by Institute Staff | 2013-10-10
Übersicht
Many eyes are on the case currently unfolding before the Supreme Court, McCutcheon v. FEC, which challenges aggregate limits on how much money individuals can give to federal candidates, political parties, and PACs, combined. If the Court determines that these aggregate limits are an abridgement of free speech, that ruling will likely lead states to dismantle similar limits at the state level.
The National Institute on Money in State Politics found that a mere fraction of one percent of individual donors gave the maximum contributions allowed in the nine states that imposed aggregate limits during the 2010 and 2012 elections. The nine states were Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
During the 2012 elections, nine donors in two states gave the maximum amount allowed by state’s aggregate limit. The 2010 elections saw 159 donors in four states gave the maximum aggregate limit. Though few in number, these donors may be able to have an even larger impact on state elections if these state aggregate limits are lifted.
Currently, federal rules limit the aggregate amounts individuals can give to federal candidates and committees. Opponents claim that such limits violate the First Amendment. Supporters argue that aggregate limits prevent transfer of funds between committees, a practice that can essentially render contribution limits meaningless and lead, they argue, to corruption.
In September 2012, the Washington, D.C. District Court heard McCutcheon v. FEC and upheld the constitutionality of aggregate contribution limits. The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court, which began hearing oral arguments on Tuesday, October 8. If the Court invalidates the federal law, similar aggregate limits that exist in the nine states may be overturned, as when 24 states overturned their limits after the Supreme Court invalidated federal limits on corporate independent expenditures in Citizens United v. FEC.
Methodology
For this report, the Institute searched through its database of contributions to state-level candidates and party committees, looking for donors who gave at or above states’ aggregate maximums. If a state’s limits applied separately to each calendar year of an election cycle, any contributor who hit the maximum aggregate limit in one year was identified as having hit the aggregate limit for that cycle.
Information is based on contributions data collected by the Institute as of September 16, 2013. Additional contributions in Connecticut added after September 16 were not included in this analysis.
Contributions from donors are detailed in the campaign finance reports filed by the candidate committees with the respective state agencies. While the Institute made every effort to collect records of returned contributions, it is not always possible to identify all returned contributions. Therefore, money from donors who appear to have exceeded the limit may have been returned, bringing them into compliance.
In four states—Arizona, New York, Rhode Island, Wisconsin—the aggregate limits cap contributions to candidates, party committees, and PACs combined. Since the Institute does not have contributions data from PACs and all party committees, the figures in those four states are conservative; there may be additional individuals who met the aggregate limits by giving to some combination of candidates, party committees, and PACs.
Aggregate Limits in Nine States, 2010 and 2012
The Institute examined contributions from individual donors to state campaigns during the 2010 and 2012 elections in the nine states that imposed aggregate limits on individual donors: Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Wyoming (Appendix A).1
During the 2012 elections, nine donors in two states—Arizona and Rhode Island—gave the maximum amount allowed by the state’s law. These nine individuals represented a mere fraction of the approximately 244,000 individual donors who gave to races in the seven states that imposed aggregate limits during the 2012 elections. No donor reached the maximum aggregate limit in the five other states that held elections in 2012.2
Similar results were seen during the 2010 elections. Just 159 donors in four states bumped up against the maximum aggregate limit, while no donor reached the aggregate limits in the five other states (Table 1). The 159 individuals who reached the aggregate limits represented two-hundredths of one percent of the approximately 731,000 individual donors. Together, they gave nearly $1.7 million, or one percent of the $179 million given by individuals in these nine states. Further, eight of every ten donors who maxed out (129 total) were contributors to state campaigns in Wisconsin.
**Contributors who gave to Wisconsin campaigns in 2012 were excluded because the complexity of Wisconsin law regarding the application of limits during and prior to recall elections makes accurate analysis nearly impossible. See Wisconsin statute s. 11.26(13m) and s. 11.26(17) for more information.
Two Examples: Wisconsin and Maryland
The effects of the aggregate limits vary from state to state and are impacted by each state’s other contribution limits.
For the federal law, and some of the states (like Massachusetts), the aggregate limit effectively prevents one individual from giving maximum contributions to hundreds of candidates. The limits work differently in Wisconsin, which effectively prevents anyone who gave the maximum amount to any statewide candidate from donating to any other candidate. Splitting the difference are states such as Maryland, where a donor can hit the aggregate limit after maxing out to two or three candidates. (See Appendix A for a summary of aggregate limits in all nine states.)
Wisconsin
In Wisconsin, individuals may not give more than $10,000 to a statewide candidate, $1,000 to a senate candidate, or $500 to a house candidate during their election campaign, which covers both their primary and general elections.3 In addition, individuals may not contribute more than $10,000 each calendar year to any combination of Wisconsin candidates or political committees.4
Since most contributions are made during the year of the election, the aggregate limit effectively bars those contributors who give the maximum to a statewide candidate from contributing to any other candidate for state office.
During the 2010 elections, 129 contributors hit Wisconsin’s aggregate limit, representing 81 percent of all donors who hit the aggregate limit in their respective states. Together, these donors gave nearly $1.4 million. The vast majority (89 percent) of the $1.4 million was given to gubernatorial candidates.
The 2011–2012 elections were largely dominated by the recall elections for governor, lieutenant governor, and four state senators, where the state’s aggregate limits did not consistently apply.5 A Wisconsin resident is currently challenging the limits, saying that banning any other contributions after one maximum contribution violates the First Amendment. The Wisconsin State Legislature is also currently considering a bill that would double the limits for a statewide candidate and increase the aggregate limits to $20,000.
Maryland
In Maryland, an individual may give up to $4,000 to any candidate in a four-year election cycle, and no more than $10,000 to all candidates combined. High-dollar donors must either concentrate their giving to a few candidates or make smaller contributions to multiple candidates.
In the 2010 election cycle, seven individuals gave the maximum amount to Maryland candidates, together giving $86,428.6 Four of the donors concentrated their giving on five or fewer candidates, while the other three spread their support among a dozen or more candidates. Joel Rozner, the largest among them, gave more than $15,000 to 68 different candidates.
During the 2012 election, Maryland had only three state supreme court races on the ballot (since all state offices are four-year terms); none of the judicial candidates raised any money.
Appendix A. States with Aggregate Limits on Individual Donors, 2010–2012
- 1. Three other states had specific limits that applied only to a subset of individual donors, and thus were not included in this analysis: Washington state’s limit only applies to donors who gave during the 21 days before an election, Alaska’s limit only applies to non-resident donors, and Hawaii’s limit only applies to family members of candidates.
- 2. Maryland, which only holds state elections every four years, did not have state elections in 2012. Wisconsin was excluded from 2012 analysis because the complexity of Wisconsin law regarding the application of limits during and prior to recall elections makes accurate analysis nearly impossible. See Wisconsin statute s. 11.26(13m) and s. 11.26(17) for more information.
- 3. Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, “Contributions Limits,” available from http://gab.wi.gov/sites/default/files/page/campaign_contribution_limits_partisan_state_pdf_13605.pdf, accessed Sept. 13, 2013.
- 4. (s. 11.26(4)Wis.Stats)
- 5. (s. 11.26(13m) and s. 11.26(17)Wis.Stats)
- 6. It is possible that an additional donor, Kingdon Gould, also met the aggregate limits. State contribution records show Gould contributing $16,450 towards the 2010 elections, with $13,950 coming from the same DC address. However, some records did not have a suffix so it is not possible to determine if either Gould, Jr., or Gould, III, exceeded the aggregate limits or if both gave, in which case neither exceeded the limit.
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!