of the money, the
Institute warned.”
We created a multi-state database of the
lobbying expenditures reported by natural
resources and utility companies from 2010
through 2012. This objective data may be of
immense value to policy advocacy related to
climate change.
This site saves countless hours that would otherwise be spent perusing
50 different state government websites, and hundreds upon hundreds
of pages. It’s an invaluable service to researchers everywhere!!
—Jeremiah L. Curtis, Freelance Researcher, North Benton, Ohio
9
www.FollowTheMoney.org
Data availability has been greatly facilitated for scholars by the efforts of the
National Institute on Money in State Politics, directed by Edwin Bender,
which since 1999 has gathered, cleaned, and made publicly available data on
contributors to legislative candidates in the 99 chambers.
—The Influence of Campaign Contributions in State Legislatures,
©2012, by Lynda Powell, Professor of Political Science
Institute Research
Scorecard: Essential Disclosure Requirements
for Independent Spending, 2013
by Institute Staff, May 16, 2013
Just how much money is spent independently
on elections for state office? The answer
remains elusive in the majority of states,
according to the Institute’s latest analysis
of disclosure requirements for independent
spending. The analysis found that 15 states
require full disclosure of both forms of
independent spending: express advocacy
and electioneering communications.
Unfortunately, 26 states continue to fail
to ensure meaningful disclosure of this
spending.
For additional discussion of the Scorecard’s
grading system, and the role of enforcement
in ensuring adequate disclosure, see our blog,
Independent Spending Scorecard: Grades
Based on Laws, Not Enforcement.
Lower Courts: Selection Methods and
Campaign Finance
by Linda Casey, July 31, 2012
This report assesses the campaign finance
reporting systems for lower court candidates
in the 39 states that elect their lower court
judges. The attached table provides a
comprehensive, at-a-glance reference for
pursuing this money path, adding critical
information to selected data provided by the
American Judicature Society.
The Role of Money & Incumbency in
2009-2010 State Elections
by Linda Casey, July 03, 2012
Legislative incumbents enjoyed an 87 percent
success rate during the 2009 and 2010
primary and general elections. One-third
of them ran unopposed. Incumbents in
contested general election races had a
success rate of 85 percent; legislative
candidates who raised more money than
their opponents were successful 76 percent
of the time.
Monetary Competitiveness in 2009-2010
State Legislative Races
by Peter Quist, July 03, 2012
73 percent of the legislative seats up for
election in the 2009-2010 general elections
were contested, up from 67 percent in
2007-2008. 25 percent of the legislative seats
up for election were monetarily competitive,
up from just 22 percent in the 2007-2008
contests. As during the 2007-2008 elections,
monetary competitiveness rates were higher
in states with public funding programs and in
states with relatively inexpensive races.
“Evidencing a Republican Form of
Government: The Influence of Campaign
Money on State-Level Elections,”
by Executive Director Edwin Bender,
published in the Montana Law Review,
April 22, 2013.
This article documents the value of the
Institute’s data as evidence for assessing
whether limits restrict First Amendment rights:
“Quality data gives public officials, policy
experts, and the public reliable information
that can help them explore larger systemic
policy options that can de-emphasize
the role of money in our elections and
emphasize voter involvement… The
Institute’s data has been cited before the
United States Supreme Court on three
occasions: in an amicus curiae brief in
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc.,
by Justice Souter in Federal Election
Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc,
and in an amicus curiae brief in Citizens
United v. Federal Election Commission. In
addition, the Montana Attorney General
presented the Institute’s analyses in
Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v.
Attorney General of Montana.
“The curated data compiled by the Institute
enables scholars who study both state
elections and public policy processes new
opportunities to quicken and expand
their inquiries. Understanding the role
money plays in elections and public
policy development, and specifically
how campaign-finances are regulated,
can improve the representative form of
government in the states. If a state wants
more inclusive elections—contested as well
as monetarily competitive—data shows that
adjusting contribution limits or funding
mechanisms can have a dramatic effect.
Offering incentives for donors to participate
and for candidates to seek out more smalldollar donors can also have a positive effect
on both the number of candidates who
run and the number of people who donate
(and presumably vote).”
Big Tobacco Wins Tax Battles
by Robin Parkinson and Institute Staff,
Jan. 16, 2013
Take a deep look at the tobacco industry’s
campaign contributions during the 2012
election cycle. The industry gave nearly $54
million overall, with 87 percent coming from
just four tobacco manufacturers: Philip Morris
USA, Reynolds American Inc., U.S. Smokeless
Tobacco Company, and Altria. Of that $54
million, tobacco interests gave more than
$47 million to help defeat ballot measures
that would have raised taxes on tobacco
products, and contributed $3.5 million to
state-level candidates and $3 million to
party committees, with 76 percent going to
Republican candidates and committees.
The Money Tale
In addition to research reports, from
July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013,
communications specialists and researchers
blogged 26 times at The Money Tale. Topics
ranged from Controversy over Colorado’s
Renewable Energy Standards to The Sweet
Taste of…Taxes to Texas homebuilder/
political mega-donor Bob Perry.
10
2014: Stepping Up to the Next Level
I’m proud to chair the board
of the National Institute
on Money in State Politics,
which is changing politics in
America. Their data is vast,
nonpartisan and impeccable,
empowering voters to
connect the dots between
campaign contributions and
the making of public policy.
FollowTheMoney.org has
become a go-to resource for
journalists, policymakers,
activists and academics.
Their database is a goldmine
that has sparked numerous
independent research projects.
Best of all, the Institute
never rests: right now it’s
developing new projects on
independent spending, judicial
races, the lobbying sector,
and government transparency
policies around the country.
What’s next? Stay tuned.
—Board President Bert Brandenburg
We’re working faster and better.
Exponentially faster. We broke through
previous technical limitations and now
answer queries at record speeds, enabling
people to peel back the layers to more fully
understand the impact money has on policy
development.
Our website redesign centered around
a specific mandate: it must be easy to
navigate and understand. And it is. To
further that goal, we are developing
infographics, data visualizations, tutorials,
glossaries, and classroom materials.
We will offer more on-site trainings,
webinars, widgets, and other services,
targeting reporters, advocates, and other
user groups. We will reduce perceived
barriers to using the data, share our
expertise on data processing, and inspire
innovative investigations. We will partner
with experts in legislative vote tracking
and financial disclosure to create APIs or
other tools that can match the records and
illuminate the results.
The Institute’s new data architecture
is revolutionary. Our open source data
enables in-depth academic analyses and
reports, facilitating data mash-ups of the
contribution records with other types of
information. Direct access to our servers will
empower users to run search queries they
write, and then save and share the results
in their reports and on social media. Visitors
will be able to upload contributor lists to
business-code and standardize names that
match with our comprehensive database,
then download the results to inspire others.
We intend to reach out to even more open
government advocates and policy groups.
We want to sponsor fellowships to train key
journalists and academics to use our data
to produce investigative articles targeted to
specific regions or important issues. We will
create and disseminate information suitable
for television, radio, and other venues
to help voters connect the dots among
candidates, donors, lobbying interests, and
policy decisions. We will assist developers
to create mobile apps that showcase the
Institute’s data and research.
We will empower local-level investigations
by seeding our website with municipal
election databases from Chicago, Los
Angeles, New York, and other local-level
jurisdictions. We will survey the nation to
find other major jurisdictions that have
electronic reports, and create partnerships
with state and local groups to fill in the
blanks.
We will analyze campaign finance systems
such as public funding, small donor
incentives, and matching funds, and provide
cross-jurisdictional analyses to more fully
inform the debate about reforming the
system. Building on our recent Scorecard
co-published with the Center for Public
Integrity, we will partner with key groups
to launch a 50-state program to increase
awareness and adoption of best practices in
campaign finance reporting.
As always, we will personally answer the
phone and rapidly answer the emails,
directly addressing questions from users.
Above all, we will continue to serve the
public good by remaining nonpartisan and
nonprofit, encouraging transparency, and
promoting independent investigation of the
influence of campaign money on elections
and public policy in all 50 states.
www.FollowTheMoney.org
11
 Building the Institute, daily: Robin
Arnold (née Parkinson), Researcher;
Edwin Bender, Executive Director;
Barbara Bonifas, Development Director;
Lori Cadwell, Finance Specialist;
Linda Casey, Lead Researcher; Sara
Christiansen, Input Management
and Data Acquisition Specialist; Tyler
Evilsizer, Researcher; Ken Feaster,
Information Systems Director;
John Hardy, Information Systems
Technician; Amanda Harrow, Outreach
and Communications Specialist;
Michelle Hoffart, Data Acquisition
Specialist; Zach Holden, Researcher/
Outreach Specialist; Wendy Kolppa,
Data Acquisition Specalist; Maria
Kurtz, Data Acquisition Coordinator;
Shirlene Kuykendall, Data Acquisition
Specialist; Robin Larson, Administrative
Assistant; Beverly Magley, Special
Projects Director; Jeff Plaggemeyer,
Data Acquisition Specialist; Peter Quist,
Research Director; Denise Roth Barber,
Managing Director; Karen Sedivy, Data
Acquisition Specialist; Anne Sherwood,
Communications Specialist; Gus Voss,
Researcher/Outreach Specialist; Scott
Wahl, Information Systems Specialist
Team Builders
 The data acquisition staff
continues to be a great source of
pride for the Institute, performing
the thankless and tedious task of
obtaining the data, day after day,
hour after hour. They even key in
the numbers from the paper reports
filed in New Jersey, where nothing
is yet digitized. Several have been
with us for more than 15 years. Their
persistence, attention to detail, and
flexibility make it easy for the rest
of the organization to pivot on a
dime to meet specialized requests
for assistance. The energy from that
strong core permeates the rest of the
organization and makes everyone
else’s jobs easier.
 Our tireless researchers pore through
the data, adding value at several levels
and looking for trends, anomalies, and
news. They painstakingly build candidate
lists, and standardize names of political
contributors, lobbyists, lobbying clients,
and outside spenders in elections.
While performing the standardization
work needed to optimize search results,
researchers also assign codes to these
entities so the public can look at the role
specific economic interests play in politics.
Researchers write reports and blog
about the findings in Institute data, give
presentations on Institute data and stories,
and answer questions from reporters and
other members of the public.
 The Institute’s management team runs
a collaborative shop. Once here, they stick
around a long time to contribute their skills.
Edwin Bender, a founding incorporator
and on staff since 1999, has been
executive director for more than a decade.
Development Director Barbara Bonifas has
led fundraising and grants administration
since 2002. With the Institute since 2006,
Information Systems Director Ken Feaster has
worked nonstop the past year to redesign
the Institute’s data architecture. Maria Kurtz
was named data acquisition coordinator in
2010, following six years of service as data
acquisition specialist. Beverly Magley, special
projects director, has created the Institute’s
public presentations, annual report,
conference, and tutorials since 2008. Denise
Roth Barber has served as managing director
since 2010, after four years as research
director and seven years as researcher. Peter
Quist took the reins as research director this
year, after five years as a researcher, with
a focus on best practices for disclosure of
money in state politics.
12
nonpartisan, community-based civic engagement
strategies. Jeff has extensive experience with voter
engagement strategies, including prior service with
Wellspring during 2006, and as a board member
of the Oregon Bus Project Foundation.
Board of Directors
EDWIN BENDER, a founding incorporator for the
Institute, has been executive director for more
than a decade. He promotes the use of the
Institute’s comprehensive, highly credentialed
state-level donor information by investigative
journalists, scholars examining state elections and
public-policy processes, and attorneys involved in
campaign-finance litigation. In 2012, Ed was an
expert witness for the Montana Attorney General’s
defense of Montana’s campaign-contribution
limits. He was recently published in the Montana
Law Review, “Evidencing a Republican Form of
Government: The Influence of Campaign Money
on State-Level Elections.” Ed emphasizes the
need to break down barriers to public disclosure
of campaign finance and related information in
poor-reporting states, while pushing advances in
cross-state issue analyses and web-based data
aggregation and dissemination.
BERT BRANDENBURG, Institute board president,
is executive director of the Justice at Stake
Campaign, a national, nonpartisan partnership
working to keep courts fair and impartial. JAS
has passed reform legislation, built a coalition
of more than 50 groups, and put the issue of
independent courts on the national map. Bert
was the Justice Department’s director of public
affairs under Attorney General Janet Reno. He
served in policy and communications positions
for the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, the National
Performance Review, and the 1992 Clinton-Gore
campaign and presidential transition team. Bert
is chair of the Committee on Fair and Impartial
Courts of the ABA, and he serves on the National
Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on Judicial Campaign
Conduct. He holds a JD from the University of
Virginia.
ROSALIND GOLD has worked with the National
Association of Latino Elected and Appointed
Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund for two
decades. As the organization’s senior director
for policy research and advocacy, she leads
policy analysis, research, naturalization and civic
engagement activities. She directs preparation of
the National Directory of Latino Elected Officials,
Latino Election Handbook, Election Profiles, and
other research and policy documents. The Los
Angeles Times and other media outlets regularly
seek Rosalind’s perspectives on Latino electoral
participation, political progress and naturalization
policy developments. Her expertise includes
election reform, voting rights and the decennial
Census enumeration of the Latino population. She
earned her JD from Harvard Law School.
KEITH HAMM is the director of the Harlan Program
in State Elections, Campaigns and Politics at Rice
University. He has conducted extensive research
on campaign finance, interest groups and state
politics during his career. His current research
examines how the adoption of the new campaign
finance law in Connecticut has affected both
interest group lobbying strategies and the setting
of the legislative agenda. Keith was selected as a
Fulbright scholar in 2006 and served as research
chair for North American Studies at Carleton
University in Ottawa, Ontario. He is past co-editor
of Legislative Studies Quarterly.
ADELAIDE ELM KIMBALL is senior advisor (and
chaired the founding board of directors) for Project
Vote Smart, one of the largest and most widely
respected sources of comprehensive, unbiased
information on elections and public officials in
the country. Adelaide has been communications
director for Project Vote Smart since 1994 and
assists with development. Earlier, she directed
the Archives Department at the Arizona Historical
Society in Tucson from 1985 through 1993.
Adelaide earned bachelors in history and Spanish
from the University of Texas at Austin, and her
MA with concentrations in American history and
museum studies at the University of Arizona, and a
master of library science, also from the University
of Arizona.
LARRY MAKINSON is one of the pioneers of
computer-assisted research into campaign
finances. He first started tracking campaign
money in Alaska in the mid-1980s, then moved
to Washington, D.C., where he spent 15 years
tracking federal contributions at the Center for
Responsive Politics. Since leaving CRP, he has
conducted investigative database projects for
the Center for Public Integrity and the Sunlight
Foundation. Larry is currently semi-retired,
enjoying life on the Oregon coast but still keeping
a finger in the campaign finance world.
JEFF MALACHOWSKY is the program director for
the Civil Society Program of Wellspring Advisors,
a national philanthropic advisory firm. Before
joining Wellspring in February 2011, Jeff lived for
nearly 30 years in Oregon where, in 2009–2010,
he served as founding co-director of Oregon Voice,
affiliated with the national State Voices network.
Jeff was co-founder and co-director of the National
Institute on Money in State Politics, and of the
Western States Center, which provides training and
resources to grassroots leaders in eight western
states. He served as a consultant to foundations
and donors, managing projects and advising on
MICHAEL J. MALBIN is a co-founder and executive
director of the Campaign Finance Institute, as
well as a professor of political science at the State
University of New York at Albany. Michael has
written extensively about money and politics for
more than three decades. His recent publications
include Reform in an Age of Networked
Campaigns: How to Foster Citizen Participation
through Small Donors and Volunteers,
co-authored with Anthony Corrado, Thomas Mann
and Norman Ornstein. Other co-authored works
include Public Financing of Elections after Citizens
United; and Small Donors, Big Democracy: New
York City’s Matching Funds as a Model for the
Nation and States (Election Law Journal, 2012),
which relied extensively on data supplied by the
National Institute on Money in State Politics.
GERI D. PALAST, Institute board secretary, is the
managing director of the Israel Action Network.
Prior, she served five years as executive director
of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity (CFE). During
her tenure, CFE won the final Court of Appeals
decision in the landmark litigation establishing the
constitutional right to a sound basic education for
all public school students in New York State. In
2008, Palast served as education policy counsel
for Presidential-Elect Obama’s Transition Team.
Formerly, Geri was the founder and executive
director of the Justice at Stake Campaign. Geri
is an attorney, a Root-Tilden Public Service Law
Scholar from NYU School of Law, and an honors
graduate of Stanford University. She is admitted to
practice in the District of Columbia.
SAMANTHA SANCHEZ, Institute board treasurer,
is an administrative law judge for the state of
Montana. She served as the Institute’s co-director
with Jeff Malachowsky for its first years of
operation and is a founding incorporator and
member of the first board of directors. Sam
studied and wrote about campaign-finance
issues for more than a decade. As principal
researcher on the relationship of special-interest
campaign contributions to judicial candidates
for state supreme courts, Sam forged the
Institute’s relationships with national scholars
and researchers and co-authored several national
reports on the independence of the judiciary. Her
tax-law background includes 15 years at Catholic
University Law School, where she served as
associate dean for six years. Sam earned her JD
at Catholic University Law School and is a current
member of the Washington, D.C. and Montana
State Bars.
CIARA TORRES-SPELLISCY is an assistant professor
at Stetson University College of Law, teaching
courses in Election Law, Corporate Governance,
and Constitutional Law. Ciara was counsel at the
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law,
an associate at Arnold & Porter and a staffer for
Senator Durbin. She has testified before Congress
as an expert on campaign finance reform. As well
as publishing in the Montana Law Review and the
NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, she
has published in the New York Times, Roll Call,
Business Week, Forbes, The Atlantic, USA Today,
Judicature, Salon and CNN. com. Ciara has been
quoted by The Economist, Mother Jones, The
National Journal, Los Angeles Times, NBC. com,
NPR, Fox, CSPAN, and NY1.
thank you
Funding This Essential Work
Foundations and individuals generously support
the Institute. We do not accept grants or contributions from
corporations, corporate foundations, political parties, or candidate
committees. For more information about supporting the Institute,
please contact Development Director Barbara Bonifas at 406-449-2480.
The Bauman Foundation
The California Endowment
Carnegie Corporation of New York
Donor Advised Funds
Fiscal year 2013 (July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013) expenses totaled
$1.6 million. Listed on the right are foundations that have supported
the Institute since our founding. We are especially grateful to
Energy Foundation
Ford Foundation
current foundation funders, identified in bold.
The William and
Flora Hewlett Foundation
JEHT Foundation
The Joyce Foundation
Data sales, custom research, data licensing agreements, nonprofit
membership enhancements, speaking fees, and in-kind contributions
Albert A. List Foundation
generate 10 percent of annual Institute income. A community
fundraiser sponsored by the Blackfoot River Brewing Co. donated $1
John D. & Catherine T.
from every pint sold during the event; individual donations also taken.
MacArthur Foundation
We are grateful to individuals whose personal
Mertz Gilmore Foundation
donations during our fiscal year 2013 helped create transparency
around special interest influence in elections in 50 states.
Open Society Foundations
Doug and Maureen Averill, Edwin Bender, Roger Best,
The Pew Charitable Trusts
Gerald M. Bonetto, Bert Brandenburg, Martin Cooper,
Gerald Davis, Branden Diehl, Ann Eldridge, Thomas E. Heyes,
Annie and David Hull, Keith Hamm, David Hunter,
Adelaide Elm Kimball, Quresh Latif, Michael Malbin, Marie McAlear,
Alan Nicholson, Geri Palast, Samantha Sanchez, Aaron Sojourner,
Bernard van Maarseveen, Beverly Weeks, Anonymous
Public Welfare Foundation
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Rockefeller Family Fund
Sunlight Foundation
www.FollowTheMoney.org
thank you
www.FollowTheMoney.org
National Institute on Money in State Politics
833 N. Last Chance Gulch
Helena, Montana 59601
phone: 406-449-2480 • fax: 406-457-2091
email: [email protected]
September 2013
Printed on recycled paper with soy-based inks