«
»

A commenter pointed to this OpenSecrets.org page, which seems to report that 70.8% of all federal contributions (not independent expenditures) in 2007-2008 came from business, and only 2.7% from labor (though put together the Democrats still got more than Republicans, both looking at total money and at PAC money; that’s relevant to the original post that prompted the comment).

But the prominent labels are misleading, as the text of the page itself acknowledges:

[B]usiness contributions tend to be overstated. Because CRP uses employer/occupation information to categorize donors, and because just about everyone works for a business, contributions from members of labor unions and ideological groups are often classified under business.

Recall that federal law doesn’t allow direct contributions by corporations and unions (Citizens United is unlikely to change that, I think; but in any event, such direct corporate and union contributions weren’t allowed in 2007-2008). It does allow contributions by PACs, but the bulk of the contributions were from individuals. When you contribute to a federal campaign, you have to list your employer, and the aggregate data on contributions by economic sector focuses on the status of that employer. So if you’re a loyal UAW member who works for Ford, your contribution will be attributed to Ford, and be listed under the automotive subsector of the business sector — not to the union. Likewise, if you work for IBM but are contributing based on your ideological predispositions (e.g., you support pro-choice candidates, or environmentalist candidates, or pro-Obamacare candidates), that too would be counted as a business sector contribution.

So read the fine print carefully on such reports, and keep in mind that “business” contributions are generally not contributions by corporations (which are forbidden) or by corporate PACs (which are limited) — they are contributions by individuals who happen to work for businesses, some of whom are contributing to support the interests of their business and some of whom aren’t.

Categories: Elections    

    6 Comments

    1. Adam B. says:

      See Lawrence Lessig, Against Transparency:

      The problem, however, is that not all data satisfies the simple requirement that they be information that consumers can use, presented in a way they can use it. “More information,” as Fung and his colleagues put it, “does not always produce markets that are more efficient.” Instead, “responses to information are inseparable from their interests, desires, resources, cognitive capacities, and social contexts. Owing to these and other factors, people may ignore information, or misunderstand it, or misuse it. Whether and how new information is used to further public objectives depends upon its incorporation into complex chains of comprehension, action, and response.”

      To know whether a particular transparency rule works, then, we need to trace just how the information will enter these “complex chains of comprehension.” We need to see what comparisons the data will enable, and whether those comparisons reveal something real. And it is this that the naked transparency movement has not done. For there are overwhelming reasons why the data about influence that this movement would produce will not enable comparisons that are meaningful. This is not to say the data will not have an effect. It will. But the effect, I fear, is not one that anybody in the “naked transparency movement,” or any other thoughtful citizen, would want….

      All the data in the world will not tell us whether a particular contribution bent a result by securing a vote or an act that otherwise would not have occurred. The most we could say–though this is still a very significant thing to say–is that the contributions are corrupting the reputation of Congress, because they raise the question of whether the member acted to track good sense or campaign dollars. Where a member of Congress acts in a way inconsistent with his principles or his constituents, but consistent with a significant contribution, that act at least raises a question about the integrity of the decision. But beyond a question, the data says little else.

      March 15, 2010, 11:01 pm

    2. alkali says:

      When you contribute to a federal campaign, you have to list your employer, and the aggregate data on contributions by economic sector focuses on the status of that employer. So if you’re a loyal UAW member who works for Ford, your contribution will be attributed to Ford, and be listed under the automotive subsector of the business sector — not to the union.

      An important qualification is that contributions below a certain threshold (I think it is currently $250) are not separately reported. There are surely some loyal UAW members who are making contributions above that threshold, but most do not.

      March 16, 2010, 8:28 am

    3. burrow owl says:

      I really appreciate that PSA. People routinely misread that OpenSecrets data, and it drives me nuts.

      March 16, 2010, 12:27 pm

    5. Encinitas California Homes says:

      Great little blog here- I had been simply browsing Google when I stumbled on it.. i didn’t really imagine there would be a site about Encinitas like this. See ya around!

      March 17, 2010, 1:04 pm

    6. Elwood Vanbibber says:

      I figured I’d personally add a note right here to demonstrate you the most effective way to earn cash by using dating affiliate together with zero cost strategies. I were able to earn six thousand $ per month following the steps inside this freely available posting, http://bit.ly/5kmonthguide – click to read.

      March 31, 2010, 9:30 pm