by Institute Staff | 2014-07-31
Übersicht
In April of this year, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a ruling in McCutcheon v. FEC that struck down the limit on how much an individual could give to federal candidates, political parties, and political action committees (PACs) combined (known as an aggregate contribution limit). While this ruling pertained specifically to federal campaigns, it impacted state campaigns as well, as some states began removing or not enforcing their aggregate limits on individuals. The National Institute on Money in State Politics (hereafter “the Institute”) published an examination of the impacts of aggregate limits pertaining to individuals in October 2013.1
Two additional general types of aggregate limits exist in 16 states. One is a limit on what non-individuals can give to all state campaigns combined. This one resembles aggregate limits on individuals, but applies instead to non-individuals (such as a political committee)—five states had this type of aggregate limit for the 2010 and 2012 election cycles. The other aggregate limit is recipient-based, restricting the amount a candidate can accept from a certain type of source. For instance, in Montana a state legislative candidate can accept a limited amount of money from all political action committees (PACs) combined, and can accept a limited amount of money from all party committees combined. Eleven states had a recipient-based aggregate limit in 2010 or 2012.
The McCutcheon decision applied specifically to aggregate limits on individuals, but there may be attempts to extend McCutcheon’s rationale to the non-individual or recipient-based aggregate limits described above.
This report illustrates how often non-individual aggregate limits and recipient-based aggregate limits were reached in selected states that enforced these restrictions during 2010 and 2012 elections.
Rhode Island and Connecticut had aggregate limits on non-individuals. In these two states, the Institute found that few contributors reached the maximums. In Rhode Island, only 1 percent of the non-individual contributors reached the aggregate cap in the 2010 election, and a smaller proportion did so in the following cycle (although these figures are likely to be conservative, as noted in this report’s Methodology section). In Connecticut, no non-individual contributor reached an aggregate maximum in either the 2010 or 2012 election cycle. Three other states had similar caps on what non-individuals could give overall, but were excluded because of complications (See the following Methodology section in this report.).
The Institute analyzed data in eight states with recipient-based aggregate limits. In half of these states, few or no candidates bumped up against the limits. In certain other cases, candidates reached the limits up to 23 percent of the time.
Methodology
The Institute searched its database of contributions to state-level candidates and party committees. The Institute identified donors who gave at or above states’ aggregate maximums for the 2010 and 2012 election cycles, or candidates who reached the recipient-based limits. Contributions are detailed in the campaign finance reports filed with the respective state agencies by the candidate committees. While the Institute made every effort to collect records of returned contributions, it is not always possible to identify all of them. Therefore, money from donors who appear to have exceeded the limit—or excess money candidates appear to have raised from sources subject to a recipient-based limit—may have been returned or otherwise disposed of in accordance with state regulations to bring the contributors and candidates into compliance.
The aggregate limits examined in this report do not include what are commonly referred to as “base” or “direct” contribution limits. Base or direct contribution limits are restrictions on what one contributor may give to one candidate or committee. The aggregate restrictions examined here are two-fold. The first group consists of caps on what a non-individual contributor can give to all candidates or committees (non-individual aggregate limits). The second group consists of restrictions on what one candidate can receive from all contributors of a certain type or classification, such as from party committees (recipient-based aggregate limits).
The Institute broadly uses the term “non-individual” when referring to any contributor that is not a natural person. These are generally PACs, parties, corporations, and unions. In the cases of examining specific states within this report, “non-individual” refers to contributors that are not natural persons and that are subject to the respective state’s aggregate limit.
Aggregate limits are subject to different time frames. In some states, the limits are per election cycle, from one general election contest to the next. In others, they are per calendar year. In still other cases, the limits apply per “election event,” so they apply for the primary election and again separately for the general election, and may apply again for runoff elections. The Institute factored in the time frames as applicable.
The Institute used the 2009–2010 and 2011–2012 contribution limit charts published by the National Conference of State Legislatures at http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/campaign-contribution-limits-overview.aspx to identify states with aggregate contribution limits.
Rhode Island’s aggregate limit on non-individuals includes contributions those donors give to PACs. The Institute does not have state PAC data, and thus analyzed contributions only to candidates and parties. Therefore, the number of non-individual contributors reaching the aggregate limit is likely to be conservative in this report.
Because of the way contributions are reported, counts of non-individual contributors are estimates. It is not possible to comprehensively differentiate between a corporation and its PAC, a union and its PAC, or multiple PACs representing the same organization, because contributor information is not always specific or standardized to that extent when it is reported by candidates and political committees.
Massachusetts and Minnesota had recipient-based aggregate limits, but were excluded from this report because of the complicated nature of their limits.
Certain states with non-individual or recipient-based aggregate limits were excluded from analysis in this report because of complications in the limits or because of data complications related to the unspecific and non-standardized nature of the reporting of political contributions by candidate and political committees. In Indiana, Maryland, and New York, corporations and/or unions were subject to aggregate contribution limits but PACs were not. An analysis of Institute data indicates corporate and union contributors often exceeded the amounts of the aggregate limits, suggesting these organizations contributed through employee or membership PACs. In Louisiana, candidates were subject to recipient-based aggregate limits applying to contributions from PACs, but not from corporations or unions. The aggregate limits in Louisiana were frequently exceeded, suggesting that corporations and unions commonly gave directly rather than through PACs.
It is difficult to identify corporate PACs in a comprehensive way, because there are many corporations, and their PACs have many names. The Institute is able to more comprehensively identify contributions from labor unions’ PACs than from corporate PACs, because labor union federations often use common PAC names. In states where unions were able to make direct political contributions and corporations were not, it is still not possible to consistently differentiate between a union’s direct contribution and a contribution from a union’s PAC. In states where unions could contribute directly and corporations could not, the Institute excluded unions and their PACs from its analysis of aggregate limits involving PACs or unions. Thus, numbers in these states are conservative. This report indicates when this approach was used. Connecticut is an exception, because so few non-individuals approached the aggregate limit on non-individual contributors that a manual review of reports made it clear that no aggregate caps were reached.
Wisconsin had recipient-based aggregate limits, but certain contributions were exempt from the ceilings - such as when candidates faced recall elections. For this reason, candidates in recall elections (including the 2012 gubernatorial recall election) were excluded from analysis in this report. Candidates in standard elections in 2012 who were also in recall elections in 2011 were also excluded from this report’s analysis of Wisconsin 2012 elections.
Aggregate Limits in 10 States, 2010 and 2012
This report examined 16 aggregate limits in 10 states. About half of those 16 aggregate limits were rarely reached, affecting less than 5 percent of the contributors or candidates subject to them. Within the recipient-based limits category, candidates reached the caps more frequently.
Connecticut and Rhode Island each had aggregate limits on what non-individuals could contribute to candidates and/or committees. Connecticut’s aggregate limits applied only to contributions given to candidates, and no contributor reached the limit. In Rhode Island, only three contributors reached the ceiling in the 2010 elections and only one reached the limit in the 2012 elections; yet these contributors accounted for 15 percent of the money from non-individuals in Rhode Island 2010, and 7 percent in 2012. The contributors reaching the aggregate limits in Rhode Island in 2010 and 2012 were PACs belonging to three labor organizations (Rhode Island is examined in further detail later in this report). Three other states had aggregate limits on non-individual contributors but are not examined in this report (see Methodology).
The presence of recipient-based aggregate limits had mixed effects in the eight states analyzed in this report. In Kentucky, Nebraska, and Tennessee, few if any candidates reached the limits. The caps in certain other states, however, were reached by a higher percentage of candidates. For instance, in Wisconsin nearly 23 percent of candidates reached the cap on what they could accept from non-party PACs in the aggregate in 2010, and 17 percent did so in 2012. Eighteen percent of the candidates in Montana ran up against the limits on what they could accept from political parties in 2012. The effects of the rest of the recipient-based aggregate limits fell somewhere in the middle.
*These figures are estimates.
*Unions could give directly to candidates. Due to the difficulty differentiating between contributions directly from unions and from unions’ PACs, all union contributions were excluded the analysis of this PAC limit. These numbers are conservative.
†In Tennessee, unions could give directly to candidates in both 2010 and 2012 elections. Due to the difficulty differentiating between contributions directly from unions and from unions’ PACs, all union contributions were excluded the analysis of this PAC limit. In 2012 elections, corporations were permitted to make contributions to candidates from their treasuries. 2012 PAC figures in this table for Tennessee treat corporations and any of their affiliated PACs as one contributor. Unlike other states that permitted corporate contributions and that were excluded from this report, this simplified approach did not result in large numbers of candidates exceeding the aggregate limits. Therefore, a finding that the limits are not often reached is valid, so Tennessee was included in this report.
Number of Massachusetts Candidates Who Met Aggregate PAC Limits, 2010 & 2012**
Election Cycle |
Number of Candidates Who Met Limits |
Number of Candidates Who Did Not Meet Limits |
---|---|---|
2010 |
26 |
480 |
2012 |
23 |
350 |
**Massachusetts data was not available at time of publication. This table was added Oct. 6, 2014
Case Studies: Rhode Island, Montana, Wisconsin
Rhode Island is the only state examined in this report that capped how much non-individuals could give in the aggregate, and in which these limits were reached. Montana and Wisconsin serve as examples of states with recipient-based aggregate limits of dramatically different sizes. Montana’s limits were quite low, while Wisconsin had comparably high limits.
Rhode Island
In Rhode Island, political action committees cannot give more than $25,000 per calendar year to all recipients combined. During the 2010 elections, just three of almost 300 contributors reached the aggregate ceiling, or about 1 percent. In 2012, only one contributor reached the limit.
Figure 1: Percentage of PAC Donors That Reached Rhode Island's Aggregate Limit, 2010-2012
![RI PACs](assets/press/Reports/Aggregates-2010-/_resampled/ResizedImage518337-RI-PACs.png)
{{There is no restriction on the amount of in-kind contributions a political party committee can make to a candidate of that political party.}}
During the 2010 and 2012 elections, PACs associated with three labor organizations (Rhode Island Laborers, the National Education Association of Rhode Island, and the Rhode Island Carpenters) reached the maximum calendar limit of $25,000. In 2010, these donors accounted for 15 percent of the contributions from PACs, and 7 percent of the contributions in 2012.
Montana
Montana limits how much candidates can receive from political party committees or from PACs in the aggregate. An analysis of 2010 and 2012 donors revealed that few candidates reached those aggregate limits, either from PACs or from political party committees.
Montana candidates do not have an aggregate limit on how much they can accept from individuals. For the 2010 and 2012 elections, 86 cents of every dollar raised by legislative candidates came from individuals.
Unlike legislative candidates, statewide candidates are not limited on the amount they receive from PACs. Even without PAC aggregate limits, contributions from individuals accounted for nearly all the money they raised, making up 89 percent of their contributions in 2012 and 96 percent in 2010. In fact, of the 45 candidates seeking statewide office in 2010 and 2012, only four hit the party committee aggregate limit.
Montana 2010 Limits | Montana 2012 Limits | |
---|---|---|
Party Committees* | $21,600 or $43,200 Governor $7,800 or $15,600 Other Statewide $3,100 or $6,200 Public Service Commission $1,250 or $2,500 Senate $800 or $1,600 House |
$22,600 or $45,200 Governor $8,150 or $16,300 Other Statewide $3,260 or $6,520 Public Service Commission $1,300 or $2,600 Senate $800 or $1,600 House |
PACs | $2,500 Senate $1,550 House |
$2,650 Senate $1,600 House |
* If the candidate is in a contested primary2, then the higher amount applies.
Figure 2: Individual vs. Non-Individual Contributions to Montana Legislative Candidates, 2010–2012
![MTIndNonIndLeg2010 12](assets/press/Reports/Aggregates-2010-/_resampled/ResizedImage518329-MTIndNonIndLeg2010-12.png)
Political Party Committees
Candidates who run for the Montana Legislature are currently limited in how much they can raise in the aggregate from all political party committees. Aggregate limits from party committees to senate candidates was $1,300 per election3 in 2012, up from $1,250 in 2010. House candidate were limited to $800 each election cycle.
During the 2010 and 2012 elections, just 15 percent of the legislative candidates raised the maximum allowed in the aggregate from party committees—10 percent in 2010 and 19 percent in 2012.
Figure 3: Montana Legislative Candidates and Aggregate Limits, by Party, 2010 & 2012
![MTLegAggLimitsParty2010 12a](assets/press/Reports/Aggregates-2010-/_resampled/ResizedImage518417-MTLegAggLimitsParty2010-12a.png)
Of the $523,821 raised by legislative candidates in 2010 and 2012, 34 percent came from political party committees.
- In 2010, 75 party committees gave $80,941 to 139 legislative candidates.
- In 2012, 65 party committees gave $99,731 to 155 legislative candidates.
Political Action Committees (PACs)
Aggregate limits for PAC contributions apply only to legislative candidates and are not per election. The time frame for the limit applies to the entire contest, regardless of the type of election (primary or general).
Few legislative candidates received the maximum aggregate from PACs, even though the majority received PAC contributions. In fact, 29 percent of the candidates received no contributions from PACs in 2012; 22 percent received no PAC contributions in 2010.
In 2010, 6 percent of the candidates for senate seats received the aggregate maximum from PACs, as did 5 percent of house candidates. In 2012, 5 percent of the senate candidates reached the limit, while 13 percent of house candidates hit the limit.
Figure 4: Montana Legislative Candidates and Aggregate Limits, by PAC, 2010 & 2012
![MTLegAggPAC2010-12](assets/press/Reports/Aggregates-2010-/_resampled/ResizedImage518304-MTLegAggPAC2010-2.png)
Wisconsin
Wisconsin limits how much candidates can receive in the aggregate from political action committees that are not political party committees. There is no aggregate limit on the amount candidates can accept specifically from party committees, but Wisconsin does have another aggregate limit on how much candidates can raise from all political committees, including party committees. Both of Wisconsin’s aggregate limits apply per election cycle, not per election.4 Wisconsin’s aggregate limit amounts are substantially higher than Montana’s.
The Institute analyzed contributions to Wisconsin candidates in 2010 and 2012 regular and special elections.5 During the 2010 cycle, only candidates running for assembly, senate, or governor reached the aggregate limit. In 2012, the only candidates running in regular and special elections who were subject to the aggregate limits were legislative candidates, so only legislative candidates could reach the aggregate limit.
Wisconsin's 2010 & 2012 Limits | |
---|---|
All Committees, Including Political Party Committees | Governor: $700,830 Lt. Governor: $210,259 Attorney General: $350,350 Other Statewide: $140,156 Senate: $22,425 Assembly: $11,213 |
Committees Except Political Party Committees | Governor: $485,190 Lt. Governor: $145,564 Attorney General: $242,550 Other Statewide: $97,031 Senate: $15,525 Assembly: $7,763 |
*The limit applies per election cycle, not per election.
In 2010, 23 percent of candidates reached at least one of the aggregate limits; 17 percent of candidates reached the limits in 2012. If Wisconsin’s recipient-based aggregate limits were removed, some legislative and gubernatorial candidates from both parties—incumbents and challengers alike—would likely benefit from an increase in contributions from political committees. Other trends in candidates reaching at least one of the aggregates had some slight shifts between the 2010 and 2012 election cycles:
- Eight of the ten candidates who raised the maximum from all committees during 2010 elections also reached the limit from all committees excluding parties. All 19 candidates who reached the party-inclusive limit in 2012 also reached the non-party committee limit.
- 16 assembly candidates, including three Democrats and 13 Republicans, arrived at the aggregate limits in both 2010 and 2012.
Figure 5: Percent of Wisconsin Candidates Reaching the Aggregate Limits, by Party, 2010 & 2012
![WIIncumbentsAggByParty2010 2012](assets/press/Reports/Aggregates-2010-/_resampled/ResizedImage522160-WIIncumbentsAggByParty2010-2012.png)
Figure 6: Percent of Wisconsin Candidates Reaching the Aggregate Limits, by Incumbency, 2010 & 2012
![WIIncumbentsAgg2010 2012](assets/press/Reports/Aggregates-2010-/_resampled/ResizedImage522155-WIIncumbentsAgg2010-2012.png)
In 2010, eight candidates reached both limits, bringing the total number of candidates reaching at least one aggregate maximum to 79. In 2012, 19 candidates reached both limits, bringing the total number of candidates reaching at least one aggregate maximum to 61.6
Wisconsin’s 2010 Elections
Seventy-nine candidates reached at least one of the 2010 aggregate limits in contributions from committees, eight of whom reached both the party-inclusive and non-party maximums. Candidates who reached the ceiling did so largely independent of partisan lines: 43 Democrats and 36 Republicans. In 2010, 45 incumbents of both parties reached the aggregate limits. Sixty-three assembly candidates, 14 senate candidates, and two gubernatorial candidates reached the aggregate limits in 2010.
Wisconsin’s 2012 Elections
In 2012, 61 of 353 candidates raised the maximum amount of contributions from committees. All 19 candidates who raised the maximum amount allowed from all committees, including parties, also reached the limit from non-party committees. Compared to 2010, the difference between Republicans and Democrats reaching the limits was more extreme in 2012: 21 Democrats reached the limit, while 40 Republicans reached the limits. In 2012, 43 incumbents reached the limits, while only 18 challengers or those running for open seats reached the limits. Fifty-three assembly candidates reached the limits in 2012, and eight senate candidates received the maximum amount.
Appendix A. Aggregate Limits Descriptions
- 1. Institute Staff, “Minimum Give the Maximum,” Oct. 10, 2013, available at http://beta.followthemoney.org/research/institute-reports/minimum-give-the-maximum/
- 2. An election can be a general election or a primary election. There must be two or more candidates for the same office for a primary to be considered an election. In that case, contribution limits apply to two separate elections.
- 3. An election can be a general election or a primary election. There must be two or more candidates for the same office for a primary to be considered an election. In that case, contribution limits apply to two separate elections.
- 4. As an example, assembly candidates in 2012 could accept ,763 from non-party committees, and ,213 from all committees including parties. So a 2012 assembly candidate may have received the ,763 limit from PACs, and ,450 from parties to reach the ,213 total limit for all committees. Or, the candidate could have received a lesser amount from PACs and a higher amount from parties, for instance ,000 from PACs and ,213 from parties.
- 5. Recall elections and certain other elections were excluded from analysis. See Methodology.
- 6. Our hypothetical assembly candidate would reach both limits if he or she received the ,763 limit from non-party committees, and then received an additional ,450 from party committees to reach the ,213 limit for all committees including parties. It is possible, though, for a candidate to reach one or the other of these limits. If an assembly candidate received the ,763 limit from PACs but did not receive ,450 from parties, only the limit on committees excluding party committees applied. If the candidate received less than ,763 from PACs but received enough from parties to reach the ,213 limit for all committees including parties, then only the limit on all committees including parties applied, not the limit on PACs.
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!