Cash News
TRAVERSE CITY — “Money is the mother’s milk of politics.”
That was a phrase coined by Jesse “Big Daddy” Unruh, a California politician, 58 years ago – and it still appears to apply to campaigns today.
The Democrats’ presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Harris has raised more than $1 billion since President Joe Biden dropped out of the race on July 21. Republican candidate former President Donald Trump has raised $642 million in this election cycle, split about evenly between his own campaign committee and various political action committees, according to OpenSecrets.org.
Meanwhile, in Michigan, both hopefuls in the hotly contested campaign for the U.S. Senate are spending tens of millions of dollars in the lead-up to Nov. 5.
The outcome of the race for the seat – held for more than two decades by retiring Democrat Debbie Stabenow – could be critical to determining the majority of the U.S. Senate next year.
Official records show that the Democrats’ Elissa Slotkin has raised $23.8 million, while her Republican opponent Mike Rogers has raised about $18.4 million.
Behind these figures are details that disclose other facts about where their money is coming from, such as:
- What industries and interest groups are openly funding a specific campaign
- Top individual donors
- Notable out-of-district and out-of-state donors
- Percentage of large vs. small donations
- How much cash is still on hand in the final weeks of the campaign
In Slotkin’s case, her “top five industry” donors are: 1. Hospitals/nursing homes; 2. Securities and investment; 3. Lawyers/law firms; 4. Education; and 5. Women’s issues.
Abortion issues – being among key concerns in this campaign – are having an impact on donors in this race.
So Rogers’ top five industry donors are somewhat similar: 1. Hospitals/nursing homes; 2. Health professionals; 3. Securities and investment; 4. Insurance; and 5. Real estate.
NEW ERA IN VOTER ACCESS
Campaign financing has been a murky, often suspect part of American democracy since the early 19th century when the first national political parties emerged.
Since then, many state and federal laws have been passed to reform the practice, but transparency activists say there’s still much work to be done.
Today, voters can dig into the details of campaign financing using free online tools from nonprofit groups such as OpenSecrets.org and the Michigan Secretary of State’s Bureau of Elections.
Not only can they find what individuals and PACS are donating, they can also see totals-by-donor categories.
On the county level, voters can see candidate financial records on the Grand Traverse County clerk’s website, Chief Deputy Clerk Sam Gedman said.
Those records give detailed information on county commission candidates and other countywide office seekers, including money raised and how it’s being spent. Voters can also look up county-by-county details about campaign contribution limits and population.
For example, Jan Wyant is a Democratic candidate running for a seat on the county board of commissioners in District 4. She is running against Republican incumbent Darryl Nelson.
A campaign finance report filed on Sept. 4 shows that Wyant received $300 in donations from July 22 to August 26. Her campaign committee spent $1,436 on postcard design and printing.
The report also details the official address of her committee, as well as the name and address of her committee’s treasurer.
Those local reports – like many in Michigan – are posted online as scanned images so they can’t be downloaded into databases or spreadsheet programs for further analysis.
FIGHTING FOR REFORMS
The Michigan Campaign Finance Network is fighting to increase transparency in campaign finances, particularly through new legislation pending in Lansing.
Founded in 1996, MCFN is a nonpartisan, nonprofit group with the goal of “shining the brightest light possible on the role of money in Michigan politics.”
Nick Pigeon, executive director of MCFN, says that Michigan isn’t the worst state for campaign finance reform, but it still lags behind others in voter access to donor information, particularly when it comes to so-called “dark money.”
“When Proposal 2 passed in 2022 by 60 percent to 40 percent, it was clear evidence that people in Michigan really care about transparency in government,” Pigeon said.
Dark money is cash raised for the purpose of influencing elections through 501©(4) nonprofit organizations. (These should not be confused with charitable nonprofits that operate under the 501©(3) of the federal tax code.)
Following the 2010 Citizens United vs. FEC ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, these dark money “Super PACs” are not required to disclose the identities of their donors, nor do they have restrictions on “independent expenditures” for political campaigns.
Examples of groups using this dark money loophole include corporations, labor unions, trade groups and other organizations.
Some of these donor groups use misleading names, such as “Citizens for XYZ,” that seem to imply a grassroots effort, but may actually be funded by a very small group of interested parties. These special interest groups sometimes appear a few months before an election, then disappear after the final votes are cast. Some political observers call these organizations “AstroTurf” for fake grassroots influencers.
Both Democrat Betsy Coffia and Republican Lisa Trombley, candidates for Michigan House District 103, have deplored the vast amounts of money being spent by outside groups to influence that race.
One way to tell if there’s outside money being spent to influence a race is to read the small print on campaign postcards, flyers, signs and video advertisements. If that text doesn’t say the promotion was paid for by “the Committee to Elect Candidate (Name),” it’s probably coming from an outside organization not controlled by the candidate.
Last March during government “Sunshine Week,” a group of House Democrats in Lansing introduced a new package of bills designed to target lobbying, gifts and 501©(4) organizations.
The set of bills, called the “BRITE” Act, is focused on “Bringing Reforms in Integrity, Transparency and Ethics.”
If passed, it would increase reporting and disclosure requirements for registered lobbyists and require state-level public officials to submit comprehensive financial records on an annual basis.
In addition to financial disclosure, the BRITE Act would restrict state lawmakers from becoming registered lobbyists within a year after their term ends, with exceptions for those who go on to lobby for a state agency, the governor, attorney general or secretary of state.
“It’s a very robust and comprehensive transparency law that would make Michigan the most transparent state in the nation,” Pigeon said.
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel spoke out in support of the BRITE Act last month.
“Powerful interests have exploited gaps in our campaign finance laws to influence elections and public policy for far too long,” Nessel said. “I will continue to advocate for other bills in the BRITE Act legislative package.
“By strengthening our laws, we can restore public trust in our government and ensure that elected officials are accountable to the people they serve, not lobbyists or donors with deep pockets.”
So far, BRITE Act legislation hasn’t moved to the full House for a floor vote, much less the Michigan Senate or governor’s office.
Pigeon says passage of the package – in full or in part – isn’t likely during 2024 because it’s an election year.
“It’s been a low attendance year for the state Legislature because it’s an election year,” he said. “I’m hopeful that BRITE Act bills will be reintroduced in 2025.”
In the meantime, Pigeon added, Michigan voters should be concerned about the current state of campaign financing: “They want and need to have all the tools necessary to see who’s paying for political campaigns.”