2007-2008 Business and Association PAC Study
Contents
Using this PAC Study
Federal law prohibits the use of information obtained about individual contributors from the Federal Election Commission for fundraising or "any commercial purpose." But an FEC publication points out, "This restriction applies only to the use of individual contributor information, not to the use of names and addresses of political committees."
Data from the FEC regarding political action committees (PACs) may be used freely by anyone, including news reporters, scholars and the general public. Among the obvious uses are: to publicize, to study, to praise, to condemn, or to solicit contributions.
A candidate may use this study to identify PACs most likely to be sympathetic and then "go hunting where the ducks are."
The Leadership Institute
The body of this report consists of tables which provide data, including rankings by giving categories regarding the giving of the 1036 business PACs which gave $25,000 or more to congressional campaigns in 2007-2008.
Useful Knowledge about PACs
Although business PACs seem certain to survive any current attempt to destroy them, abundant experience proves they are far more easily influenced than any other type of PACs.
Labor union bosses have such tight control over their organizations that few of their decisions, about their PACs or anything else, are ever effectively challenged from within. Ideological PACs, right or left, usually have very predictable, clear, and unshakable ideas of what is in their interest.
Business corporations and professional and trade associations are, shall we say, more flexible in their PAC decisions. They are responsive to any of the following possible influences on them:
Stockholders, employees, customers, boards of directors, clients, members, partners, colleagues, politicians, news media, and the general public.
Often those who make decisions in business PACs are Washington lobbyists who have risen in life by trying to make almost everybody happy. Most tend to be non-confrontational. They love to be loved and fear to be hated.
As this study and our previous studies amply demonstrate, business PACs tend to contribute to incumbents rather than to challengers or candidates for open seats. They are more interested in influencing incumbents, or at least in having access to incumbents, than they are in influencing the outcome of elections. Some knowingly help their enemies, feeding the alligator in hope of being eaten last.
While the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission certainly will generate new independent, corporate political expenditures, this new option will not end the interest of business or politicians in business PACs.
Prudent or not, the business PACs have every right to act as they do, as all the PAC money they dispense is voluntarily given to them. Their very nature makes them responsive to many sources of influence on their behavior.
One purpose of the FEC's legally-required public disclosure of PAC financial data is undoubtedly to give citizens knowledge they can use to influence a PAC's future decisions.
Armed with information in this study, stockholders, employees, customers, boards of directors, clients, members, partners, colleagues, politicians, news media and the general public will be better able to decide for themselves what actions, if any, they should take regarding business PACs in which they are interested.
In 1979, after publication of my PAC study of the 1977-78 election cycle, I was visited by two, three-piece-suited officials of the National Forest Products Association. They came to my office to explain why a forest industry PAC just had to give to the re-election campaign of a famous, very liberal congressman from Illinois.
Those forestry officials were sweating because conservative members of their association had seen my PAC study and chewed them out. In subsequent election cycles, they and others changed their behavior significantly.
In another case that same year, a major stockholder in a big supermarket chain got so hot she nearly peeled the paint off the wall at the corporate headquarters because she didn't like what she learned in my study about their PAC's giving pattern. They too changed their behavior. Each election cycle, these PAC studies produce similar actions.
For different reasons, journalists and candidates will find this study useful. Journalists can use this data to reveal to the public the patterns of giving of business interests. Candidates can use the same data to target their solicitations to business PACs most likely to support them.
About this Study
The records of political fundraising and expenditures files at the Federal Election Commission (FEC) are open to the public. Staffers there do their best to help inquirers. But even the FEC's computerized database of financial data is not 100% reliable. An avalanche of regular financial reports pours into the FEC from candidates, PACs, and party committees.
These detailed reports sometimes contain accidental errors from the thousands of organizations required to file reports. Computer data entry of these reports is sometimes a source of error. For example, a $10.00 donation may, by a data entry error, appear on the FEC computer record as a $1000 donation.
I mention the inevitable, if rare, errors to caution readers of this report.
The Leadership Institute's researchers Edwardo Massieu-Parades and Greg Wilson and the Institute's Director of Database Operations Phillip Natalini prepared and rechecked the tabulations in the body of this study. They had to depend entirely on information from the FEC, where the information may be imperfect.
Nonetheless, FEC numbers are usually reliable.
To keep this study manageable, we focus here on the 1036 largest (contributions totaling $25,000 or more) of the "economic interest" PACs, which include the business corporation PACs and the professional and trade organization PACs. Also included were the large ($25,000 or more) PACs that we judged to have primarily economic or professional reasons for being. In some cases, inclusion was a close decision.
PACs of law firms were included. PACs organized by gun owners to support the right to keep and bear arms were not included as they are primarily non-economic in their purpose.
But the PAC of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, in a close decision, was included because they were deemed largely motivated by on their economic interest.
All 1036 PACs studied were business-related and gave or expended $25,000 or more in the 2007-08 election cycle. The tables in the body of the study include only donations to federal candidates (Presidential candidates and U.S. House and Senate candidates).
In sum, these 1036 largest business and association PACs gave $275,466,361 to federal candidates. They gave $132,007,551 to Democrats and gave $140,798,259 to Republicans.
The business and association PACs here studied accounted for the great majority of business and association PAC giving in the 2007-2008 election cycle. The 1036 PACs studied ranged in size from the National Association of Realtors PAC, total given $10,974,202.00, to S&B PAC, WESTFIELD DEVELOPMENT INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE, and LEGGETT & PLATT INCORPORATED POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE which all three gave our minimum of $25,000 apiece.
F.A.Q. (Frequently Asked Questions)
The main body of this study lists the 1036 business and association PACs which gave or spent $25,000 or more in 2007-08. By the wonder of computers, readers of this study may view the data in alphabetical order by name of the PAC or ranked by the PACs percentage of giving in any of the categories measured in the study:
How many PACs are listed per page ?
We list 10 PACs per page, with the exception of the last page. There are only 6 listed on the last page, as we have 1036 PACs in this study.
How many pages are there in the study?
This study contains a total of 104 pages.
What does the single red arrow in the upper left-hand corner do?
Clicking on the arrow will take you to the following page of the PAC study.
What does the double red arrow in the upper left-hand corner do?
Clicking on the double arrow will jump you 10 pages further into the PAC study.
What do the "PAC Name," "Total," and "Size Rank" titles mean?
The "PAC Name" column includes an alphabetical listing of each PAC's full name as filed with the Federal Election Commission. Let's use the AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION PAC to guide us through a brief demonstration of each column's practical applications.
In alphabetical order, AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION PAC will be the last PAC listed on the first page of this study. The subsequent column is titled Total. This column lists the total amount contributed by each PAC during the 2007-08 election cycle. According to our study, the AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION PAC contributed a total $2,579,176 during this time frame.
Following this column is one entitled Size Rank. This column assigns a numerical ranking to each PAC depending upon the total amount they gave. The $2,579,176 AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION PAC distributed during this election cycle earned it a ranking of 10th in size among the 1036 PACs in our study. Note that ranks may be misleading, as more than one PAC may have given the same amount. PACs that gave the same figure will have successive ranks. For example: ranks 1, 2, and 3 would be given if three PACs gave the same amount.
The PAC's name is written in red lettering on the opening page of the study. What happens if I click on the PAC name?
You are transferred to a different page describing that PAC's giving patterns in more depth. This new page includes a wealth of information, such as:
AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION PAC, for example, directed 38% of its contributions towards Republican candidates and 61% of its contributions to Democratic candidates in the 2007-08 election cycle.
What happens if I click on the white lettering at the top of a column?
Clicking on a words in white lettering at the top of a column will re-organize the PACs according to the criteria of that column. Clicking on the white words "Size Rank" at the top of the column will result in all PACs being listed according to their size rather than the alphabetical listing we start with.
What do the "% Rep." and "Rep. Rank" titles mean?
These columns list the respective percentages of each PAC's donations to Republican candidates and its rank among the 1036 PACs in terms of the percentage of its contributions which went to Republicans.
Note that AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION PAC gave 38% of their donations to Republican candidates. This earned them a ranking of 818st in terms of percentage of total contributions going to Republicans.
What do the "% Dem" and "Dem Rank" titles mean?
These columns list the percentage of donations given to Democratic candidates and each PAC's rank among the 1036 PACs in terms of percentage donated to Democratic candidates.
As you can see, the AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION PAC gave 61% of its total contributions to Democrats, earning it a rank of 197th among the PACs included in our study.
What do the "% Incum.," "% Chall.," and "% Open" titles mean?
The Percentage Incumbent, Percentage Challenger and Percentage Open columns report on the PACs based upon the percentage of their total contributions which went to incumbents, challengers, and candidates for open seats respectively. AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION PAC, to use our example, gave 79% of it's donations to incumbents, 20% to challengers and 1% to those contesting open seats.
Based upon these percentages, every PAC was then ranked. AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION PAC ranks 860rd in terms of percentage given to incumbents, 171th in terms of percentage given to challengers, and 160rd in terms of percentage given to candidates for open seats.
How can I see the actual contributions to specific candidates made by each business PAC?
Click on the name of that PAC. All the candidates who received that PAC's donations will be listed.
Can I see a list of all business PACs which gave to a candidate identified in the above process?
Yes. Just click on a candidate's name, and all PACs which gave to that candidate, and the amounts each PAC gave, will be listed.
How did you determine which candidates were conservative and which were liberal for the purposes of this study?
The final five columns in the main portion of this study relate to each PAC's giving in liberal versus conservative contests of 2007-08, as defined by the method described below.
To measure each of the 1036 biggest business and association PACs' level of giving to conservative and liberal candidates, it was necessary first to devise a method of determining which candidates could be properly be described as conservatives and which could be described as liberals.
The best available way to determine which candidates were conservative was to identify the candidates who received contributions from a variety of known, philosophically conservative PACs. The following method was used:
1. Several politically knowledgeable conservatives were each asked to list all the
PACs that they believed to be the
most representative of the conservative cause, broadly considered.
We asked them to name PACs they believed most notable for their commitment to any or all of the following generally
understood conservative principles:
° Limited government
° Free enterprise
° Strong national defense
° Traditional family values.
The resulting list of 17 conservative PACs included representation from all the major elements of the conservative
coalition. The conservative PACs included were:
° American Conservative Union
° Black's America
° Business and Industry
° Club for Growth
° Conservative Leadership
° Conservative Victory Fund
° Eagle Forum
° Gun Owner's of America
° Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
° Madison Project Inc. Fund
° National Conservative Campaign Fund
° National Federation of Independent Business
° National Pro-Life Alliance
° National Right to Life
° National Rifle Association Victory Fund
° National Right to Work PAC
° Susan B. Anthony List
2. The finances of these 17 selected, conservative PACs were not analyzed in this study. But, from FEC records, the list of all candidates supported by each conservative PAC was obtained.
3. Any candidate supported by any three of these conservative PACs was defined as a conservative candidate for the purpose of this study.
4. Any candidate who ran against one of the defined conservative candidates was defined, for the special purpose of this study, as a liberal (non-conservative), except in the very few cases where, in a primary, two or more candidates defined as conservatives were opposing each other.
5. The next step was the most difficult. Each contribution of each of the 1036 PACs was examined to see if it went to a candidate on either the conservative candidate list or the liberal candidate list. The financial support each PAC gave to all the conservative candidates was totaled, as was each PAC's support of the liberal candidates.
6. Each PAC's combined amount given to all candidates in these selected, liberal versus conservative races was totaled.
7. Each PAC's total giving to all candidates in the selected liberal
versus conservative races was then calculated as a percentage of its total giving.
Look again at AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION PAC. That PAC gave 20% of all its donations to
candidates in the selected liberal versus conservative races.
8. Each PAC's percentage of giving respectively to liberals and to conservatives within the selected races was calculated. Of the 20% AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION PAC gave in the liberal versus conservative races, 93% went to conservatives and 6% to liberals.
9. Finally, we calculated each PAC's rank among the 1036 PACs as measured by its percentage of giving to liberal and conservative candidates in the selected races. AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION PAC ranked 788th highest in giving to conservatives in the selected races.