|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Elections & Legislation |
|
U.S. PIRG Report Documents Big Money's Influence On Election Outcomes |
Current rating: 0 |
by U.S. PIRG
(No verified email address) |
14 Jul 2003
|
"This so-called reform doubled the amount that wealthy donors can give directly to candidates' campaigns. The new limits are a boon for the handful of ringside revelers who can afford a $2,000 ticket to each political event. But they left the rest of us in the cheap seats, farther from the action than ever before."
According to the report, 26% of the members Congress are millionaires, compared with just 1% of the population. The report's authors maintain that contribution limits set at a level well beyond what average Americans can afford to contribute forces candidates who are not wealthy themselves to compete in a "wealth primary" for large hard money contributions from a narrow donor pool. |
WASHINGTON - July 11 - The biggest fundraisers and largest hard money contributors dominated the 2002 congressional elections, according to U.S. PIRG's final analysis of Federal Elections Commission (FEC) data for the 2002 election cycle released today.
The Role of Money in the 2002 Congressional Elections found that hard money, funds that are limited and regulated by federal campaign finance law, accounted for 71% of the money spent to influence 2002 federal elections.
The report, say its authors, is meant as a comprehensive review of the 2002 cycle and as a baseline from which to measure the true impact of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA).
"When the next few election cycles reveal the true impact of McCain-Feingold, most campaign reformers won't like what they see," said U.S. PIRG Democracy Advocate and report author Adam Lioz.
"This so-called reform doubled the amount that wealthy donors can give directly to candidates' campaigns. The new limits are a boon for the handful of ringside revelers who can afford a $2,000 ticket to each political event. But they left the rest of us in the cheap seats, farther from the action than ever before."
The study revealed that the candidates who raised the most hard money won 94% of 2002 congressional elections. Furthermore, congressional campaigns were primarily funded by large hard money contributions from less than one tenth of one percent of the electorate.
"We've heard a lot from politicians and the media about soft money over the past few years," Lioz continued. "But hard money is the true currency of elections."
According to the report, 26% of the members Congress are millionaires, compared with just 1% of the population. The report's authors maintain that contribution limits set at a level well beyond what average Americans can afford to contribute forces candidates who are not wealthy themselves to compete in a "wealth primary" for large hard money contributions from a narrow donor pool.
"It's not surprising that Congress is rapidly becoming a millionaire's club," said Lioz. "The only way to learn the secret handshake is to be rich or to appeal to a narrow group of wealthy donors."
Outside interests played a significant role in determining 2002 election outcomes as well. An estimated 65% of House candidates' contributions came from sources outside of their districts.
"Wealthy Washington lobbyists and big money donors from New York and Beverly Hills are wielding significant influence over who represents citizens from Arkansas and Alabama," said Lioz. "People who don't live in a particular community, don't breathe its air, and don't drink its water shouldn't determine who represents that district or state in Congress."
Among the report's key findings:
. Of the $2.4 billion spent to influence 2002 congressional elections, $1.7 billion (71%) was hard money and $692 million (29%) was soft money.
. Congressional candidates who raised the most hard money won 94% of their races in 2002. Winning candidates out-raised their opponents by a margin of 4-to-1, with the winners raising an average of $1.3 million and losers raising $331,000.
. While only 0.09% of voting age Americans made a contribution to a candidate of $1000 or more, these large donations accounted for 55.5% of individual contributions received by congressional candidates. Contributions of $200 and above, made by less than one quarter of 1% of Americans, accounted for 76% of all individual contributions.
. Individual contributions below $200 accounted for just 13% of candidates' total receipts.
. An estimated 65.4% of contributions to 2002 House candidates came from sources outside of their districts.
. 42% of the Senate and 23% of the House of Representatives are millionaires, compared with 1% of the U.S. population.
"These findings are troubling for our democracy," said Lioz,. "When one quarter of our Congress are millionaires, and when less than 1/10 of 1% of Americans provide more than half of candidates' individual contributions, we don't have a government of, by, and for the people."
U.S. PIRG called for improved public financing systems, lower contribution limits, mandatory limits on campaign spending, free TV and radio time for candidates, tax credits for small political contributions and limits on out-of-state contributions to level the playing field for non-wealthy candidates and voters.
U.S. PIRG is the national lobby office for the State PIRGs. Public Interest Research Groups are state-based non-profit, non-partisan public interest advocacy organizations.
The Role of Money in the 2002 Congressional Elections can be found here: http://www.pirg.org/democracy/democracy.asp?id2=10366
http://www.pirg.org |
