epip/ncrp webinar | supersized imbalance: post-2014 election, what foundations should know

SUPERSIZED IMBALANCE: POST-2015 ELECTION, WHAT FOUNDATIONS SHOULD KNOW

EPIP/NCRP Webinar January 9th, 2015 Hosts: Michael Barham and Christine Reeves

2

Emerging Practitioners in Philanthropy (EPIP) is a national network of foundation professionals and social entrepreneurs who strive for excellence in the practice of philanthropy.

3

We are an inclusive group of highly skilled & effective Change Makers committed to working together to build a just, equitable, & sustainable society.

4

We provide a platform for our community to:

Connect with others

Learn & practice

leadership skills

Voice emerging,

transformative thoughts in the

social sector

Join EPIP!

If you’re not yet a member, join us!

More information on our site at www.epip.org/membership

or contact [email protected]

Announcements •  EPIP National Conference – Save the Date! •  May 13th-14th

•  New Orleans, LA •  Next EPIP Webinar - Wednesday, February 4th, 3pm ET •  Black Male Achievement: An Exploration of Systemic and

Capacity Building Solutions •  Foundation Center, Open Society Foundations, PolicyLink,

CLASP

• MC MaL •  January: Communications

• All Events •  epip.org/events

Housekeeping • All attendees on mute during the presentation

• Use the question box for technical difficulties

• We’ll save time for Q&A

• We’ll be recording this webinar, visit our website to view

• Complete the post-webinar survey!

Supersized Imbalance:

Post-2014 Election, What Foundations Should Know

Christine Reeves!

Edwin Bender!

Daniel Stid!Tara Malloy!

Bert Brandenburg!

Goals for Our Time Today Frame Overview of NIMSP Tool #1: Who Gives to Influence Policy? (Example: Fracking) #2: Legislative Action in the States (Example: ACA Health Policy) #3: Judicial Independence (Example: Money in Judicial Elections) #4: Defending & Enforcing Campaign Finance (Example: Sun Act) #5: How Election Data Informs the Hewlett Foundation (Example: Madison Initiative Program)

ICEBREAKER!

FollowTheMoney.org Tracking political donations in all 50 states

National Institute on Money in State Politics EPIP/NCRP JAN. 2015

We Connect the Dots in 50 States Ballot measures

Judicial candidates

Statewide candidates

Legislative candidates

Federal candidates

Political parties

Lobbyists & clients



What Can Data Tell You?

$5.6 Billion to Gubernatorial Races $8.4 Billion to Legislative Races $4.3 Billion to Ballot Measures



Our Data Tells You

Who gave? How much? To whom? When?

The Institute is seen as a “gold standard” reference and a “gold mine” of information. —RAND Corp, 2014

FollowTheMoney.org

Transparency

Media

Academia

Advocacy

Policy

Gov�t Agencies

Sunlight Foundation MapLight Project Vote Smart TransparencyData.com CNN, ABC, CBS, Fox, NPR, MSNBC Wall St. Journal, NY Times, Reuters, Newsweek Center for Public Integrity ProPublica Investigative News Network Stateline.org Harvard, Stanford, Rice, New York Univ. of Law Sustainable Investments Institute American Judicature Society Election Law Journal Common Cause Midwest Democracy Network U.S. PIRG State Voices AARP Campaign for a Just Society Cato Institute Justice at Stake Campaign Finance Institute Progressive States Network Heritage Foundation Brennan Center for Justice All 50 state elections agencies U.S. Supreme Court National Conference of State Legislatures U.S. Government Accountability Office Council on Governmental Ethics Laws



Identify special interest money

Data = Informed Power Mapping

Who may wish to influence public policy? How much did they give to people in positions of power?



Specific Work for Foundations

Ex: The Energy Foundation

supported Institute investigation of

lobbying influence on laws related to climate change in

five states



Legislative Power Mapping

Focus on special interest

contributors Ex: Oil & Gas




Which states were targeted?




Look at the detail …by State … by Contributor




Is your focus on healthcare?

Health-related political giving to

state legislators is on the rise

nationwide

$74M

$36M $49M

$62M



Specific Work for Foundations

Ex: The California Endowment asked the Institute to document the record-breaking pace of the California medical insurance industry’s political contributions to affect 2014 state elections.




Zero in on key committee members in one state




Who gave them the most?




… how much? … from? … to?

Save your searches and download results




Narrow your focus to who has the

power in committee

(2015 legislative committees coming soon!)



Contact Edwin Bender 406-449-2480

[email protected]

Follow us! Facebook.com/FollowTheMoney.org

Twitter: @MoneyInPolitics

Want to Learn More?

New$Poli)cs$of$Judicial$Elec)ons$

Tara Malloy!

The Disclosure Deficit: Anonymous Campaign Spending after Citizens United

and its Effects

Citizens United v. FEC!Five Justices struck down the federal restrictions on

corporate spending to influence elections.!All but Justice Thomas voted to uphold disclosure.!

The Aftermath of Citizens United

Elec)on$Year$ Total$(non8party)$outside$spending$

2006$ $69,535,000$

2008$ $338,400,000$

Ci#zens(United(

2010$ $309,834,000$

2012$ $1,038,737,000$

2014$ $560,637,000$

Information from the Center for Responsive Politics

Biggest “Dark Money” Groups, 2014

Group Spending US Chamber of Commerce $35,464,243 Crossroads GPS $26,015,161 NRA Institute for Legislative Action $12,117,487 Patriot Majority USA $10,652,298 American Action Network $8,958,129

Information from the Center for Responsive Politics

Section 501(c) groups •  A 501(c)(3) organization is a public charity or private foundation (e.g., Boy

Scouts of America, Heritage Foundation, churches). A 501(c)(3) is prohibited from participating or intervening in any political campaign for a candidate for public office.

•  A 501(c)(4) is a social welfare organization (e.g., NRA, Sierra Club). Donors also need not be publicly disclosed under the tax law. Unlike (c)(3)s, these groups can participate in political campaign activity for candidates for public office, provided that this is not their primary activity. Examples of such (c)(4)s are Crossroads GPS and American Action Network.

•  501(c)(5)s are labor organizations and 501(c)(6)s are trade associations. They are also not required to publicly disclose their donors under the tax law. Similarly to 501(c)(4)s, these groups can engage in political campaign activity provided that it is not their primary activity. Both of these types of groups were very involved in the 2010 elections; according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the most active (c)(5) was the Service Employees International Union and the most active (c)(6) was the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Declining Disclosure

1 Figure: Campaign Legal Center. Data: Center for Responsive Politics.!

0%!

10%!

20%!

30%!

40%!

50%!

60%!

70%!

2008! 2012!

Portion of Outside Spending Disclosed1

65 %!

41 %!

Reasons for the Disclosure Deficit

•  Federal law not designed to capture large scale spending by corporations and non-profit corporations

•  IRC does not require donor disclosure from many types of 501(c) groups

•  The FEC gutted the federal electioneering communications disclosure law was gutted by a regulation in 2007.

• Other potential regulators – SEC, FCC – have not taken action

Multi-prong Approach to

Improving Transparency

a. Legisla)ve$Ac)on$(DISCLOSE$Act)$b. Affirma)ve$Li)ga)on$(Van$Hollen$v.$FEC)$

c. Administra)ve$Prac)ce$(IRS,$FEC)$$d. Defensive$Li)ga)on$

The Hewlett

Foundation’s

Madison Initiative

Our goal: help create conditions

in which Congress and its

members can negotiate and

compromise in ways that work

for most Americans

Ingredients for Impact:

Foundations Building Nonprofit Capacity

& Real Results

#2014GEO @NCRP!

epip/ncrp webinar | supersized imbalance: post-2014 election, what foundations should know

Government & Nonprofit

states national institute

states example

epip webinar

epipncrp webinar

state politics epipncrp

election data

philanthropy epip

hewlett foundation example