Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Dem Rep signs on as chief-co of anti-prog tax rez
Next Post: *** UPDATED x4 *** There’s only one way to get this done by Monday
Posted in:
* Illinois PIRG…
Analysis of pre-primary campaign finance reports for 45 candidates in 15 state house races in 14 state legislative districts shows that 86 percent of money raised came from donors giving $1,000 or more, while only 5 percent came from donors giving less than $150. The selection of races was chosen for its geographic diversity, includes both Republican & Democratic primary contests, as well as races with and without incumbents. More details and analysis available here.
Candidates who ultimately won in these 15 races received 92 percent of their campaign funds from big donors giving $1,000 or more, and only 2 percent from donors giving $150 or less.
While the candidate with the most money does not always win, primary results show that 12 of the 15 contested races across the 14 districts were won by the candidate with the most resources.
“After Citizens United, there is little we can do to limit candidates funding their campaigns by relying on a small number of mega-donors, and as a result we see the impact of big money at all levels, including state legislative districts,” said Illinois PIRG Education Fund Advocate Hannah Kim. “However, through a small donor matching program, we can ensure voters have real choices on the ballot. Small donor matching programs can help candidates with broad support but without access to or support from big donors to remain competitive with candidates funded by big-money.”
Even without self-funding candidates as wealthy as Governor Rauner or J.B. Pritzker, these state legislative district races mimic the pattern of big-money fundraising apparent in the broader, statewide races for Attorney General and Governor. While there is some variation among candidates, across the board the bulk of campaign funds raised have come from a small, wealthy pool of donors who have resources to give at levels the average citizen cannot afford.
This “money primary” is why good government groups have coalesced around small donor matching programs, which allow candidates to run competitive campaigns even if they do not have access to, or choose to forgo, big money. There are successful, proven models to empower small donors so that their voices play a more central role in our democracy. For example, in New York City’s 2013 city council campaigns, small donors were responsible for 61 percent of participating candidates’ contributions when funds from a matching program are included. Similar program have been recently approved at the county level in Maryland and in Washington DC.
A few takeaways from their race-by-race analysis. 4th House District Democratic primary winner Delia Ramirez received 14 percent of her money from contributions of $150 or less. Curtis Tarver, who won the 25th House District Democratic primary, received 20 percent of his cash from those small contributions. But they were obvious exceptions.
* The big problem with this report is it doesn’t include the millions of dollars spent this cycle on independent expenditures, so some of these races look really lopsided when they actually weren’t. And that leads me to this…
With the news about today’s subject matter hearing for HB 5531—the bill introduced by Representative Kelly Cassidy in the Illinois House of Representatives to create a statewide Small Donor Match program—Illinois PIRG Education Fund decided to expand its previous analysis on campaign contributions to more State House races.
The bill provides state matching funds of up to $150,000 if candidates raise six times that amount in increments between $25 and $150. Sounds good, but despite doing pretty well Curtis Tarver only raised $29K in contributions of $150 and under. He’d only qualify for $4,800 in matching funds. As noted in comments, he’d qualify for the full $150K. But that’s peanuts in this era of million-dollar independent expenditures.
If somebody is out there spending hundreds of thousands of dollars against you, you’re gonna need a lot more money than that. And raising contributions in small amounts is costly and takes a lot of time and effort.
Hey, if they want to do it, then I’m fine. But candidates should be able to opt out if an outside group comes at them hard.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 10:11 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Dem Rep signs on as chief-co of anti-prog tax rez
Next Post: *** UPDATED x4 *** There’s only one way to get this done by Monday
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
**Hey, if they want to do it, then I’m fine. But candidates should be able to opt out if an outside group comes at them hard.**
Clarify?
The bill is already opt-in. Are you saying they should be able to opt-out after they opt-in?
**The bill provides state matching funds of up to $150,000 if candidates raise six times that amount in increments between $25 and $150. … but despite doing pretty well Curtis Tarver only raised $29K in contributions of $150 and under. He’d only qualify for $4,800 in matching funds.**
Its the opposite. You don’t get 1/6th of a match. You get a 6:1 match. So Tarver could have received the max of $150k, because he would have been eligible to receive $174k in 6:1 match dollars, with a $150k cap.
Comment by SaulGoodman Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 10:30 am
===Are you saying they should be able to opt-out after they opt-in? ===
Yes. Most definitely. And I’ll change the other item. Thanks!
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 10:33 am
Thanks for covering our analysis Rich. We agree independent expenditures are important and have included that in other analysis we’ve done, including our other most recent report on money in the general assembly primaries.
https://illinoispirgedfund.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/2018%20March%20Primary%20MIP%20Report_%20IL%20State%20Leg.%20Races_0.pdf
Comment by Abe Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 12:55 pm