by Kevin McNellis & Pete Quist | 2011-11-29
Übersicht
The U.S. Supreme Court’s January 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision permitted corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money from their general treasuries on independent political expenditures. That decision ultimately led to the invalidation of Massachusetts’ law that had banned corporations from spending money to influence elections.
Since 2006, $17.6 million was spent independently on elections for state office in Massachusetts, most of which, or $11.9 million, was spent on state races in 2010. The money spent independently was less than one-tenth of the $201 million contributed directly to candidates over the same period.
Independent expenditures (IEs)—communications that expressly advocate for or against specific candidates—decreased by 23 percent from the comparable 2006 election—from nearly $5.2 million in 2006 to $4 million spent in 2010. However, it is not possible to compare the $7.9 million spent on electioneering communications (ECs) in 2010 to previous campaigns because ECs—those that run during election season but stop short of expressly advocating for or against a candidate—were not required to be disclosed until 2010.
This report analyzes reported independent spending data and reviews the quality of independent spending disclosure in Massachusetts.
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.
State of Disclosure in Massachusetts
Effective campaign finance disclosure is comprised of three mutually reinforcing elements: well-defined statutes, comprehensive data collection, and effective presentation. Massachusetts deserves credit for its above-average disclosure of independent spending. In the majority of cases, the state collects all of the crucial information so that the public can understand who is funding independent spending and which candidates are being targeted. It also collects and discloses the data electronically, allowing the public to see the data in an easy-to-understand format.
Independent Spending StatutesMassachusetts defines two types of independent political spending: independent expenditures (IEs) and electioneering communications (ECs). The most current definition of each type are defined in Sections 24 and 25 of the Act to Improve the Laws Relating to Campaign Finance, Ethics and Lobbying, which went into effect January 1, 2010.
Massachusetts has required the disclosure of independent expenditures since 2004, while the disclosure of electioneering communications has only been required since 2010.
Massachusetts’ definition of an independent expenditure is:
"[...] an expenditure made, or liability incurred, by an individual, group, or association for goods or services expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate which is made or incurred without cooperation or consultation with any candidate, or a nonelected political committee organized on behalf of a candidate, or any agent of a candidate and which is not made or incurred in concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, any candidate, or any nonelected political committee organized on behalf of a candidate or agent of such candidate."
This strong definition nearly matches the federal definition verbatim.
Electioneering communications (EC) are defined in Massachusetts as:
“[...] any broadcast, cable, mail, satellite or print communication that: refers to a clearly identified candidate; and is publicly distributed within 90 days before an election in which the candidate is seeking election or re-election.”
The difference between the two forms of independent spending hinges on whether or not the communication expressly advocates for or against a particular candidate.1 Independent expenditures use express advocacy, but electioneering communications do not.
Massachusetts’ EC law is in many ways stronger and more specific than the federal definition. Its 90-day disclosure timeline is longer than the federal statute, which only extends 60 days before a general election and 30 days before a primary election. It also has a lower audience disclosure threshold. The federal statute only requires disclosure of ECs when they reach an audience of 50,000 or more, while Massachusetts’ threshold is 100 people.
These definitions, on the whole, provide a strong basis for the disclosure of independent spending targeting candidates in Massachusetts.
Data CollectionGenerally speaking, there are two ways to collect independent spending data: an entity-based disclosure system and event-based disclosure system. The former requires independent spenders to register as political entities and establishes a uniform disclosure schedule. Event-based disclosure, as its name suggests, ties disclosure to the spending itself. As independent spenders purchase IEs and ECs, they are required to disclose that spending within a specific time frame.
Each system has its advantages and drawbacks. Entity-based disclosure allows the public to track each dollar contributed to and spent by independent spenders, but the reporting schedule often does not make this information available in a timely manner. Event-based disclosure, on the other hand, is timely, but lacks the completeness of entity-based disclosure.
Massachusetts has adopted both an event-based and entity-based disclosure system. The event-based system is required when an individual or an organization’s general treasury funds finance independent spending. When an organization’s PAC funds an IE or EC, however, that information is reported in the same entity-based system that PACs use to report all of their other contributions and expenditures.
All spending in the event-based system is reported on either an 18A report (Independent Expenditures) or 18F report (Electioneering Communications). Each form has to be filed any time an EC or IE worth $250 or more is purchased. Both have to be filed within seven days after the expenditure is made, unless it is after the tenth day of the month prior to an election. Then the reports have to be filed within 24 hours.2
Both the 18A and 18F reports do an excellent job of collecting data on the identity of independent spenders and disclosing information about each individual expenditure they make. In order to be considered high quality, expenditure data should include all of these basic elements:
- the identity and address of the entity making the expenditure
- the expenditure’s target
- the payee, i.e. the entity receiving the expenditure
- the purpose of the expenditure, i.e. what the expenditure purchased from the payee
- the amount of the expenditure
- the date the expenditure was made
All of this information is recorded on both the 18A and 18F reports.
The reports do a poor job, however, of disclosing contributions data, i.e. who is funding the independent spenders. The 18A does not require any disclosure of contributor information, and 18F reports only require the disclosure when a contributor specifically earmarks their contribution to fund electioneering communications—a rare occurrence. Even then, contributors do not have to disclose the amount of their contributions.
Expenditures made by an organization’s PAC and not their general treasury are reported on their regular disclosure reports, which require less disclosure of expenditure information than the 18A and 18F reports.3 For example, the 1199SEIU United Health Care Workers East (1199SEIU) reported $463,500 of independent expenditures on 18A forms in 2010. All of these expenditures identify the candidate, the 1199SEIU’s position, and what the expenditure purchased. But the 1199SEIU Massachusetts PAC, an affiliate of the larger 1199SEIU, also reported an additional $435,780 of expenditures on their regular disclosure reports that may or may not be independent expenditures or electioneering communications. All of these expenditures stated the purpose “advertising” or “phone banking,” meaning that they likely were targeting either candidates or ballot measures and, presumably, engaging in some form of electoral advocacy. But because so little information is reported, it is impossible to know whether or not these expenditures were independent or whom they were benefiting.4
In addition to disclosing less expenditure information, the reporting schedule for PACs is less timely than the 18A and 18F reports. For example, a PAC’s spending between October 16 and the 2010 general election was not reported until January 2011.
An additional wrinkle is a new type of Independent Expenditure Political Committee created after the Citizens Uniteddecision. These PACs receive and spend money for the sole purpose of making independent expenditures, but operate under the same disclosure system of regular PACs. Unlike other PACs, however, they face no contribution or expenditure limits. No IE PACs were registered until 2011.
Data Presentation and AccessThe final component of disclosure is how the data is presented and made available to the public. Massachusetts excels in this area.
All of the information reported on the 18A and 18F forms are presented in the respective electioneering communications and independent expenditure searchable databases. Each does an excellent job of clearly and efficiently representing the data so the public can easily identify independent spenders, what they are purchasing, and which candidates are being targeted.
Unlike many states’ independent spending databases, Massachusetts efficiently displays the data on a single page that is easy to read and understand. Each database’s default setting displays all of the independent spending sorted by the candidate it targets. Users can also sort the data by filer, i.e. the spender, and date.
Each line item displays the date of the expenditure, the name and address of the expenditure’s funder, their position (either support or oppose), and the amount spent. Each amount is a hyperlink that, when clicked, displays what each amount purchased and by whom. The only difference in the databases is that the electioneering communications database has no position information because ECs cannot engage in express advocacy.
PAC disclosures can be found using the state’s PAC search function. Despite the underlying incompleteness of the expenditure data, the state does an excellent job of displaying this data in an accessible and readable format.
2010 Elections in Massachusetts
$11.9 million was spent independently during Massachusetts’ 2010 election, which is nearly 15 percent compared to the money raised by candidates directly. Overall, two-thirds of the money was spent on electioneering communications ($7.9 million), with an additional $4 million on independent expenditures.
The top five spenders were labor unions and 527 organizations; combined, they accounted for 99 percent of all the independent spending in 2010.5
- The Republican Governors Association (RGA) is a 527 organization that supports Republican gubernatorial candidates nationwide. Prior to 2010, the RGA made no direct campaign contributions nor did it purchase independent expenditures in Massachusetts. All of its independent spending in 2010 was on electioneering communications that identified the three major candidates for governor: Democrat Deval Patrick, Republican Charles Baker, and independent Timothy Cahill. The RGA’s independent spending equated to 14 percent compared to the $33.5 million combined total raised by these three gubernatorial candidates.
- The Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA) is the state affiliate of the National Education Association, and is one of the largest teachers unions in the state. All of the $3.2 million the MTA spent purchased independent expenditures, 94 percent of which supported incumbent Governor Deval Patrick.
- Bay State Future, a 527 organization funded by the Democratic Governors Association, MTA, and 1199SEIU United Heathcare Workers East, purchased $3.2 million worth of electioneering communications that identified Republican candidate Charles Baker.
- 1199SEIU Healthcare Workers East is a union of healthcare workers in the home care, hospital, and nursing home industries, among others. All of this union’s independent spending supported Democratic legislative candidates.
- The Massachusetts Nurses Association (MNA) is Massachusetts’ largest nurses union, representing 23,000 members. Unlike the other top spenders, the MNA’s independent spending broadly targeted 69 candidates. Nearly all of MNA’s independent spending was in support of Democratic candidates, and was in addition to the $169,779 it made in campaign contributions.
Massachusetts’ competitive 2010 gubernatorial election received the majority of the independent spenders’ attention. Of the $11.9 million spent in 2010, $11 million6 (92 percent) identified the three major gubernatorial candidates: Deval Patrick, the Democratic incumbent; Charles Baker, the Republican challenger; and Timothy Cahill, the state’s treasurer, a Democrat who ran as an Independent. These three candidates raised $33.5 million in direct campaign contributions.
Gov. Patrick won reelection by a 48-42 percent margin. Patrick raised $12.6 million in contributions compared to Baker’s $16.6 million, but Patrick was supported by $3.1 million in independent spending compared to the $2.3 million supporting Baker.
†In cases where an independent spending transaction targets two or more candidates, Massachusetts does not require independent spending disclosure to indicate how much money targeted each candidate individually. Therefore, the figures in this table are understated. Independent spending targeting this race totaled $11 million.
Less than $1 million was spent independently in 2010 on other races, nearly all of which advocated in favor of the targeted candidates. The 1199SEIU, MNA, and MTA were the primary spenders of the top targeted legislative candidates. Independent spenders targeted 95 of the 200 legislative seats up for election in 2010.
- Daniel Wolf is a first-term senator elected in 2010. The independent expenditures supporting him equated to 17 percent of the $523,479 he raised in direct contributions. The 1199SEIU, MNA, and MTA were the largest spenders supporting Wolf.
- Katherine Clark was first elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives in 2008, and won a senate seat in 2010. Independent expenditures supporting her were equated to nearly one-quarter of the $366,028 contributions she raised. Once again, the MNA, 1199SEIU, and MTA were the largest funders of supportive independent expenditures.
- Denise Garlick won election to the Massachusetts House of Representatives in 2010. The amount of independent expenditures supporting her equated to 70 percent of the amount she received in direct contributions. Like the above senate candidates, the MNA, 1199SEIU, and MTA were the largest funders of independent expenditures supporting Garlick.
- Therese Murray was first elected to the Massachusetts Senate in 1992 and became the first woman president of the senate in 2007. The money spent independently to support her campaign was six percent compared to the money she raised directly. The MNA, 1199SEIU, and MTA provided independent expenditures supporting Murray. She won reelection over Republican Thomas Francis Keyes by a five-point margin.
- Sal DiDomenico won a special election to the state senate in May 2010,7 and was re-elected in November 2010. He was targeted by $10,569 in April, and was targeted by $22,951 in August through October. All independent spending targeting DiDomenico supported him. His biggest benefactor was the 1199SEIU, which supported him with $29,234 in independent spending, including all of the April spending.
2008 Elections in Massachusetts
It is difficult to assess just how much money was spent independently in 2008, since disclosure of the money spent on ECs was not required. What is known is that four spenders made 212 independent expenditures in 2008, totaling $574,538. Three of the four spenders were labor unions that accounted for nearly all of the independent spending.
- 1199SEIU’s independent expenditures supported 38 Democratic legislative candidates. The most it spent on a candidate was $35,927, but in general the union spent less than $10,000 on most of the candidates it targeted. Its independent expenditures far exceeded the $47,000 it contributed to candidates in Massachusetts.
- All of the Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA)’s independent spending supported 14 Democratic legislative candidates and one independent legislative candidate. The independent spending targeting candidates was more than six times the $19,525 they contributed directly to Massachusetts candidates in 2008.
- Massachusetts Nurses Association (MNA)’s independent expenditures supported 15 Democratic legislative candidates and opposed two Republican candidates and one Democratic candidate. Like the MTA, the MNA’s independent spending exceeded their campaign contributions to candidates.
- James Timilty is the Democratic senator from the Bristol and Norfolk District, and has held the office since 2004. The independent expenditures spent on his behalf equaled 41 percent compared to his 2008 campaign contributions. His independent supporters were the 1199SEIU, which spent $35,927, and the MTA, which spent $29,791.
- Sara Orozco was an unsuccessful Democratic challenger to incumbent Scott Brown for the Norfolk, Bristol, and Middlesex District’s senate seat. The 1199SEIU independently spent $34,918 supporting Orozco, with the MNA providing an additional $9,740 in support.
- Douglas Belanger ran for senate in the Democratic primary for the Second Worcester District, but lost to Michael Moore. The MTA, 1199SEIU, and MNA purchased all of the independent expenditures supporting Belanger.
- Dianne Wilkerson was the Democratic incumbent senator representing the Second Suffolk District, an office she had held since 1993. The MTA and 1199SEIU purchased all of the independent expenditures supporting Wilkerson. She lost to Sonia Chang-Diaz, and shortly thereafter Wilkerson was arrested by the FBI on public corruption charges. She is currently serving a 3½ year prison term.
- James Eldridge served three terms in the Massachusetts House of Representatives before becoming the senator representing the Middlesex and Worcester District. 1199SEIU funded nearly all of the independent expenditures supporting his senate candidacy. Those IEs were only 7 percent compared to Eldridge’s campaign contributions. 1199SEIU spent $22,393 and the MNA spent $2,674.
2006 Elections in Massachusetts
Fifteen entities made independent expenditures in 2006, totaling $5.2 million, exceeding the total amount of IEs made in 2010.8
Unions made nearly all the independent expenditures in 2006, with three—the Massachuseetts Teachers Association, Massachusetts Nurses Association, and the 1199SEIU—accounting for 98 percent of the money spent.
- The Massachusetts Teachers Association’s (MTA) independent expenditures focused on the gubernatorial race, with 98 percent of its independent expenditures targeting Deval Patrick. The remaining two percent targeted 10 Democratic legislative candidates. The MTA’s independent expenditures far exceed the $15,475 it directly contributed to candidates in 2006.
- 1199SEIU’s independent expenditures were also focused on the governor’s race. The union spent $1.5 million on advertisements targeting Deval Patrick and another $476,362 targeting Attorney General Thomas Reilly, one of Patrick’s opponents in the Democratic primary. All of 1199SEIU’s independent expenditures targeting Patrick and Reilly either supported them or did not specify a position. The remaining $289,408 was spent on 54 Democratic legislative candidates. Like the MTA, the1199SEIU’s independent expenditures far exceeded its campaign contributions in Massachusetts.
- The Massachusetts Nurses Association (MNA), like the other top spending unions, focused on the governor’s race, spending $92,745 targeting Deval Patrick and Tim Murray. In addition to its spending on the governor’s race, the MNA also targeted 66 legislative candidates, 60 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 1 write-in candidate. The most it spent targeting a single candidate was $4,023. The MNA’s independent spending far exceeded the $38,050 it made in direct contributions in 2006.
- Deval Patrick never held elected office before running for governor of Massachusetts in 2006. He beat out Thomas Reilly and Chris Gabrieli in a three-way Democratic primary, and went on to defeat the Republican incumbent, Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, in the general election.9
- Thomas Reilly was another Democratic candidate for governor in 2006. As the incumbent attorney general, he was viewed as the early favorite to win the Democratic nomination, but ended up losing to Deval Patrick. The 1199SEIU purchased $476,362 worth of independent expenditures identifying Reilly.
- Timothy Murray, previously a Worcester city councilman and mayor, defeated two primary opponents to win the Democratic nomination for lieutenant governor.
Unions funded the majority of these independent expenditures. The MTA independently spent $2.5 million and the 1199SEIU spent $1.5 million.
Fazit
Because of the new requirement that electioneering communications be disclosed in 2010, reported independent spending increased dramatically during Massachusetts’ 2010 elections, despite the decrease in express advocacy independent expenditures spending from 2006 to 2010.
Massachusetts’ independent spending data is much more comprehensive than it was in the past, because it now requires disclosure of electioneering communications as well as independent expenditures. In addition, the state is a leader in making the majority of its independent spending data accessible in such a way that the public can quickly see what entities are spending independently and who they are targeting.
The problem, however, is that Massachusetts uses two different reporting systems, depending on whether an entity uses its general treasury or a PAC to purchase an IE or EC. Currently, spenders using PACs or IE PACs have to disclose substantially less information in a less timely fashion than individuals or organizations funding independent spending via general treasury funds. All independent spending data, whether funded by general treasury or PAC funds, should be disclosed within the existing EC and IE database. Until the differences between these two systems are rectified, Massachusetts’ existing independent spending database will not reach its full potential for transparency. Having all independent spending and electioneering communications disclosed under the newer, more rigorous system used to document general treasury spending could ensure the Massachusetts public can easily see the full extent of independent spenders’ activity.
- 1. The U.S. Supreme Court’s Buckley v. Valeo decision created the so-called “magic words” definition of express advocacy. They include: “vote for," "elect," "support," "cast your ballot for," "Smith for Congress," "vote against," "defeat," or "reject."
- 2. “Filing Schedules,” Office of Campaign & Political Finance, available from http://www.mass.gov/ocpf/, accessed October 14, 2011.
- 3. To view these forms, click on the “Forms & Publications” tab in the left-hand column of the OCPF’s website. PACs file “Non-Depository” reports, which are listed under the “Campaign Finance and Reporting Forms and Instructions” subheading.
- 4. Only information reported on 18A and 18F forms are included in this report’s analyses.
- 5. 527s are political organizations organized under section 527 of the U.S. tax code, whose primary purpose is to influence the outcome of elections.
- 6. While the data from Massachusetts makes it possible to identify how much independent spending targeted the 2010 gubernatorial contest, it is not possible to identify how much was spent targeting each candidate if the transaction targeted two or all three candidates. Because of this, the table that follows understates the figures for the specific candidates.
- 7. John Laidler, “New job, familiar turf for senator,” Boston Globe, May 16, 2010, available from http://www.boston.com/yourtown/revere/articles/2010/05/16/new_job_familiar_turf_for_senator/, accessed September 10, 2012.
- 8. This statement includes only independent expenditures in 2010 and excludes electioneering communications in order to draw a direct comparison. Electioneering communications were not required to be disclosed before 2010.
- 9. “General Election Results,” National Institute on Money in State Politics, available from http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/state_election_results.phtml?s=MA&y=2006#fGOVERNOR%20/%20LIEUTENANT%20GOVERNORSW, accessed October 18, 2011.
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!