A variety of people have requested information on how to track campaign spending. Here are a few of my personal favorites. I would love to hear if you have others to suggest.
Center for Responsive Politics
My all-time favorite tracking tool for campaign spending is OpenSecrets.org, run by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Their search engine could use some work, but the information is generally there for those willing to dig a little deeper.
Influence Explorer is a great tool courtesy of the Sunlight Foundation. It doesn't provide as much detail as OpenSecrets.org, but it's a great starting point to see overall spending and relationships.
MAPLight.org
The MAPLight.org web site is another great resource. I find it particularly useful for tracking Californian politicians, my home state. Here are some of the things that I can find using MAPLight.
Influence Tracker is a fun tool courtesy of Wired Magazine, MAPLight, and OpenSecrets.org. Enter the name of a federal-level politician, last name first. It then creates a web page showing the contributions to the politician and (my personal favorite), a NASCAR-like shirt with the logos of the largest contributors.
The text box in the lower left corner includes code so that you can embed the result in your own website. Here's an example screen capture for Harry Reid, who is running for U.S. Senate in Nevada.
Don't confuse Influence Tracker with Influence Explorer listed above.
National Institute on Money in State Politics
FollowTheMoney.org is another good site that is very complementary to OpenSecrets.org, which focuses primarily on national races.
CampaignMoney.com
I find the CampaignMoney.com site itself difficult, but it often comes up during Google searches. It only shows contributions to a campaign, and not spending with a PAC or a 527 committee.
I find it easiest to enter a search string directly in the browser address field. For example, here is a search for George Soros spending during the current election cycle. This gives you the general pattern.
The Huffington Post FundRace tool is another tracking tool for campaign donations. It has some relatively good top-level tracking tools on where money is going by occupation and city.
NPR
Here's an oldie but goodie from NPR dated from 2008. NPR has had some good journalism about "shadow money" (examples here and here), but I do have some concerns about possible corrupting influence going forward due to the Soros/Open Society Foundation investment.
Many political pundits and even the President and Vice-President themselves are decrying the amount of money being spent behind the scenes in the 2010 election. I happen to agree, as I have been concerned about this for about a decade now. Nearly half a trillion dollars, some $480 million, was spent just on 527 committee activity in the 2004, 2006, 2008, and so far in the 2010 elections.
However, look at who and which organizations are spending behind the scenes by examining the contribution to 527 political organizations, otherwise known as "soft money." This money is not subject to the same legal constraints as direct contributions to a state or national candidate.
Fortunately, organizations like the Center for Responsive Politics (www.OpenSecrets.org) scour the required campaign disclosure statements and publish the results.
Here are the total for the top contributors to 527 committees for the time period covering the 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2010 election cycles. Obviously, not all the 2010 contributions are included as the 2010 election is still in progress.
Those contributing to the Victory Campaign 2004 (not to be confused with the Joint Victory Campaign) were primarily smaller donors.
Nine of the top ten donors gives primarily to Democratic Party candidates. The one Republican-oriented group is Perry Homes. Robert J. Perry is perhaps most infamously known for the Swiftboat campaign against John Kerry in the 2004 Presidential race.
It is also interesting to see the contributions by election cycle. It becomes obvious that SEIU is the dominant 527 committee donor. It also becomes obvious of the huge sums spent in the 2004 and 2008 elections, which were Presidential election years.
The Twitterverse and various blogs were ablaze today (13-AUG-2010) about a supposed list of U.S. Congressmen and Congresswomen that are members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Most of this can be traced back to the following blog link.
Is it true? The blog claims that the list appeared in a now-unavailable October 2009 newsletter. The blog does contain a link to an alleged copy of the web site on Scribd.com as proof of the allegation.
I was unable to find an independently verifiable copy of the supposed newsletter.
Are the various members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus actually socialists? I cannot make that claim based on the evidence. However, one member, Senator Bernie Sanders, is officially labeled "Independent" but is a self-described socialist--as mentioned on his Senate web page in a biographical newspaper article. Strangely, I agree with Senator Sanders on auditing the Federal Reserve Bank, but then again, so do many in both the House and the Senate.
Another member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, had a revealing slip-of-the-tongue during testimony, as shown in the following video.
While I cannot say whether the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are indeed members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), I can say that the DSA tends to support the policies of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
In a frequently-asked questions document from the DSA website titled "What is Democratic Socialism?", on page 3, the DSA answers the question, "Aren't you a party that's in competition with the Democratic Party for votes and support?"
"No, we are not a separate party. Like our friends and allies in the feminist, labor, civil rights, religious, and community organizing movements, many of us have been active in the Democratic Party. We work with those movements to strengthen the party’s left wing, represented by the Congressional Progressive Caucus."
It is also interesting to see that DSA's "friends and allies" in labor are major campaign contributors to members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
My Congressman, Sam Farr, is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. According to the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org), his major campaign contributors are from out-of-state political action committees (PACs) associated with public-employee unions and labor unions. The United Auto Workers (UAW) and Aerospace Workers Union are particularly interesting because Santa Cruz, California has neither automobile or aircraft manufacturing. Many of the organizations have ties back to the AFL-CIO, which itself has ties to American socialism. Unanswered question: Are organizations like the AAJ, the National Association of Realtors, and American Medical Association (AMA) also considered trade unions?
American Association for Justice (AAJ) $82,000 (formerly known as the "Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA) )"
Looking at the campaign donations for other members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the pattern is similar (see full list as the end of the article). In fact, public-employee and labor unions are some of the largest political donors, and mostly to a single political party. I wonder how many union members are happy that their mandatory union dues help fund the campaigns of the Congressional Progressive Caucus?
I must admit a strong personal bias against some on the list. As a free-market Constitutionalist that believes in small, limited government, more local control, and sane fiscal policy, their political views likely differ significantly from my own. Judging from the mission statement on their web site, I likely agree on the problems but also likely disagree with their proposed solutions.
I have similar disdain for many Congressmen/women from my own state of California, including Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Congressman Pete Stark, Congressman Henry Waxman, and Congresswoman Linda Sánchez. Speaker Pelosi is no longer an active member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. She gave up her membership when she became Speaker of the House (although I'll bet she is still with them in spirit). I was surprised to see Congressman Mike Honda on the member list (maybe I need to change my opinion of him). Seeing so many California Congressmen/women on the list may explain why California is such an economic basket case.
Using information from the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org), I separated the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus into four groups, based on a subjective review of his or her major contributors. Where appropriate, there is a link to an associated video highlight of the Congressman's/women's sheer brilliance.
[YES] = Most top campaign contributors are public-employee or labor unions [MOSTLY] = Many top campaign contributors are public-employee or labor unions [MIXED] = Some top campaign contributors are public-employee or labor unions, but some are not [NO] = Few top campaign contributors are public-employee or labor unions
True enough, but I disagree with the implication of the article, which is too simplistic in my opinion. You have to look at the CONCENTRATION of all that money. The business community is a diverse group, with some common interests, and some interests specific to a given industry. Businesses tend to give roughly evenly to both parties while labor unions give overwhelmingly (over six times mores) to a single party, the Democrats.
Think those business contributions help Republican candidates? For the sake of argument, lets add the combination of business contributions plus union contributions, using the numbers from the article. The union money swamps any advantage to the Republicans.
Republicans: 50.61% (47.22% biz, 3.39% union)
Democrats: 57.94% (36.23% biz, 21.71% union)
According to campaign finance web site maplight.org, here are the top interest groups that contribute to California state politicians. I think that it becomes fairly obvious that some of our elected "public servants" have become servants of the public employee unions. http://maplight.org/california
Construction unions: $4,668,606
Attorneys & law firms: $2,839,023
STATE & LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE UNIONS: $2,683,162
POLICE & FIRE FIGHTERS UNIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS: $2,367,871
Native American tribes & governing units: $1,838,174
Property & casualty insurance: $1,565,431
Telecommunications: $1,354,935
TEACHERS UNIONS: $1,299,214
Pharmaceutical manufacturing: $1,219,631
Physicians: $1,062,987
Of these groups, here are the ones that are employed by state, county, or local governments. Some of the construction unions also indirectly receive state benefits for government contracts, although that is more difficult to track. Many state and local projects MANDATE union-only employees.
Click the link to see who received money from each type of interest group.
CALIFORNIA STATE COUNCIL OF SERVICE EMPLOYEES $14,400 (SEIU)
CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION $14,400 (CTA)
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES $14,200 (AFSCME)
CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS $11,901
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION $11,500
SERVICE EMPLOYEES LOCAL 1000 $9,200 (SEIU)
CALIFORNIA FEDERATION OF TEACHERS $8,300 (CFT)
Still don't think that union money matters? Let's see which groups are the heaviest hitters in California politics, according to the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC).
These same trends continue at the national level. Here is a list of the Top 100 Political contributors. Note the organization and how much of their spending goes to a single party.
