Do you ever wish you knew where candidates were receiving donations? Do ever wish you knew which corporations were donating to local candidates? If so, you're in luck.
The tutorial explains how to use the MEC.gov databases to see:
Candidates, for a specific election, registered with the Commission and compare the money reported received and spent between the candidates
Candidates’ financial information
Contributions made by a specific contributor and money paid to individuals/companies
Money > $5,000 received and reported, within 48 hours, by candidates
Money reported spent on behalf of candidates, by other committees
For instance, if I wanted to see contributions by a specific company, I search by contributor (in this case, I choose Cerner, an international healthcare company based in Kansas City). I can choose the year from which I want to view data and then type in "Cerner" as the Business/Org. Name.
My results list every contribution made by Cerner Corperation during my selected year. By far, the largest donation made during 2012 was a monetary contribution of $25,000 to support incumbent Governor Jay Nixon. This donation is entirely legal, of course; as I mentioned in an earlier post, Missouri has no legal limits on contributions to candidates for state and local office.
While not illegal, large corporate donations to candidates or parties represent vested interests on the part of corporations and are an easy way to tell who stands to gain from the outcome of an election.
Tools like the MEC database are a great way for voters to stay informed about how candidates raise support for their campaign and also provide an insight into the type of candidate each donor believes will best protect their interests. Follow the money!
Some of the toughest decisions candidates have to make concern where to spend the money they raise. I've done a lot of work recently for Chris Hershey's campaign for Public Administrator in Platte County, and how to spend campaign funds is one of the most stressful decisions he's had to make.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I'm dating Chris. That means I get to be a part of every conversation about the campaign. One of the decisions he labored over the most was about how to reach the most amount of people with printed material.
Printing flyers is really expensive. Placing ads in newspapers is even more expensive. Putting out a mailer is by far the most expensive.
Chris has been going door to door for weeks now, passing out his printed "handbill" with information about him as a candidate to each house. Purchasing the flyers was a huge expense for the small campaign - a few hundred dollars.
Looking at the money he had left in his campaign fund after purchasing the flyers, Chris had to decide between placing newspaper ads and doing a mailing.
First of all, mailings are extremely expensive. A good mailing costs anywhere between $5,000 and $10,000. This includes printing the materials, paying a company to put a mailing list together, and the actual mailing of the materials.
Chris certainly didn't have a big enough war chest to do all of that, so he looked at doing an extremely targeted mailing for just a few key areas of the county.
He then looked at placing ads in all of the local newspapers. There are a handful in Platte County; The Citizen, The Landmark, The Weston Chronicle, The Independent Platte and The Kansas City Star all serve the area.
The Flyer
Chris looked at his demographic. Which towns read the newspapers? Which towns would he have a harder time going door to door in because of the sheer number of people?
He determined that a newspaper ad would best fit in the northern part of the county, which reads the Citizen, Landmark and Chronicle. He thought a mailing would do best in the southern part of the county where he wouldn't be able to get to every house with his flyer.
Alas, one of the downfalls of running a very small local campaign is that there's just never enough money. Chris eventually had to make the call that advertising in the newspapers the week before the election was really all the campaign could handle.
I share this story because I think it illustrates a phenomenon that we don't hear a lot about in the media's coverage of elections. Local candidates often don't have the large donors like Presidential candidates do, which means they end up choosing the least expensive option the majority of the time. While Senate candidates get to run new television ads every week, local candidates are stuck running one ad in the local newspaper.
What's impressive about this story is that the lack of funds really forces local candidates to use the "free" means of campaigning. Chris has knocked on doors every night for weeks upon weeks to try and make up the slack from not being able to do a mailing.
It won't be dollars that win this election, it'll be blood, sweat and tears.
Mr. Sinquefield, as noted in the previous post, is the largest political donor in the state, with total donations topping $20 million, according to the New York Times. Personally, Mr. Sinquefield has supplied 40% of the funds raised by Republican Shane Schoeller.
According to spokesperson Laura Slay, Mr. Sinquefield contributes to "political candidates who share his commitment to
education and tax policies that will improve educational and employment
opportunities for every Missourian."
In particular, Mr. Sinquefield's central "commitments" are free-market policies, local control, and tax and education reform.
The central question concerning campaign donations, and the reason characters like Mr. Sinquefield are brought to the national spotlight, is a dispute about the fundamental realities of democracy. Can a democracy serve its citizens properly when one man can donate almost half of the funds gathered by a candidate for state office? Can that candidate truly serve the interest of the public at large after his campaign has been so selectively funded?
This is the question Missouri voters need to answer themselves. Should a retired, wealthy investor, with distinct beliefs as to the future of our state, have this level of influence on our political process? Regardless of your perspective on Mr. Sinquefied's ideas, should someone of his stature be able to use his own voice to this extent?
Missouri is one of only four states in the nation to not have any limit on campaign contributions. The other three are Oregon, Utah, and Virginia.
The lack of contribution limits means that any one donor can donate an unlimited amount to any campaign, initiative, or PAC.
Earlier this year, Senator Chuck Purgason, R-Caulfield, testified before the Senate Rules, Joint Rules, Resolutions and Ethics Committee in favor of contribution limits. He believes that unlimited donations have allowed special interests to control politics in Missouri. While others share Purgason's sentiments, it is unlikely a policy change will be made any time soon.
So what does this mean for Missourians?
I'm not a sports person, but the best way I can think of to explain this situation is with a baseball/football metaphor.
In football, teams have hard salary caps and salary floors. (Or at least that's what the Wikipedia tells me...). This means that even the most well-payed players aren't making a substantially larger salary than other players.
Baseball teams don't have a salary cap, and the MLB instead just charges teams a "luxury tax" for going over a certain salary level. Over the last decade, teams with the highest salaries consistently make the playoffs more often than teams with lower salaries.
If you want to learn more about this, check out the video below.
Let's compare this to Missouri politics.
The majority of the nation is operating under the NFL model where some candidates get more money from individual donors than others. Missouri is using the MLB model where some candidates get substantially more funding that their opponents.
In politics, campaign contributions are everything. So when one candidate gets hundreds of thousands of dollars from one of their "friends," their opponent can't even begin to compete.
It also means that a select few people in Missouri basically get to make election decisions just by placing a huge chunk of money in one place.
David Humphreys, president and CEO of TAMKO Building Products, Inc, $2,396,325
William Danforth, chancellor emeritus, Washington University, $1,084,483
James & Virginia Stowers, founder of American Century Investments, $1,041,623
John McDonnell, former chairman and CEO of McDonnell Douglas, $662,433
Ethelmae Humphreys, TAMKO's chairman of the board, $659,725
Jerry Hall, executive vice president of Jack Henry and Associates, $558,650
Sam Fox, founder of the Harbour Group, $554,687
James McDonnell III, retired, $483,250
Stanley Herzog, Herzog Cos. Inc., $453,775
Because these ten people have such an impact on Missouri elections, there are some concerns about the state's corruption risks, presented by the State Integrity Investigation.
Below is Missouri's report card. As you can see, political financing received an "F" due to the lack of contribution limits.
Do you think Missouri should have contribution limits? Let us know in the comments section below.
In tonight's debate, Governor Romney and President Obama were both asked about their plans to change the prevailing trend of higher wages for men over women in comparative jobs.
The numbers are significant; median weekly earnings for women are 81.2% those of men, surveying workers who work more than 35 hours per week. If the national condition is a significant demand on the next president's attention, the prevailing in Missouri is even more striking.
According to the Bureau of Labor statistics, Missouri women's wages reached a high in 1998 when their median pay reached 80.8%, but wages have quickly dropped, staying below 80% of men's pay since 1998. Currently, women's median weekly wages are 75.2% that of men. Higher income inequality may consistently be found in more rural and agrarian areas.
Given access to higher education this graph from the Missouri Women's Report (PDF) demonstrates that more equal wages are found in more metropolitan areas, highlighting clusters around cities like Kansas City, Saint Joseph, Columbia, and Saint Louis.
In Wednesday's presidential debate, President Obama and Candidate Romney disagreed sharply on the effect that Clinton-era tax rates would have on "small businesses" taxed at the individual rate instead of the corporate rate.
President Obama argued:
Under my plan,
97% of small businesses would not see their income taxes go up.
Governor Romney says, well, those top 3%, they're the job
creators, they'd be burdened. But under Governor
Romney's definition, there are a whole bunch of millionaires and
billionaires who are small businesses. Donald Trump is a small business.
Now, I know Donald Trump doesn't like to think of himself as small
anything, but that's how you define small businesses if you're
getting business income.
To which Candidate Romney responded:
Mr. President, you're absolutely right, which is that, with regards to 97% of the businesses are not taxed at the 35% tax
rate, they're taxed at a lower rate. But those businesses that are in
the last 3% of businesses happen to employ half of all
the people who work in small business. Those are the businesses that
employ one-quarter of all the workers in America. And your plan is to
take their tax rate from 35% to 40%.
Their debate centers on "free-flow enterprises," businesses that are not taxed at the corporate rate but whose profits appear on their owners' individual income statements. These profits are taxed once, at the shareholder’s individual tax rate for ordinary income, for which the top rate is currently 35%.
The numbers Mitt Romney cited originate with a controversial paper by Ernst & Young's Drs. Robert Carroll and Gerald Prante, which claims flow-through businesses accounted for nearly 95% of all business entities and employed 54% of the workforce in 2008. Romney argues the top 3% of these flow-through businesses will fall under Obama's tax increase and hire fewer workers.
Should Missouri worry? On the IRS list of states' adjusted gross income, Missouri came in #21 with flow-through business (s-corps & partnerships) as a little under 5% of the income reported in the state.
Although Missouri is not at the top of the list in AGI made up by flow-through businesses, New York's AGI is composed of 6.4% flow-through business, and Ed Gerrish of TaxFoundation.org notes,"... Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would disproportionally draw more tax dollars from these states than others."
Rebecca McClanahan, candidate for State Representative in District 3, is facing an uphill battle when it comes to fundraising. In every election since 2006, she's been out-raised by her opponent - sometimes by three times as much. This election season is no different.
The key to winning despite this deficit, however, is in the small donations.
"I treasure the small donations," said McClanahan. "Online fundraising has given a place of honor to small donations."
McClanahan cites this as an attitudinal difference between Democrats and Republicans. Seeking out these "small donors" forces her to do more grassroots fundraising while, in her opinion, Republicans neglect retail politics because they receive larger individual donations.
The focus on small contributions doesn't mean McClanahan is only fundraising at the grassroots level. She also seeks out PACs and lobbyists with legislative goals in line with hers. These organizations are not always in a giving mood however.
Rebecca cites two reasons for her difficulties securing funding from outside groups - the economy and plain old politics.
The Recession has put a strain on PACs and large donors, forcing them to choose where to contribute based solely on the demographic statistics of the district. McClanahan is at a disadvantage by the numbers because District 3 is seen as primarily Republican.
Politics also plays a role in her fundraising stress because large donors see the race as a risky investment due to the absence of an incumbent. In addition, changes in district lines after the 2010 Census have made the District even more strongly Republican. For more information on the redistricting rulings, see the video below.
Rebecca and her campaign staff do have some suggestions for aspiring politicians raising funds in difficult districts.
First, ask the people around you. McClanahan said that you know you're ready to run when "you can turn to the person on your right and ask them for money and turn to the person on your left and ask them for money." Family and friends are great people to ask to throw a dinner or coffee on your behalf.
She also suggests asking for professional help. While most local candidates can't afford an experienced campaign manager, there are other means of learning how to fundraise. Seeking consultation and training will lead to more comfortable fundraising.
A third suggestion is to use technology to your advantage. Her campaign uses a service called ActBlue to collect funds through her website. The agency takes a small percentage of the donation as a service charge and in return presents the campaign with metrics and the necessary information for MEC filing, a bargain in McClanahan's mind.
McClanahan also suggests "just doing it." Using the phrase "ask and you will receive," she said the best way to get comfortable asking for contributions is to just start asking. It may take some time, but eventually it stops feeling like you're asking for money for yourself because the campaign becomes a cause, a higher purpose.
Campaign manager Zach Buckler suggests "dialing for dollars" in the morning and then knocking on doors in the afternoon to pursue an "all of the above" approach.
Check back next Thursday for Rebecca's thoughts on campaign contribution limits and an in-depth look at Missouri's position as only one of four states who currently impose no limits on donations.
Although the Citizens United decision was handed down in 2010, the full effects are only beginning to be felt across the country. Recently, major media outlets have cast a spotlight on Montana as Citizens United "dismantles" their political system, which was based on a general ban on corporate funds in politics.
Montana's ban had stood since 1912, when it was created to bar the flood of dollars from the booming copper industry. The ban has been overturned by the Citizens decision, prompting a backlash from Montana citizens, the press, and even Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer and Lieutenant Governor John Bohlinger.
What about Missouri? Does Citizens impact any of our existing state laws? The simple answer is "no." Even prior to Citizens, Missouri's state laws imposed no cap on campaign contributions from any source.
In addition, the federal campaign restrictions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which were overturned in the Citizens decision, "do not apply if the person is a candidate for state or local office and
the fundraising or spending refers only to that state or local candidate
or any other candidate for that same state or local office, or both."
So, even from the start, Missouri has lacked the caps on campaign contributions that Montana is so sore to lose. Has the lack of limits damaged democracy in our state?
In a recent KCUR interview, Missouri State University political science professor George Connor said, “There's been a Pandora's box opened up with respect to spending,” but he also points out that the lid to the box was "always a bit ajar." Connor points to donations topping $750,000, but argues that more legislation is not the answer.
Missouri is rural and "public-spirited" as Connor points out; we're not known to be a cesspool of corruption. How the increasingly rapid growth in contributions and significant changes in legislation affect our democracy is an issue with no clear answer. Perhaps, in the future, we will find ourselves "standing with Montanans," or we may look back, glad to see the restrictions disappearing,
