|
PACing It In
Findings
1. Political action committees contributed nearly $13.6 million in 2004. The sixteen top spending political action committees spent nearly $6.2 million (45 percent) in 2004 on direct contributions to political party committees and candidates for office.
Sixteen of New York State’s 450 political action committees (PACs) representing labor, real estate, legal and health interests sweetened the re-election campaigns of candidates for state office and the political parties by nearly $6.2 million last year. The “Sweet 16” PACs contributed $6,166,758 (45 percent) of the $13,593,567 donated by all PACs in direct contributions to party committees and candidates for state offices.
2. Teachers topped all PAC spending.
The top giver was the New York State United Teachers, whose Voice of Teachers for Education/Committee on Political Education (VOTE/COPE) gave $1,320,955 in campaign donations to candidates for state offices and to state and local parties in 2004.
The number two contributor was health union Local 1199/SEIU New York State Political Action Fund, which contributed $775,150. Rounding out the other top spenders among the “Sweet 16” were: LAWPAC which represents the New York State Trial Lawyers Association ($711,220); physicians’ trade association, Medical Society of the State of New York PAC ($519,039); dentists’ trade association, Empire Dental PAC ($410.325); the police union, New York State Conference of Police Benevolent Associations ($352,980); the state’s hospital trade association HANYS PAC ($312,150); the AFL-CIO PAC ($247,071); New York State Public Employees Federation – PAC ($245,588); the NYC District Council of Carpenters – PAC ($235,150); Rent Stabilization Association PAC ($202,000); the state’s major public employees union, Civil Service Employees PAF ($183,961); the New York State Funeral Directors Association ($180,100); the lobbying firm of Wilson, Elser, et al ($175,404); New York State Laborers PAC ($166,240); and the Pharmacy PAC of New York State ($129,425).
Nearly 30 percent of the total contributed by the “Sweet 16” PACs – roughly $1.8 million was given by health care interests. Public employee unions kicked in another $1.7 million. Those interests gave well over fifty percent of all donations by the “Sweet 16.”
3. Well over half of these PAC donations went to the legislative majorities in both houses.
Well over two-thirds – 68 percent, or $4.2 million – of the $6.2 million contributed by the “Sweet 16” PACs went to the election efforts of the legislative majorities. In addition, 68% of the contributions from all PAC’s went to the legislative majorities.
4. The “Sweet 16” PACs donations to the legislative majorities dwarfed contributions to the legislative minorities by a ratio of nearly 6 to 1.
PACs were very supportive of the reelection prospects of the legislative majorities. PAC contributions combined to donate over $4.2 million to the legislative majorities (nearly $2.22 million to Senate Republicans and $2.01 million to Assembly Democrats). Legislative minorities received about $730,000 from these “Sweet 16” PACs (over $440,000 to Senate Democrats and nearly $289,000 to Assembly Republicans). The average Senate Republican received over $75,000 in PAC contributions, more than 3 times that of the average Senate Democrat. The average Assembly Democrat received over $26,000 in PAC contributions, more than twice that of the average Assembly Republican.
5. Campaign spending by PACs representing special interests is probably higher than these disclosures.
Individual donors with corporate, labor, professional or trade association interests often take advantage of New York’s high contribution limits by giving directly to candidates or legislative committees. Bundling – the practice of collecting individual contributions and delivering them to candidates all at one time – is used by professional, corporate and trade association interests to conceal the size of that interest’s total contributions. However, since New York State law does not require disclosure by contributors of their occupation or employer, or the name of any “intermediary” (the bundler), it is extremely difficult to capture these additional donations.
Read the full report in .pdf format
| 
