Table of Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................2 Introduction ........................................................................................................3 Congressional Races............................................................................................4 State Senate Races .............................................................................................6 State House Races...............................................................................................8 Summary ..........................................................................................................10 Methodology......................................................................................................11 Appendices........................................................................................................11 1 Making Safe Seats Safer Executive Summary Large campaign contributions allow For Non-Competitive* Districts wealthy donors to unduly influence who Financial District # of Candidates can run for office and who wins elections Advantage Advantage who Overcame Both in Ohio. This analysis examines the role Disadvantages of campaign contributions in influencing Congressional 14/14 14/14 0 the outcome of Ohio elections. State Senate 13/13 13/13 0 State House 80/84 77/84 2 The candidate who raised the most money won 95% of the time. n Big money won 18 of 18 congressional This chart shows the number of times that a candidate prevailed who held either a financial advantage in campaign contributions or a district advantage due to running in a seat that was races, 16 of 16 state senate races, and 92 tilted toward their party. The final column is the number of candidates who prevailed against of 99 state house races. both of these disadvantages. Winning candidates significantly outraised their opponents. seven times as much as their opponents. n In 98% of these non-competitive districts, one or more of the dual n In congressional races, winners raised n In safe house seats, winners raised five advantages of campaign financing or five times as much as their opponents times as much as their opponents. In less district gerrymandering prevailed. and had a total cash advantage of $15 safe seats, winners raised 2.6 times as million. much as their opponents. n In state senate races, winners raised Dual disadvantages. twelve times as much as their opponents and had total a cash advantage of $9.7 Campaign fundraising and million. gerrymandering both tilt the playing field in favor of some candidates and against n In state house races, winners raised others. Our final analysis looked out how four times as much as their opponents these forces work in tandem. and had a total cash advantage of $11 million. n For 14 congressional and 13 state senate races, the dual advantages Slanted districts are even worse. predicted 100% of the results for non- competitive districts. Fundraising discrepancies are even larger in districts that are slanted heavily toward n In the 84 non-competitive state house one party as a result of gerrymandering districts, only seven candidates overcame in the redistricting process. Excluding the district advantage. Five of those uncontested races: seven did so by dramatically outspending their opponents. n In safe congressional seats, winners raised 11 times as much as their n In only 2 of 111 non-competitive opponents. In less safe seats, winners districts did a candidate beat the odds by raised 2.4 times as much. winning in a district where the partisan * Non-competitive seats are those that are either safe makeup disadvantaged them while also for one party or leaning toward one party as defined on page 6. n In safe state senate seats, winners raised facing an opponent who raised more 37 times as much as their opponents. In money. less safe senate seats, winners raised Research for the Rest of Us 2 Introduction Imagine that you decided to run for contributions into President George W. in 2004, the remaining 15 are state senate office in Ohio. Among other challenges, Bush’s 2004 presidential campaign. seats that will be elected in 2006. you would immediately confront two Other recent allegations have included While it is not necessarily powerful forces that would determine the charge that Attorney General Jim detrimental to democracy for like-minded the likelihood that you could win: 1) Petro gave out contracts to law firms who voters to safely elect representatives how much money you could raise in contributed heavily to his campaign and who share their values, when this comparison to your opponents, and 2) other Republican causes. happens as the intentional result of whether the district you are running in political gerrymandering it distorts the was drawn to favor your political party. The endless grind of scandals suggests to Ohio voters that their elected representative process to underrepresent Current campaign finance laws officials simply operate as a cash register moderates and other interests. in Ohio allow large donors to unduly – taking campaign contributions or gifts This analysis examines how determine which candidates run for in and giving out government favors and frequently these twin forces of campaign office, which of these candidates win, contracts. While there may be some contributions and gerrymandering what issues dominate political discourse, truth to this story, it ignores a larger compound each other to lock out and ultimately the disposition of those systemic problem: big donors are able meaningful challengers who might issues. This analysis examines the role to influence elections outcomes with otherwise truly represent the interests of campaign contributions in influencing large, legal contributions. This enables of Ohio’s communities. More often the outcome of Ohio elections. While them to avoid making explicit bribes or then not, campaign contributions big money plays a pernicious role at quid pro quo arrangements in exchange further tilt an already un-level playing the early stages of the election cycle, for political favors. Rather, big donors field by giving the candidate who is when potential candidates are deciding can ensure that politicians who are well advantaged by a gerrymandered district whether they can make a viable run for known to the donor community and an even greater advantage in campaign office and when party primaries narrow who share their self-serving politics can fundraising. Who, after all, wants to the field of candidates, this analysis defeat more civic-minded opponents waste their campaign contributions on a focuses solely on the role of money in who share the values and interests of candidate who is running in a district that general elections. Ohio’s families and ordinary citizens. was engineered to assure the success of Once in office, big money’s elected the opposing party? Political scandals have plagued officials know to scratch the backs of Ohio in recent years. In 2004, Speaker those private interests who put them In December 2004, Governor Larry Householder shelved his statewide into power and what is necessary to stay Taft called a special session of the political ambitions when consultants there. Ohio legislature to address campaign linked to Householder were caught financing. The legislature passed strong-arming lobbyists for campaign But money in politics is not the only HB1, championed by Rep. Dewine and contributions. In the spring of 2005, influence on election outcomes. Our Sen. Jacobson, which improved some federal investigators found that a coin- previous analysis, Safe Seats, Dangerous disclosure of campaign contributions collector named Thomas Noe had Democracy, found that politicians draw while dramatically increasing the squandered or stolen millions of dollars political boundaries in the redistricting amount that large donors can contribute from a state workers compensation fund. process that intentionally skew to candidates from $2,500 to $10,000. Noe was a prodigious campaign donor, representation by packing like-minded The data we analyzed in this report having contributed to most Republican voters into safe seats that are all but is from the 2004 election cycle, and officeholders in the state of Ohio and assured to elect a candidate of one represents contributions given before the some beyond Ohio. Governor Bob Taft party. Out of 150 congressional, state higher limits of HB1 were enacted. The pled no contest in August to charges senate, and state house races, we found disparity in fundraising between winning that he failed to report gifts he had that 126 of them were rigged to be safe candidates and their opponents will only received from lobbyists, including a golf or to lean heavily toward one party. Of grow larger should contribution limits outing paid for by Mr. Noe. In October those 126 seats, the party favored by the remain at the level prescribed in HB1. 2005, federal prosecutors indicted Mr. gerrymander won 117, or 93 percent. Of Noe for laundering illegal campaign those 126 seats. 111 were up for election 3 Making Safe Seats Safer Congressional Races while in less safe seats winners had a 2.4- n The average margin of victory was 33 In 2004, 18 candidates were elected to fold fundraising advantage. the U.S. House of Representatives from percentage points; Ohio. None of the races were particularly n In Democratic safe seats, winners n Overall, winners raised 4.7 times competitive: raised more than four times