Übersicht
Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. FEC ruling, Connecticut prohibited the use of corporate treasury funds for independent spending but permitted the use of union funds.1 In response to the ruling, the Connecticut General Assembly lifted the corporate ban.2 The new law, Public Act 10-187, was in effect during the 2010 elections.
This report first examines the state’s independent spending disclosure rules, practices, and data availability, and then provides an analysis of the independent spending in Connecticut in 2008 and 2010. An analysis of 2006 spending was not feasible because independent spenders were not readily identifiable at that time.
Because Connecticut’s definition of “independent expenditure” includes both direct advocacy communications and expenditures commonly refered to as “electioneering communications,” which do not expressly advocate for or against a candidate,3 both forms of spending are reported in Connecticut.
Unfortunately, most of the independent spending reports failed to clearly identify the target of that spending, although this information was required. This rendered impossible an analysis of the impact the independent spending had on the outcome of specific races.
Reported independent spending totaled $814,104 in 2010 and $410,064 in 2008. However, since statewide offices were not up for election in 2008, it is difficult to make comparisons of the spending between the two elections.
Direct mailings constituted the largest single use of independent expenditures, accounting for $190,853, or 16 percent of the spending. Other independent spending included printing expenses, consultants, polling and surveys, and fundraisers. Of interest, broadcast media expenses totaled just $2,850.
Methodology
The National Institute on Money in State Politics collected independent expenditure reports filed by individuals and committees with state disclosure agencies in states that provide robust disclosure. These states define “independent expenditure” and/or “electioneering communication” in statute at least as thoroughly as the federal definition.
The Institute used the information provided on disclosure reports to assign an occupation code to the filers. When that information was not provided, staff conducted additional research to determine a filer’s economic interest, where possible. The occupation codes are based on the Standard Industrial Classification system used by the federal government.
If an expenditure listed multiple targets, and the amount paid did not specify how much was attributable to each target, the target amount was left blank. Therefore, the total spent on each target may be under-reported.
The Institute does not equate money spent in opposition to one candidate with money spent in support of that candidate’s opponent and instead discusses the money spent on each race. Only expenditures made for the purpose of influencing state elections were collected and analyzed for this report. Whenever the Institute was able to determine that the target of an independent expenditure was a candidate for a local or federal office rather than a state office, the Institute did not include that expenditure in its analysis. Independent expenditures that did not disclose a target were assumed to be targeting a candidate for state office.
Connecticut’s independent spending disclosure does not differentiate between spending that expressly advocates for or against a candidate and spending that clearly identifies a candidate without expressly advocating for or against that candidate. Therefore, the discussion of “independent expenditures” throughout this report includes both forms of communications.
This report examines independent spending in 2008 and 2010. 2006 is not included because there is no listing of the filers that reported independent expenditures that year.
State of Disclosure in Connecticut
Connecticut requires expenditures to be reported if they are “[...] made for the purpose of influencing the nomination for election, or election, of any person or for the purpose of aiding or promoting the success or defeat of any referendum question or on behalf of any political party.” An expenditure also must be reported if it is “[a]ny advertisement that (A) refers to one or more clearly identified candidates, (B) is broadcast by radio or television other than on a public access channel, or appears in a newspaper, magazine or on a billboard, and (C) is broadcast or appears during the ninety-day period preceding the date of a primary or an election, other than a commercial advertisement that refers to an owner, director or officer of a business entity who is also a candidate and that had previously been broadcast or appeared when the owner, director or officer was not a candidate.” The expenditure is reported as an independent expenditure if it “[...] is made without the consent, coordination, or consultation of, a candidate or agent of the candidate, candidate committee, political committee or party committee.”4
Independent expenditures are easily identifiable in Connecticut. Political committees identify independent expenditures on their regular campaign finance reports, while individuals and other entities (such as corporations or unions) file independent expenditure reports.5
Connecticut provides a search for independent expenditures on its website. Since the state also keys in information from reports filed on paper-filed campaign finance reports, independent expenditures reported on paper or filed electronically can be found using this search. However, the information that is yielded from this search does not include the date of the transactions; dates are only available by examining an image of each individual report.6
The target of the spending and the position of the spender are commonly lacking in Connecticut. Seventy percent—$846,856 of the $1.2 million in independent expenditures—did not identify the candidate targeted by the expenditure and $833,624 did not disclose whether the expenditure was made in support or opposition to the target. Without target or position reported, the public is unable to acquire an understanding of the impact independent spending may - or may not - have had on the outcome of the targeted elections. Absent this information, any examination of amounts spent targeting specific candidates or races will be incomplete.
In those instances where targets were reported, the expenditures almost always targeted only one candidate. In the rare cases where expenditures had multiple targets, it was not possible to identify the amount used to target each candidate.
Top Independent Spenders in Connecticut, 2008–2010
Of the 183 entities that made independent expenditures during the two elections, just five were responsible for nearly half of the $1.2 million spent.
2010 Elections in Connecticut
Independent expenditures in Connecticut totaled $814,104 in 2010, which is less than 2 percent compared to the $54.7 million raised directly by candidates.
Independent spending by the Connecticut State Council of Service Employees totaled $181,404 in 2010, accounting for 22 percent of all the independent spending in 2010. Including this organization, five spenders were responsible for 47 percent of the independent expenditures.
The top spenders allocated 34 times more money to independent expenditures than they gave directly to candidates. The Connecticut State Council of Service Employees and the Connecticut Association of Realtors reported target information for each of their expenditures, which was not the norm overall.
The $181,404 spent by the Connecticut State Council of Service Employees supported Democrat Dannel P. Malloy in the race for the open gubernatorial seat. Malloy defeated Republican Tom Foley in a close race, despite raising substantially less money in direct contributions.
The Connecticut Association of Realtors spent $52,287 supporting Democratic candidates in five legislative races. Their biggest beneficiary was Senate District 18 candidate Andrew Maynard, targeted by $19,145.
It is not known what races were targeted by the other three top spenders—Service Employees Local 32BJ, the House Republican Campaign Committee, and the Orange Republican Town Committee—since they disclosed very few targets of their expenditures. This was common in 2010: targets were identified for only 29 percent ($238,011 of $814,104) of the independent spending.
2008 Elections in Connecticut
Independent expenditures in Connecticut totaled $410,064 in 2008,7 about 4 percent of the $11 million raised directly by candidates.
Independent spending by the Connecticut Association of Realtors totaled $81,030, accounting for one-fifth of all the independent spending. Including this organization, the top five independent spenders were responsible for 55 percent of the money spent independently.
As in 2010, the top spenders gave comparatively little in direct contributions to candidates. The independent spending reported by these five groups was 55 times as much as they spent on direct contributions.
The Connecticut Association of Realtors, which revealed targets of all their spending, spent $81,030 supporting candidates in 11 legislative races. This group supported candidates on both sides of the aisle. In fact, the two candidates this group spent the most supporting were a Democrat and a Republican. Democratic Senate District 18 candidate Andrew Maynard was the beneficiary of $17,209, and Republican Senate District 28 candidate John McKinney was the beneficiary of $10,665. Both of these candidates won their races.
The Mohegan Sun casino, which also reported all their targets, supported candidates in 13 legislative races, and did not target any one race substantially more than the others. Like the Connecticut Association of Realtors, Mohegan Sun supported candidates of either party, depending on the race.
The House Republican Campaign Committee, the New England Regional Council of Carpenters, and the Orange Republican Town Committee did not disclose any of their targets. This was common in 2008: targets were identified for only 31 percent ($127,618 of the $410,064) of the independent spending that year.
Fazit
Connecticut requires the reporting of independent expenditures and electioneering communications, in theory providing a complete picture of how much money is spent independently on state races. Independent spending in 2008 and 2010 totaled $1.2 million, with almost half of the money spent by just five of the 183 independent spenders.
However, although the targets of any independent spending are required to be clearly disclosed, this information was lacking for about 70 percent of the independent spending reports. Identifying both the target and whether the expenditure is made to support or oppose the target are fundamental aspects of independent spending disclosure. Absent information about the targets, a robust analysis of the impact this spending had on state elections is not possible.
- 1. “State Laws Affected by Citizens United,” National Conference of State Legislatures, Jan. 4, 2011, available from http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=19607#laws, accessed Oct. 27, 2011.
- 2. Public Act 10-187, Connecticut General Assembly, available from http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/ACT/PA/2010PA-00187-R00HB-05471-PA.htm, accessed Oct. 27, 2011.
- 3. Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 9-601b and Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 9-601c, available from http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap155.htm, accessed Oct. 27, 2011.
- 4. Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 9-601b and Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 9-601c, available from http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap155.htm, accessed Oct. 27, 2011.
- 5. Political committees use Form 20, individuals use Form 22, and other entities use Form 26. These forms can all be viewed at http://www.ct.gov/seec/cwp/view.asp?a=3557&Q=420030&PM=1.
- 6. In order to capture date information, the Institute identified reports that contained independent expenditures using the independent expenditure search function, printed the online images of those reports, and manually entered the transactions into its database.
- 7. This includes $3,713 by Love Makes a Family to target a ballot measure committee, the only independent spending that identified a target other than a candidate.
Clearly, you're interested in following the money.
It costs more than $2 million a year to provide these verifiable facts about money in politics.
Do you know we simply give it to you, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
How often does that happen elsewhere in your life?
Please donate. You'll help us keep democracy transparent!