Archives
WASHINGTON, October 27, 2004 — The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 brought about monumental changes in campaign finance practices, forcing political parties at all levels to significantly modify their operations. County parties—which are often closest to the ground during key elections —are having an especially difficult time adjusting, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of Federal Election Commission data covering the first 20 months of the 2004 election cycle. >>
WASHINGTON, October 14, 2004 — State, district and county political party committees throughout the country are largely shunning a new kind of federal campaign money, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of Federal Election Commission data covering the first nineteen months of the 2004 election cycle. >>
Update
WASHINGTON, September 14, 2004 — Laying the groundwork for the November election, the national political parties have transferred nearly $13.5 million to their state counterparts thus far in 2004, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of Federal Election Commission data. >>
Update
WASHINGTON, August 26, 2004 — Kentucky had no federal elections in 2003, but it did have an expensive gubernatorial race pitting Ernie Fletcher, a Republican congressman, against Ben Chandler, the Democratic state attorney general. >>
Original Report
WASHINGTON, March 25, 2004 — State parties raised nearly $823 million in the 2001-2002 election cycle, bolstered by millions from labor unions, corporations, wealthy individuals and the national parties, according to a new study by the Center for Public Integrity. About 53 percent of the total went to Democrats and 47 percent went to Republicans. >>
WASHINGTON, March 25, 2004 — Seven of every 10 dollars that state party and caucus committees received from the national parties during the 2001-2002 election cycle came in the form of "soft money" now banned under federal campaign finance law. >>
WASHINGTON, March 25, 2004 — Of the $790 million spent by state political party and caucus committees during the 2001-2002 cycle, almost half went to a collection of strategists, pollsters and mailing houses that specialize in swaying voters. >>
WASHINGTON, March 25, 2004 — In the 2002 election cycle, 16 leadership committees—essentially political action committees run by elected politicians—in five states raised and spent more than $17 million. >>
WASHINGTON, October 24, 2002 — The National Republican Senatorial Committee sent $3.2 million in soft money to the Republican Party of Florida this election cycle, though there's no Senate race in that state this year. There is a gubernatorial contest with national implications, however — Republican incumbent Jeb Bush is facing a tight race against Bill McBride, his opponent. In exchange for the soft money, Florida's GOP has transferred $2.7 million in hard money to the NRSC, which can be spent to influence close Senate races with far fewer restrictions. >>
Special Report
September 26, 2002 — Nearly half the states received a failing grade for the campaign finance disclosure required of state-level political party organizations, according to an exhaustive analysis by the Center for Public Integrity released today.
The poor disclosure at the state level will become an even more critical issue when the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act goes into effect in November, as corporations and other special interests divert huge contributions from the national parties to the states. >>
September 26, 2002 — The Center for Public Integrity conducted a nationwide survey of state agencies that collect and monitor campaign finance reports. The survey focused on the reporting, filing, public access and enforcement of campaign finance reports filed by state-wide political party committees. >>
September 26, 2002 — Four states explicitly permit political parties to maintain financial accounts where unlimited donations can be received with no disclosure to the public. And a total of 18 states allow party organizations to shield some aspect of their financial activity – the identity of donors or how money is spent – from public inspection. >>
September 26, 2002 — Even where disclosure laws are among the strongest in the country, political party committees have succeeded in keeping millions of dollars in receipts off the books and hidden from public view. >>
September 26, 2002 — Federal campaign finance laws are generally considered to be the standard against which similar laws in the states are measured. But the Center for Public Integrity survey shows four states—Washington, Oregon, California, and North Carolina—have more stringent laws than those used to govern federally regulated party committees. >>
WASHINGTON, June 25, 2002 — In the 2000 elections, Democratic and Republican state party committees raised $570 million, with 46 percent comprised of soft money transfers from national party organizations, according to an unprecedented study of party activity at the state level. >>
WASHINGTON, June 25, 2002 — Gaps in state disclosure laws, incomplete reporting and problems obtaining campaign finance reports make it difficult to track the money coming in and out of state political party coffers. >>
WASHINGTON, June 25, 2002 — Among the 50 states, only Connecticut has a campaign finance law that prevents the national parties from flooding its elections with transfers of unregulated, soft money donations. >>
WASHINGTON, June 25, 2002 — Campaign funds in the U.S. political party system are divided into two categories—"federal" and "non-federal." Federal "hard" money is spent on campaigns for federal office. Contributions are limited and disclosed. The McCain-Feingold election reform law actually doubles the amount of hard money an individual can contribute in an election. >>
June 25, 2002 — Profiles of the Top 10 Individual Donors to Non-federal Accounts of State Party Committees During the 2000 Election Cycle >>
June 25, 2002 — What percentage of all contributions received by state party and caucus committees in each state were transfers of soft money from the national parties, as reported to the Federal Election Commission. It is sorted based on total contributions. >>
June 25, 2002 — Joint Statement of the
The Center for Public Integrity,
The Center for Responsive Politics,
and The National Institute on Money in State Politics >>