The Life of the Party

:
Hard Facts on Soft Money “Housekeeping” Accounts in New York State

A Common Cause/NY Report May 2013 Endorsed by:
New York Public Interest Research Group Citizens Union

About Common Cause:
Common Cause is a nonpartisan, nonprofit advocacy organization founded in 1970 by John Gardner as a vehicle for citizens to make their voices heard in the political process and to hold their elected leaders accountable to the public interest. Common Cause/New York is a state level chapter focusing on state and local government in New York. We work to strengthen public participation and faith in our institutions of government, ensure that government and the political process serve the public interest rather than special interests, curb the excessive influence of money on government policy and elections, and promote fair and honest elections and high ethical standards for government officials.

Acknowledgements:
This report was written by Brian Paul and Susan Lerner with some portions directly adapted from the 2006 Common Cause/NY report of the same name, written by former Common Cause/NY staff Liam Arbetman, Megan Quattlebaum, Rachel Leon, and Kailin Clarke.

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS:
Key Findings….…………………………………….……...………4 Introduction: A Rule That’s Made to Be Broken………..………..….…6 Who Gives Soft Money? ......................................................................... 9
Top 20 Donors and the $100,000 Club…………………………….………….….11 “Giving and Getting”………………………………………………….……….13

Who Gets Soft Money?…………………………………………….17 How is Soft Money Used?..…………………………………...……21 Recommendations: Close This Loophole Now…………………..….…27 Appendix A – Methodology and Data……..…………………..….…28 Appendix B – Top Soft Money Donors …….…………………..….…29 Appendix C – Top Soft Money Recipients….…………………..….…35

3

KEY FINDINGS:
Soft money is a growing source of political dollars in New York State. From 2006-2012, a total of $87.1 million was contributed to the parties’ “non-campaign housekeeping” accounts. Soft money contributions to the state parties and state legislature grew by 24% when comparing the seven year periods of 1999-2005 and 2006-2012.1 By far the largest category of soft money donors is businesses, which account for $45.4 million or 52% of all soft money contributions. o Individuals comprise the next largest category of donors at $23.3 million (27%). Soft money donations from political committees account for $9.4 million (11%) while labor unions come in a distant fourth at $7.7 million (9%). However, two of the top five overall donors are unions. Soft money contributions are often given in amounts that dwarf what would be legal if the funds were given to candidates or hard money committees, despite the fact that New York State has some of the highest campaign contributions limits in the nation. o The single largest soft money contributions were checks for $1 million from hedge fund executive Robert Mercer to the Conservative Party in 2010 and Mayor Michael Bloomberg to the Senate Republican Campaign Committee in 2012. o 65% of soft money is raised through contributions of $10,000 or higher and over 34% of soft money is raised through contributions of $50,000 or higher. o Businesses made 1,652 contributions greater than $5,000 that raised a total of $32 million dollars, illustrating how soft money is a gaping loophole that renders the state’s $5,000 annual limit on corporate donations completely meaningless 132 donors gave $100,000 or more in aggregate, accounting for $54.7 million or 63% of all soft money contributions since 2006. Among these top donors, businesses and business associations dominate, accounting for 86 of the 132. o The top twenty donors are Mayor Michael Bloomberg ($7.2 m), New York State United Teachers ($3.2m), the Greater New York Hospital Association ($3.0m), 1199/SEIU Healthcare Workers East ($2.0m), Cablevision ($1.6m), Verizon ($1.5m), the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America ($1.4m), Time Warner Cable ($1.2m), Philip Morris ($1.2m) , the Healthcare Association of New York ($1.1m), Robert Mercer ($1.0m), the Rent Stabilization Association ($941k), Wal-Mart ($929k), the estate of Henry Sanders ($813k), the Red Apple Group and John Catsimatidis ($780k), Coca-Cola ($664k), the Law PAC of New York ($651k), AT&T ($624k), and Diageo Guinness ($566k). See Appendix B on page 29 for the full list of $100,000+ donors. From 2006-2012, the State Legislature party committees were the top recipients of soft money contributions, accounting for a total of $33.8 million (39%). County parties across the state raised a total of $25.7 million (30%), state parties raised $24.1 million (28%), and local level parties raised $1.9 million (2%).

-

-

-

-

1

Before 2006, soft money contributions at the county and local level were not reported to the New York State Board of Elections. Comparing soft money in the state parties and the state legislature, $46.7 million was raised between 1999 and 2005 while $58 million was raised between 2006 and 2012, an increase of 24%.

4

-

Overall, Republican committees raised more soft money than their Democratic counterparts -$37.9 million (43.5%) to $33.9 million (38.9%). o The overall Republican advantage is entirely due to the fundraising prowess of the State Senate Republican Committee, which raised a towering $19.9 million in soft money compared to only $5.3 million for the State Senate Democratic Committee. o In the State Assembly, Democratic outraised Republicans $7.0 million to $1.7 million. o The New York State Democratic Committee outraised the New York Republican State Committee $7.0 million to $4.9 million. The top ten committees took in a total of $64.3 million (74%) and include the NYS Senate Republican Campaign Committee ($19.9m), the NYS Democratic Committee ($7.0m), the NYS Democratic Assembly Campaign Committee ($7.0m), the Conservative Party NYS ($5.7m), the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee ($5.3m), the New York Republican State Committee ($4.9m), the Independence Party of NYS ($4.5m), the Monroe County Republican Committee ($4.4m), the Queens County Democratic Party ($3.5m), and the Kings County Democratic Party Committee ($2.1m) o During the period from 1999-2005, the New York State Republican Committee was far and away the largest recipient of soft money at $17.6 million. From 2006-2012, the New York State Republican Committee took in dramatically less soft money at only $4.9 million. On the other hand, soft money fundraising by the New York State Senate Republican Committee more than doubled from $8.5 million during the 1999-2005 period to $19.9 million during 2006-2012. o Another notable shift is the rise in the clout of the NYS Independence Party (which raised only $191,000 in soft money from 1999-2005 but jumped to $4.5 million from 2006-2012) and the Working Families Party (which raised $481,000 from 1999-2005 but jumped to $2.0 million from 2006-2012). Without clear guidelines and consistent auditing, it is impossible to rely on accurate self-reporting of expenditures by the parties. o The largest single category of soft money expenses is “Other” at a total of $37.3 million. o Nearly $3.8 million in expenses have no purpose code or a purpose code not identified by the BOE. o Less than 0.2% of expenses are itemized as “Voter Registration Materials or Services” which is often the type of expenditure used to defend the need for soft money “Non-campaign” soft money housekeeping expenditures regularly peak in election season of each election year, indicating that much of the spending is campaign related. o The election season spikes in housekeeping expenses are due to sharp increases in hiring high-priced political consultants and spending on advertising and mass-mailing With no limits to the size of donations or enforcement of “non-campaign” spending, soft money accounts have become an integral part of Albany’s “show me the money” culture and an important contributor to the power of wealthy special interests at both the state and local levels of New York State government.

-

-

-

-

5

A Rule That’s Made to Be Broken
New York State’s Election Law establishes numerous limitations on the size of campaign contributions that contributors may give and political candidates and parties may receive. No individual may give more than $150,000 in the aggregate in any single year, and no corporation may give more than $5,000 in a single year. Political party committees may accept no more than $102,300 from an individual and $5,000 from a corporation. The aim of these laws is to prevent corruption by ensuring that our lawmakers are not beholden to wealthy special interests. This goal is already undermined by the by the fact that these limits are extraordinarily high compared to other states and the federal government. Even the relatively low $5,000 limit for a corporation can be avoided by contributing through numerous legally separate subsidiaries or LLCs. But what is even more shocking about our campaign finance law is the gaping “soft money” loophole that renders the limits that we do have completely meaningless:

“The contribution and receipt limits of this article shall not apply to monies received and expenditures made by a party committee or constituted committee to maintain a permanent headquarters and staff and carry on ordinary activities which are not for the express purpose of promoting the candidacy of specific candidates ” (NYS Election Law §14-124)
Any corporation, individual, union, or other interest wishing to evade campaign contribution limits need only give to a type of party committee that is supposedly reserved for administrative tasks and “party building” purposes. These party accounts, commonly referred to as “soft money” or “housekeeping” accounts, can accept unlimited sums of cash. Soft money is not supposed to be used to support candidates and their campaigns but this legal barrier does not hold up in practice. Common Cause/NY undertook our first study of soft money in 20062 in response to an increase in press reports of huge donations and blatantly campaign-related uses. The federal government had recently banned soft money in 2002 with the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (aka “McCain-Feingold), a ban that was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2003’s McConnell v. FEC. The Supreme Court found that this loophole enabling unlimited donations to the parties raised concerns about corruption or its appearance and that “the best means of prevention is to identify a nd remove the temptation.” Common Cause/NY’s 2006 report on New York State soft money found the stated purpose of the housekeeping accounts as funds for “party building” administrative use to be pure fiction. Millions of
2

Liam Arbetman, Megan Quattlebaum, Rachel Leon, and Kailin Clarke, Common Cause/NY. “The Life o f the Party: Hard Facts on Soft Money in New York State.” August 2006. http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/SOFT_MONEY_REPORT.PDF

6

dollars were being raised by the soft money committees from a select group of very large donors that clearly had an interest in shaping the results of elections and policy-making. Spending by the housekeeping accounts spiked each election season as monies were used to hire high-priced consultants and pay for campaign-related advertising thinly disguised as “issue ads.” Since 2006, the soft money loophole in New York’s campaign finance laws has grown in significance and abuse. Soft money contributions to the state parties and the state legislature grew by 24% when comparing the seven year periods of 1999-2005 and 2006-2012. Altogether since 1999, $104.7 million in soft money has flowed to the state party and state legislature housekeeping committees. Add the $29.1 million given at the county and local level since the State Board of Elections began tracking it in 2006, and the total sum of soft money given since 1999 amounts to a staggering $133.8 million.

Soft money contributions to the state parties and state legislature grew by 24% when comparing the seven year periods of 1999-2005 and 2006-2012.

With the Board of Elections undertaking no meaningful auditing and enforcement regarding the legitimate use of soft money accounts for “non-campaign” expense, the parties continue to push the boundary of housekeeping uses further and further.

7

In 2013 as the New York State Legislature is poised to pass a serious package of campaign finance reform for the first time in many years, it’s critical that soft money is not overlooked. Whatever our state’s intent when it created the loophole, soft money has become in practice a way to evade the spirit, if not the letter, of campaign finance law. The ability of special interests to contribute unlimited sums to soft money accounts helps engender a “show-me-the money” culture of corruption and dysfunction. Alongside establishing a Fair Elections system of public matching funds, which would reduce the dependency of politicians and parties on big checks from special interests, it is essential that we lower that state’s sky-high campaign contribution limits and finally close New York’s notorious soft money loophole for good.

8

Who Gives Soft Money?
To complete this study, Common Cause/NY assembled full datasets of all soft money receipts and expenses in New York State (see appendix a – methodology, on page 28 for details). For a spreadsheet of the full data set, email Brian Paul at bpaul@commoncause.org. Our analysis of the data shows that by far the largest category of donors is businesses, which have given $45.4 million since 2006, or roughly 52% of all soft money contributions. The dominance of business interests in soft money contributions is likely due to the relatively low limit on corporate hard money contributions compared to other classes of donors (a $5,000 aggregate limit compared to a $150,000 aggregate limit for individuals)

Individuals comprise the second largest category of donors, at a total of $23.3 million (27%). A large portion of the total for individuals comes from Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is the top donor of any type to soft money accounts during this period, with $7.2 million in spending. 9

Overall, labor unions give a relatively small portion of soft money donations -- $7.7 million or roughly 9% of the total. The majority of labor contributions, nearly $5.2 million, come from just two powerful unions – the New York State United Teachers (NYSUT) and 1199/SEIU Healthcare Workers East. With no aggregate limits on the amount of hard money they may give through PACs, unions do not need to exploit the soft money loophole in order to give large amounts of campaign cash. In the most recent “Capital Investments” report on combined hard and soft money fundraising in the 2012 cycle, NYPIRG found that businesses outspent unions by $38 million to $14 million, less of a gap than the $45.4 million to $7.7 million advantage for businesses that Common Cause/NY has found here for all soft money from 2006-2012. The remaining portion of soft money contributions are given by other party or candidates committees ($9.4 million, 11%), advocacy groups ($367,000), and unitemized contributors ($938,000). These findings are highly similar to those of the 2006 Common Cause/NY report on the 1999-2005 period, which found businesses accounting for 60%, individuals for 20%, and labor unions for 9% of soft money contributions. Whether the donor is a corporation, a labor union, or an individual, huge sums of soft money are raised through mega-donations that dwarf what would be legal if the funds were given to candidates or hardmoney party committees.

10

65% of all soft money comes in five figure sizes or above and roughly 23% comes in truly giant donations of $100,000 or higher. During this period, businesses made 1,652 contributions greater than $5,000 that raised a total of $32 million dollars, illustrating how soft money is a gaping loophole that renders the state’s $5,000 annual limit on corporate donations completely meaningless. However, it is interesting to note that a large number of soft money contributions by individuals are small donations of $200 or less (13,610 out of 24,214 contributions by individuals). These small individual donors to housekeeping accounts are typically local elected officials, their staffs, and other individual party members who give small checks multiple times each year. This is perhaps how the housekeeping accounts have been traditionally used – party members collectively paying towards a central administrative account for the party. Compared to these small donors, the number of wealthy individuals abusing the soft money loophole with huge donations is tiny, but these large donors provide the overwhelmingly majority of the total monies raised from individuals. The 41 donations by individuals in the amount of $100,000 or higher account for $10.4 million while the 13,610 small donations of $200 or less account for only $1.1 million. The lack of contribution limits on soft money empowers a wealthy few with tremendous influence over the party at the expense of rank and file members.

Top 20 Donors and the $100,000 Donor Club
The following are the top 20 donors who account for a total of $30.8 million, or 35% of all soft money contributions.

NYS Top 20 Soft Money Power Donors
(excluding political committees as donors. See Appendix B on page X for full list of $100,000+ donors) 1. MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG 2. NEW YORK STATE UNITED TEACHERS (NYSUT) VOTE/COPE 3. GNYHA MANAGEMENT CORPORATION 4. 1199 SEIU 5. CABLEVISION 6. VERIZON 7. PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICA (PhRMA) 8. TIME WARNER CABLE 9. PHILIP MORRIS / ALTRIA

Soft Money Contributions Industry Category 2006 – 2012
$7,170,000.00 $3,150,694.28 $2,965,500.00 $2,029,775.00 $1,573,041.52 $1,465,734.96 $1,421,000.00 $1,227,773.24 $1,207,750.00 GOVERNMENT ; FINANCE ; MEDIA LABOR -- EDUCATION HEALTHCARE -- HOSPITALS LABOR -- HEALTHCARE TELECOM TELECOM PHARMACEUTICALS TELECOM TOBACCO

11

NYS Top 20 Soft Money Power Donors (continued)
10. HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATION OF NY (HANYS) 11. ROBERT MERCER 12. RENT STABILIZATION ASSOCIATION 13. WAL-MART 14. ESTATE OF HENRY SANDERS 15. RED APPLE GROUP / UNITED REFINING CO. / JOHN CATSIMATIDIS 16. COCA-COLA COMPANY / COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY 17. LAW PAC OF NEW YORK 18. AT&T 19. DIAGEO NORTH AMERICA / DIAGEO-GUINESSS 20. LAWRENCE AND SUSAN KADISH

Soft Money Contributions 2006 – 2012
$1,058,500.00 $1,010,000.00 $940,550.00 $928,500.00 $812,710.10 $779,600.00 $663,500.00 $651,300.00 $634,800.00 $566,000.00 $559,500.00

Industry Category
HEALTHCARE FINANCE – HEDGE FUND (RENAISSANCE TECHNOLOGES) REAL ESTATE RETAIL ESTATE CONGLOMORATE : RETAIL-SUPERMARKET ; REAL ESTATE ; ENERGY BEVERAGES LAW TELECOM BEVERAGES -- BEER ; WINE ; LIQUOR REAL ESTATE (FIRST FISCAL FUND CORP)

The list of the top 20 overall soft-money donors reads like the top of an annual power list in New York State politics, a “who ’s who” of the state’s most influential political players. Each of the special interests on the list has a critical stake in influencing crucial government policies and regulations that affect all New Yorkers such as the rate of Medicaid reimbursement (GNYHA and HANYS), teacher evaluation policy (NYSUT), tax breaks for biotech (PhRMA), control of telecommunications franchises (Cablevision, Verizon, Time Warner, AT&T), rent regulation policy (RSA), and proposed taxes or regulations on soft drinks (Coca-Cola). Looking at the larger list of 132 top donors that gave at $100,000 or more is even more revealing (for the full list of soft money mega-donors, see Appendix B on page 29). From 2006-2012, a total of 132 donors gave $100,000 or more in aggregate. These top donors account for $54.7 million, or 62.8% of all soft money contributions during this period. 86 of these top donors are corporations, business associations, or a combination of a corporation and its individual owner/top executive. The dominance of businesses in this group of mega-donors again illustrates how soft money contributions are used by businesses to evade the state’s $5,000 limit on hard money corporate contributions. 22 of these top donors are individuals or couples, led by Mayor Bloomberg as the top overall donor at $7.2 million. The largest group of individual soft money mega-donors is in finance, including nine hedge fund managers including Paul Singer, Jonathan Pollock, and Richard Sokolow of Elliot Management, Robert Mercer, Henry Laufer, and James Simons of Renaissance Technologies, Bruce Kovner of Caxton Associates, and Daniel Loeb of Third Point Management. Other individuals include major nationwide 12

political donors Ken Langone, David Koch, and Bernard Schwartz as well as current New York State GOP Chairman Ed Cox and former Governor Eliot Spitzer. Just 8 of the top donors are labor unions, led by the New York State United Teachers as the second highest overall donor at $3.2 million and the 1199/SEIU Healthcare Workers East as the fourth highest overall donor at $2.0 million. The other six labor union mega-donors include SEIU International, the United Federation of Teachers, the Mason Tenders District Council, the New York State Correctional Officers PBA, and the National Education Association, which each contributed between $100,000 and $255,500.

Giving and Getting
In response to the recent string of corruption scandals in Albany, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara proclaimed that “the show-me-the-money culture seems to pervade in every level of New York government.”3 Unfortunately for New Yorkers, Mr. Bharara’s power to reign in the Albany money culture only extends to cases of blatantly illegal bribery and grift. The following stories are just a few examples of how the soft money housekeeping loophole helps to create a systemic legalized form of bribery and corruption in our state and local government.

Walmart and Other Chain Retailers Score Big with Minimum Wage Subsidy
In 2013, the New York State Legislature and Governor Cuomo enacted an increase in the state’s minimum wage to $9 an hour, phased in over the next three years. At a late hour, unannounced to the public, the Legislature slipped in a generous subsidy for employers to provide tax credits for those who hire seasonal employees ages 16-19 who are still in school. The subsidy is estimated to be worth $20 to $40 million annually.4 From 2006-2012, several chain retailers known for hiring young minimum wage workers gave very generous sums to the State Legislature’s soft money accounts. Walmart gave a total of $928,500 in soft money, making the company the #14 overall soft money donor in the state, with $753,000 going just to the Senate Republicans. CVS Caremark, Walgreens, Duane Reade, Rite Aid, and the National Association
3

Colin Campbell. “U.S. Attorney: New York’s Corruption Cases ‘Feel Like a Scene From Groundhog Day.” Politicker. April , 2012 http://politicker.com/2013/04/u-s-attorney-new-yorks-corruption-cases-feel-like-a-scene-from-groundhog-day/ 4 Michael Gormley. “Walmart Campaign Contributions Influenced New York Minimum Wage Deal, Unions Claim.” The Associated Press. April 15, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/15/walmart-new-york-minimumwage_n_3086683.html

13

of Chain Drug Stores combined to donate a total of $287,750 in soft money during this period, including $147,250 to the Senate Republicans, and $91,000 to Assembly Democrats. Small investments compared to the payoff these retailers will receive from the new subsidy.

Mayor Bloomberg Buys the Party Line
It’s no secret that Mayor Michael Bloomberg has employed his vast personal fortune ($27 billion at most recent Forbes estimate) to fund his high-priced campaigns. What’s less well known is the important role that his outsized soft money (the #1 donor overall at $7.2 million) contributions have played in securing his party lines on the Republican and Independence Party tickets. Bloomberg’s giant donations to NYS Independence have single-handedly made the party the fourth largest state party soft money recipient after the Republicans, Democrats, and Conservatives. “In many ways, we are the party of Bloomberg," said Chairman Frank MacKay in 2008 after Bloomberg donated $1.2 million.5 In addition to buying MacKay’s loyalty, a portion of the 2008 donations were used on campaign ads, mailings, and outreach primarily for Queens Republicans Serf Maltese and Frank Padavan. In 2009, Bloomberg again donated $1.2 million to the NYS Independence Party, $750,000 of which the party gave in a single expense to Republican political operative John Haggerty through an LLC.6 Haggerty was supposed to use the funds for “poll watching” but was caught instead using the check to buy a house. Needless to say, none of these machinations are the kinds of benign administrative “partybuilding” uses that “non-campaign” housekeeping funds are supposed to be reserved for. In the 2009 election, the Independence Party line provided Bloomberg with roughly 150,000 votes, greater than his margin of victory over Bill Thompson. In 2009, Bloomberg also needed the permission of Republican county leaders to run on the Republican ballot line via a Wilson-Pakula waiver. $50,000 soft money donations to each of the city’s Republican county committees in April and May 2009 helped make Bloomberg’s registration as an independent a non-issue. More recently 2013 Republican mayoral candidate John Catsimatidis (the #17 overall soft money donor) has helped fill some of Bloomberg’s role as a soft money payee in exchange for county organization support. But Catsimatidis is not enough to fill the void left by Bloomberg, leaving New York City Republicans grasping for new funding sources. This search for cash recently crossed the line from the pseudo-legal corruption enabled by soft money to the realm of pure corruption as Bronx Republican Chair Jay Savino and Queens Republican official Vincent Tabone were ensnared in a scheme to allegedly sell access to the party line for cash payments from State Senator Malcolm Smith7.

5

Tom Robbins. “Bloomberg’s Double Deal.” The Village Voice. March 11, 2009. http://www.villagevoice.com/2009-0311/columns/bloomberg-s-double-deal 6 David W. Chen and Colin Moynihan. “G.O.P. Consultant Accused of Stealing Campaign Money.” The New York Times. June 14, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/15/nyregion/15haggerty.html?_r=0 7 Michael Wilson and William K. Rashbaum. “Lawmakers in New York Tied to Bribery Plot in May Race.” The New York Times. April 2, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/03/nyregion/state-senator-and-city-councilman-accused-of-trying-to-rigmayors-race.html?hp&_r=0

14

1199/SEIU and the Greater New York Hospital Association Win Powerful Role in Medicare Redesign
The Greater New York Hospital Association, representing over 200 New York State Hospitals, and the 1199/SEIU Healthcare Workers East, representing over 350,000 healthcare workers in the Northeast US and Florida, have long been known as two of the most powerful special interests in Albany.8 Since the late 1990’s, the two groups have worked together to coordinate aggressive lobbying and advertising campaigns to influence healthcare policy in New York through the 1199/SEIU and GNYHA Healthcare Education Project. It’s no surprise that GNYHA and 1199 are also major contributors to soft money accounts, giving $3.0 million (#3 overall donor) and $2.0 million (#4 overall donor) since 2006. These investments paid off most recently in 2011, when the Governor and Legislature allowed 1199 and GNYHA to dominate the shaping of Medicare reforms9 at the expense of patient advocates and other interests.10 Being near the top of the list of annual lobbying spenders and soft money donors is a surefire way to buy results in Albany.

Wine in Grocery Stores? Think again.
At first glance, the question of whether supermarkets should be allowed to sell wine does not seem like the kind of issue that could incite a frenzy of political money. But since it was first proposed by Governor Paterson in 2009, liquor companies and liquor stores engaged in a furious battle with supermarket interests over this issue.11 Supermarket magnate Daniel Wegman led a public relations and lobbying push to try pass the measure and made $103,000 (#122 overall donor) in soft money contributions. Rochester-based Constellation Brands, the second largest producer of wine in the nation, has given $293,000 (#38 overall donor) in soft money contributions since 2006.12 But the money on the supporting side has been outweighed by a coalition of liquor interests, including Diageo Guinness with $566,000 (#21 overall donor) in soft money contributions, the Distilled Spirits Council with $133,000 (#85 overall donor), and the coalition of liquor stores (the Metropolitan Package Store Association and their “Coalition for the Last Store on Main Street with a combined $164,150, #73 overall donor).

8

Brian Paul and Susan Lerner, Common Cause/NY. “Lifting the Veil: A Report Analyzing Grassroots Lobbying in New York State and Recommending Amendments to the Lobbying Act.” June 2011. www.commoncause.org/ny/liftingtheveil 9 Jacob Gershman. “Cuomo Criticized Over Medicaid Team.” The Wall Street Journal. January 8, 2011. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704739504576068170498603248.html 10 Mark Brenner. “New York Governor, SEIU 1199 Raise Hackles with Medicaid Deal. Labor Notes. January 9, 2012. http://www.labornotes.org/2012/01/new-york-governor-seiu-1199-raise-hackles-medicaid-deal 11 Ali Touhey. “Wegmans CEO Backs Wine in Grocery Stores.” Rochester Home Page. March 16, 2010. http://rochesterhomepage.net/fulltext/?nxd_id=163202 12 Ben O’Donnell. “In New York Battle over wine in Groceries, Money Talks.” Wine Spectator. March 30, 2010. http://www.winespectator.com/webfeature/show/id/42423

15

The battle over wine in grocery stores illustrates how special interests regard soft money contributions as a crucial lever of influence when threatened (or potentially rewarded) by legislative action.

Normal Communications and the Republican Party – Soft Money Friends with Benefits
Rochester-based advertising firm Normal Communications ($121,000, #102 overall) has developed a generous intra-housekeeping friendship with the Republican Party. The company, the parent of Mediascape Marketing fka Growth Marketing Group of NY, gives generously to the Monroe County Republican Party and in return, receives the business of putting the State and Senate Republicans’ housekeeping funds to work in advertising. In 2012, the firm received payments of $101,000 from the NYS Senate Republican Campaign Committee –Housekeeping on October 25, 2012, and $101,022 from the Republican State Committee Housekeeping on October 29, 2012

These five “giving and getting” stories are just a handful of the hundreds that could be told if all the major soft money donors were analyzed in detail. Many of these stories have been told in press accounts shortly after key contributions are made. But these accounts often fail to emphasize the systemic role of New York State’s “soft money” loophole in enabling and perpetuating this corrosive culture of “show me the money.”

16

Who Gets Soft Money?
From 2006-2012, state and local party committees in New York raised a total of $87.1 million in soft money. Overall, Republican committees raised more soft money than their Democratic counterparts -$37.9 million (43.5%) to $33.9 million (38.9%).

The State Legislature party committees were the top recipients of soft money contributions, accounting for a total of $33.8 million (39%). County parties across the state raised a total of $25.7 million (30%), state parties raised $24.1 million (28%), and local level parties raised $1.9 million (2%). $1.5 million of the contributions listed as under “schedule p” housekeeping by the Board of Elections are clearly misfiled by PACs and candidates that are not legally allowed to operate housekeeping funds.

17

The overall Republican advantage in housekeeping receipts is entirely due to the fundraising prowess of the State Senate Republican Committee, which raised a towering $19.9 million in soft money compared to only $5.3 million for the State Senate Democratic Committee. Overall soft money in the State Senate has boomed as the chamber became highly competitive during these years. From 1999-2005, State Senate Republicans outraised the Democrats $8.5 million to $1.1 million. In the State Assembly, the majority Democrats outraised the Republicans in soft money by a margin of $7.0 million to $1.7 million. Assembly Democrats have also become more prolific in raising soft money compared to the earlier 1999-2005 period when they raised only $4.7 million. The total for the Assembly Republicans remained constant between the two periods.

18

Among the State Party committees, the Democrats led the way with $7.0 million in soft money contributions. The New York Republican State Committee housekeeping account raised $4.9 million. This represents a major shift from the period of 1999-2005 when the Republicans were in power at the statewide level with Governor George Pataki. During that period, the Republican State Committee raised $17.6 million and was the top overall recipient of soft money, while the Democrats raised only $5.3 million. This shift once again shows how soft money tends to coalesce around those in power. From 2006-2012, the State Conservative Party raised a total of $5.7 million through its various soft money accounts, roughly equivalent to the $6.1 million it raised from 1999-2005. The New York State Independence Party ($4.5 million) and the Working Families Party ($2.0 million) raised much more soft money from 2006-2012 than they did in the earlier period. From 1999-2005, the New York State Independence Party raised only $191,000 and the WFP $481,000. The rise of the Independence Party in significance is largely due to the efforts of Mayor Bloomberg described above and the increase in donations from the Real Estate Board of New York and other elite New York City real estate interests. From 1999-2005, it was the Liberal Party of New York State that was the second major third party to the Conservatives, raising $1.1 million, but this party all but dissolved shortly after 2006. 19

At the County level, the Monroe County Republican Committee is the single largest soft money fundraiser. The rest of the top county committees list is dominated by the New York City Democratic county machines, whose support is crucial for any election within the City. Overall, the top ten committees took in a total of $64.3 million (74%) and include the NYS Senate Republican Campaign Committee ($19.9m), the NYS Democratic Committee ($7.0m), the NYS Democratic Assembly Campaign Committee ($7.0m), the Conservative Party NYS ($5.7m), the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee ($5.3m), the New York Republican State Committee ($4.9m), the Independence Party of NYS ($4.5m), the Monroe County Republican Committee ($4.4m), the Queens County Democratic Party ($3.5m), and the Kings County Democratic Party Committee ($2.1m) Appendix C on page 35 shows the top 41 power committees that raised $100,000 or more in soft money. These committees took in a total of $85.4 million or 98% of the total raised in housekeeping accounts statewide.

20

How is Soft Money Used?
In the “Schedule Q” (Non-Campaign Housekeeping Expenses) portion of the New York State Board of Elections’ campaign finance disclosure form, a set of nine purpose codes is provide for filers including “RENTO” – Office Rent, “UTILS” – Utilities, “PAYRL” – Payroll, “POSTA” – Postage, “PROFL” – Professional Services, “OFEXP” – Office Expenses, “MAILS” – Mailings, “OTHER” – Other - Must Provide Explanation, and “VOTER” – Voter Registration Materials or Services. These purpose codes essentially define the “non-campaign” types of expenses that housekeeping monies are supposed to be used for. Schedule F of the disclosure form for “hard money” expenses includes a larger set of 22 purpose codes with traditional campaign uses such as “LITER” – Campaign Literature, “POLLS” – Polling Costs, and “TVADS” – Television Ads. As noted in the disclaimer at the beginning of this report, New York State campaign finance data is entered into the electronic databases exactly as it is reported with no formal auditing. If a filer misreports their expenses on the wrong schedule of the disclosure form, reporting regular expenses in “Schedule Q” housekeeping for example, those expenses will appear in the data as housekeeping expenses. This report examines the data as it exists in the Board of Elections database and does not attempt to account for these errors.

Reported Purpose
1. Other 2. Payroll/Wages 3. Office Expenses 4. Professional Services 5. Office Rent 6. Unreported/Misreported 7. Mailings 8. Utilities 9. Postage 10. Political Consultants 11. Polling Costs 12. Contributions 13. Fundraising Expenses 14. Voter Registration Materials or Services 15. Interest Expenses 16. Campaign Literature 17. Petition Expenses 18. Print Ads 19. Radio Ads 21. Constituent Services 22. Television Ads

Amount
$37,325,591.23 $26,269,128.45 $16,468,374.88 $7,442,511.56 $6,316,539.23 $3,766,201.23 $2,870,982.69 $1,834,493.14 $1,439,312.75 $522,561.41 $342,954.46 $192,247.29 $163,423.18 $162,002.65 $32,934.66 $16,445.40 $9,745.69 $9,637.90 $2,993.40 $1,007.81 $109.41

21

Our review of soft money expenditures by reported expense type reveals that the cost of maintaining an office and staff constitutes the largest portion. The sum of Payroll, Office Expenses, Office Rent, and Utilities expenses is $50.8 million. Many soft money expenditures are the unremarkable day-to-day costs of running an organization such as paying the staff, for health insurance, purchasing equipment, and paying the phone and cable bills. Yet a close look at the expense records reveals that the reported purpose codes can be highly misleading and inaccurate. The Democratic Assembly Campaign Committee reports its annual golf fundraiser at the Whippoorwill Club as “Office Expenses.” The Independence Party reported its $750,000 payment to John Haggerty’s “Special Election Operations LLC as an “Office Expense.” Without clear guidelines and consistent auditing, it is impossible to rely on accurate self-reporting by the parties. The largest single category of expenses is “Other” at a total of $37.3 million. Expenses reported as “Other” range from $200,000+ payments for political advertising to $7 charges for lunch at a pizzeria and everything in between. We know virtually nothing about these expenses without analyzing them individually. Also amorphously classified in the “Other” or “Office Expenses” categories are very large payments by the NY State Democratic Committee and the Democratic Assembly housekeeping account to American Express. In fall 2012, the NY State Democratic Committee filed two housekeeping expense records in the amounts of $181,142.23 and $164,226.97 to American Express. Needless to say, it is impossible to discern what these payments were used for and whether or not the expenses were campaign related. In addition, nearly $3.8 million in housekeeping expenses have no purpose code or a purpose code that is not identified and defined by the Board of Elections. Other expenses that are filed as housekeeping are identified with purpose codes that clearly blur or cross the line into the realm of “campaign expenditures” such as polling costs, fundraising expenses, political consultants, campaign literature, and advertising. Overall, less than 0.2% of housekeeping expenses are itemized as “Voter Registration Materials or Services,” a category of activity which is often used by the parties to justify the existence of housekeeping accounts. The campaign-related nature of many “non-campaign” housekeeping expenses is also illustrated by the way in which the expense activity spikes during election years. Since 2006, overall housekeeping expenditures are 24% higher on average during election years than during non-election years.

22

Moreover, looking at the distribution of expenses by month on election years and non-election years, it is clear that the spike in spending on election years is due to a higher level of spending during that occurs during the run up to the election from July to October.

23

During 2010 for example, monthly statewide housekeeping expenditures doubled from an average of $1.1 million each month from January to June to $2.2 million each month from July to October. Spending peaked dramatically in October, the month before the election, at $3.2 million.

Looking at the monthly statewide housekeeping expenses in 2011, a non-election year, there is a stable level of expenditures throughout the year with no spike in any particular month. The election season spikes in housekeeping expenses are due to sharp increases in hiring high-priced political consultants and spending on advertising and mass-mailing. Common Cause/NY analysis also shows that during the height of the election season, money is often expended out of soft money accounts on or near the same day that hard money committees expend money to the same vendor. From the current state of the campaign finance records, is impossible to know if the political consultants receiving housekeeping funds are working on campaigns for individual candidates or not In recent years it has become disturbingly commonplace for the parties to use housekeeping funds to pay for political advertising during election season. The Senate Republicans, Senate Democrats, New York State Republicans, New York State Conservatives, and New York State Independence Party have all at times used housekeeping money for political advertising, as have many county-level parties on a smaller scale. 24

With the Board of Elections undertaking no meaningful auditing and issuing no guidance as to what constitutes a “non-campaign” expense, the parties continue to push the boundary of housekeeping uses further and further. The following are two examples of especially questionable high-profile uses of “noncampaign” housekeeping monies.

The Conservative Party’s Hedge Fund-Financed “Ground Zero Mosque” Campaign
In July 2010, hedge fund executive Robert Mercer donated a single check in the amount of $1 million to the Conservative Party NYS Headquarters Account (the name of the Conservative Party’s primary housekeeping account, which indicates the original purpose of the funds to pay for a central party headquarters). In August and September 2010, the Conservative Party doled out $662,542 to “Multi Media Services” to fund a television advertising campaign in support of Republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio’s stance against the location of the Park 51 Islamic community center, aka the “Ground Zero Mosque,” in downtown Manhattan.13 The ads are clearly supportive of Rick Lazio, and Conservative Party Chair Mike Long admitted to the Wall Street Journal that Mercer’s donation was “meant to help” Rick Lazio’ s gubernatorial bid14. Yet it was paid for by non-campaign housekeeping money and itemized with the purpose code “OTHER.”

Senate Republicans Pay the NYS Independence Party to Advertise Against George Latimer and Terry Gipson
On October 16, 2012, the Senate Republicans’ housekeeping account gave $211,000 to the NYS Independence Party Housekeeping Account in the form of a schedule p “non-campaign housekeeping” donation. In the Republicans’ expense report, the payment is described with the purpose code “OTHER.” On the very same day, the Independence Party gave $210,417.85 to “Stratregic Media Placement” [sic] and also itemized the expense as “OTHER.” On October 22, 2012, the same exchange from the Senate Republicans’ housekeeping account to the Independence Party to “Stratregic Media Placement” [sic] occurred once again, this time in the amount of $100,000.00. These funds were used by the Independence Party to run attack ads against Democratic Senate candidates George Latimer and Terry Gipson.15 The Gipson ad16 is clearly a classic attack ad portraying Gipson as a servant of the “Albany special interests.” Yet the Independence Party insisted that the ads
13

John Del Signore. “Meet the Man Who Manufacture the Masses’ Mosque Madness.” Gothamist. January 19, 2011. http://gothamist.com/2011/01/19/meet_the_man_who_manufactured_the_m.php 14 Andrew Grossman. “Hedge Fund Use Donations to Boost Clout.” The Wall Street Journal. April 17, 2012. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304432704577350314102280568.html 15 Kenneth Lovett. “Independence Party goes along with GOP scheme to dodge campaign finance laws, insiders alledge.” The Daily News. March 4, 2013. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/lovett-independence-party-gop-annex-article1.1278583 16 Joseph Spector. “Ad Hits Democratic Senate Candidate Over Tax Cap.” Politics on the Hudson. October 26, 2012. http://polhudson.lohudblogs.com/2012/10/26/ad-hits-democratic-senate-candidate-over-tax-cap/

25

were “issue advocacy” because they did not specifically urge viewers to vote against Terry Gipson on Election Day. In addition to Mayor Bloomberg’s abuses of the Independence Party detailed in the “Giving and Getting” section above, these attack ads are yet another example of how that party’s housekeeping account has become an open slush fund for parties and candidates to launder and disguise blatantly campaignrelated expenses. These two examples are only the most egregious of many instances of housekeeping funds’ being used to pay for consulting, advertising, and production of materials. The prevalence of these high-dollar expenditures during election season strains the public’s ability to believe that the parties’ housekeeping accounts are entirely used to build the party rather than support particular candidates and engage in campaigns. Furthermore, even when soft money accounts are used for their intended purpose of administration and party building, the mere fact that political parties are able to shoulder some of the administrative burdens that candidates would otherwise have to bear means that soft money frees up candidates’ funds and leaves them with more money for direct campaign expenditures.

26

Recommendations: Close this Loophole Now
In a poll released on May 6th, 2013,17 78% of likely voters agree that “reforming New York’s campaign finance laws is key to cleaning up Albany, rooting out corruption, and improving the work of our state government.” Establishing a Fair Elections systems of public matching funds, which would reduce the dependency of politicians and parties on big checks from special interests, is an essential aspect of any such reform. The Fair Elections system of 6 to 1 matching funds has been highly effective in New York City at encouraging democratic participation and amplifying the influence of small donors and constituents. In 2009, City Council candidates who opted into New York City’s public financing system received roughly 25% of their total campaign cash from small donors giving amounts of $200 or less. The corresponding figure for State officials is abysmally low at 7% overall, with some individual state legislators clocking in at less than 2%18 But alongside empowering small donors, it is crucial to lower New York’s sky-high contributions limits and reign in the loopholes that are systematically exploited by powerful special interests. The soft money loophole, whereby campaign contributions can be completely avoided, is the most dangerous of these gaps in our campaign finance law. Over the past twenty years, huge soft money contributions have come to be seen as a standard practice, a cost of doing business for any special interest seeking to influence politics and policy in New York. It is imperative that we close the soft money loophole by abolishing the parties housekeeping accounts. At the very least, we must reign in the abuses of soft money by establishing meaningful contribution limits, ensuring that these funds are used only for “non-campaign” purposes, and increasing transparency by requiring much faster disclosure of donors. Current regulation requires soft money accounts to files reports only twice a year in January and July. In effect, this allows donors to housekeeping accounts who give in July or later to remain completely unknown until January of the next year, a secrecy that has major implications in election years. Any defense of soft money is disingenuous. There’s nothing that soft money housekeeping accounts can do that regular hard money accounts can’t do – except raise unlimited sums of giant donations. As long as the rules of the game make politicians accountable to narrow special interests, they’re never going to be accountable to the public who elected them.

17

Global Strategies Group and Mercury Public Affairs. May Polling Memo. May 6, 2013. http://fairelectionsny.org/cms/wpcontent/uploads/2013/05/MayPollingMemo.pdf 18 Michael J. Malbin and Peter W. Brusoe. “Small Donors, Big Democracy, New York City’s Matching Funds as a Model for the Nation and States .“ Campaign Finance Institute, 2011.

27

Appendix A – Methodology and Data
This report examines the soft money expenses and receipts as filed using the New York State Board of Elections’ electronic filing system from 2006-2012. The data from the board of elections was downloaded as ASCII delimited files and imported into a Filemaker Pro database. Soft money receipts (contributions) and expenses are reported on schedules P and Q, respectively, of the NYSBOE’s disclosure form. While most party committees maintain distinct “housekeeping” accounts for soft money expenses and receipts, some use their regular “hard money” committees to file schedules P and Q and those filings are included in this report. A few committees, most notably the Monroe County Republican Housekeeping Committee, have a separate committee entitled “housekeeping” but within this separate soft money committee, file their records expenses as regular hard money contributions and expenses using schedules A to F. These transactions are also included in this report. According to testimony given by the Board of Elections on May 20, 2013, either filing method is equally legitimate. Some of the more significant county and local committees in the state appear to raise little or no money through soft money housekeeping accounts according to their filings. The most notable such committee is the Nassau County Republican Party. The Nassau County Republican Party does not have a separate soft money account but if one were to look only at housekeeping expenses, the Nassau County Republican Party would be the second highest spender of soft money in the state at nearly $12 million filed under schedule Q. Yet the Nassau Republicans have less than $6,000 filed as schedule P housekeeping receipts (contributions). Looking at their full records, it appears that the Nassau GOP is successful in raising all the money it needs as hard money – there are no corporate donations over $5,000 that would indicate the party is filing soft money contributions as hard money. But the party is listing expenses that qualify as “non-campaign” related under the soft money schedule Q section of the disclosure form. Interestingly, the town Republican committees in Nassau (North Hempstead, Hempstead, and Oyster Bay) appear to follow the same practice, raising little to no donations in soft money but raising enough in hard money to cover all the administrative and “non-campaign” expenses they itemize as schedule Q soft money. If the Nassau County GOP and other such committees are voluntarily abstaining from using the soft money loophole, they deserve praise, but this subject needs more inquiry. In addition to the differences in filing practices described above, the data is riddled with other inconsistencies and errors. There are nearly 10,000 expense records listed as costing zero or no amount is filled in at all. Some parties choose to report the transfers between their hard money and soft money accounts as transfers (schedules G and H), others report them under schedules P and Q. There is also $1.5 million in schedule P housekeeping receipts that are clearly the result of filer error – these are candidate campaigns or PACS filing schedule P when only housekeeping party committees should be filing schedule P. All of these oddities are due to the fact that filings from committees enter directly into the electronic database with no auditing or even checking for simple errors. This report did not attempt to up the data 28

– with over 40,000 housekeeping receipt records and 100,000 expense records -- that would have been an impossible task. Below is the NYSBOE’s own disclaimer on data accuracy. New York State Board of Elections Data Accuracy Disclaimer: The majority of financial disclosure reports filed at NYSBOE are entered into the database directly from e-mail, diskette, CD or DVD filings submitted by committee treasurers or candidates. The information contained in paper filings will be entered into the database exactly as it appears on the forms. Because database searches retrieve information exactly the way it is reported and then entered into the database, search results may be inaccurate and/or incomplete. This will occur, for example, if filers do not adhere to the required format, do not use the proper codes, misspell words or leave items blank. Although NYSBOE carefully reviews disclosure reports and requires treasurers to submit amended reports as needed, there will necessarily be delays before the review process is completed and the information in the database is corrected.

Appendix B – Top Soft Money Donors in New York State
NYS Soft Money Power Donors ($100,000 and up)
1. MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG 2. NEW YORK STATE UNITED TEACHERS (NYSUT) VOTE/COPE 3. GNYHA MANAGEMENT CORPORATION 4. 1199 SEIU HEALTHCARE WORKERS EAST 5. NCDC OPERATING SBLI / NCDC HOUSEKEEPING SLBI (NASSAU COUNTY DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE) 6. CABLEVISION 7. VERIZON 8. PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICA 9. TIME WARNER CABLE 10. PHILIP MORRIS / ALTRIA 11. HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATION OF NY (HANYS)

Soft Money Contributions 2006 - 2012
$7,170,000.00 $3,150,694.28 $2,965,500.00 $2,029,775.00 $1,982,563.29 $1,573,041.52 $1,465,734.96 $1,421,000.00 $1,227,773.24 $1,207,750.00 $1,058,500.00

Industry Category
GOVERNMENT ; FINANCE ; MEDIA LABOR -- EDUCATION HEALTHCARE -- HOSPITALS LABOR -- HEALTHCARE POLITICS TELECOM TELECOM PHARMACEUTICALS TELECOM TOBACCO HEALTHCARE

29

NYS Soft Money Power Donors ($100,000 and up)
12. ROBERT MERCER 13. RENT STABILIZATION ASSOCIATION 14. WAL-MART 15. ESTATE OF HENRY SANDERS 16. NYS SENATE REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE 17. RED APPLE GROUP / UNITED REFINING CO. / JOHN CATSIMATIDIS 18. COCA-COLA COMPANY / COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY 19. LAW PAC OF NEW YORK 20. AT&T 21. DIAGEO NORTH AMERICA / DIAGEOGUINESSS 22. LAWRENCE AND SUSAN KADISH 23. GLENWOOD MANAGEMENT / LEONARD LITWIN 24. NEW YORK STATE BOTTLERS ASSOCIATION, INC. 25. EMPIRE DENTAL PAC 26. CABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK INC. 27. BRUCE & SUZANNE KOVNER 28. REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK (REBNY) 29. HOSPITALS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. 30, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 31. SUFFOLK COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE 32. HOWARD COX 33. THE PIKE COMPANY, INC

Soft Money Contributions 2006 – 2012
$1,010,000.00 $940,550.00 $928,500.00 $812,710.10 $803,584.60 $779,600.00 $663,500.00 $651,300.00 $634,800.00 $566,000.00 $559,500.00 $525,400.00 $498,000.00 $474,250.00 $471,119.80 $455,000.00 $421,000.00 $403,500.00 $400,000.00 $383,200.00 $382,000.00 $375,600.00

Industry Category
FINANCE – HEDGE FUND (RENAISSANCE TECHNOLOGES) REAL ESTATE RETAIL ESTATE POLITICS CONGLOMORATE : RETAIL-SUPERMARKET ; REAL ESTATE ; ENERGY BEVERAGES LAW TELECOM BEVERAGES -- BEER ; WINE ; LIQUOR REAL ESTATE (FIRST FISCAL FUND CORP) REAL ESTATE BEVERAGES HEALTHCARE -- DENTAL TELECOM FINANCE -- HEDGE FUND (CAXTON ASSOCIATES) REAL ESTATE INSURANCE -- MEDICAL LIABILITY CONGLOMERATE -- ENERGY ; MANUFACTURING ; MEDIA ; FINANCE POLITICS FINANCE -- VENTURE CAPITAL (GREYLOCK PARTNERS) REAL ESTATE -- CONSTRUCTION

30

NYS Soft Money Power Donors ($100,000 and up)
34. H.J. KALIKOW & CO. / PETER KALIKOW 35. FIRST CITY DEVELOPERS / INNER CITY STRATEGIES 36. ASTRA ZENECA 37. DAVID KOCH 38. CONTELLATION WINES / CONSTELLATION BRANDS 39. GREENBERG TRAURIG / ED WALLACE 40. NY DEMOCRATIC SENATE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (DSCC) 41. US CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 42. VORNADO REALTY TRUST / STEVEN ROTH 43. CITIGROUP 44. ENTERTAINMENT SOFTWARE ASSOCIATION 45. SEIU INTERNATIONAL 46. DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR'S ASSOCIATION 47. PAUL SINGER 49. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY 50. HENRY & MARSHA LAUFER 51. LABELLA ASSOCIATES PC 52. THE SENECA NATION OF INDIANS 53. MERCK & CO. INC. 54. GLAXOSMITHKLINE 55. BROOKFIELD FINANCIAL PARTNERS 56. YANKEE GLOBAL ENTERPRISES 57. THE DONALD ZUCKER COMPANY / DONALD ZUCKER

Soft Money Contributions 2006 - 2012
$347,000.00 $325,000.00 $318,450.00 $300,000.00 $293,000.00 $288,550.00 $287,176.86 $275,000.00 $265,600.00 $264,077.17 $259,600.00 $255,500.00 $250,000.00 $250,000.00 $249,150.00 $244,257.50 $237,924.00 $235,000.00 $234,575.00 $225,935.78 $225,000.00 $218,100.00 $216,900.00

Industry Category
REAL ESTATE MYSERIOUS, LIKELY STRAW DONOR UNDER FBI INVESTIGATION PHARMACEUTICALS CONGLOMORATE -- INDUSTRIAL ; FOSSIL FUELS ; CHEMICALS ; CONSUMER GOODS (KOCH INDUSTRIES) WINE AND LIQUOR LOBBYIST ; LAW FIRM POLITICS BUSINESS ASSOCIATION REAL ESTATE FINANCE – BIG BANK ENTERTAINMENT -- VIDEO GAMES LABOR POLITICS FINANCE -- HEDGE FUND (ELLIOTT MANAGEMENT) PHARMACEUTICALS FINANCE – HEDGE FUND (RENAISSANCE TECHNOLOGES) ENGINEERING INDIAN TRIBE PHARMACEUTICALS PHARMACEUTICALS REAL ESTATE ; FINANCE SPORTS ; MEDIA REAL ESTATE

31

NYS Soft Money Power Donors ($100,000 and up)
58. TOWN OF ISLIP REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE 59. PATRICIA LYNCH ASSOCIATES 60. PFIZER INC 61. THE BENJAMIN COMPANIES / ALVIN BENJAMIN 62. SEE FORWARD FUND INC, 63. SARATOGA HARNESS RACING/ SARATOGA GAMING 64. ELIOT SPITZER 65. BERGMANN ASSOCIATES, INC. 66. YONKERS RACING CORPORATION 67. JONATHAN & TEA POLLOCK 68. SENATOR JOSEPH BRUNO 69. FABER CONSTRUCTION CO. INC. 70. UNITED FEDERATION OF TEACHERS (UFT) 71. EMPIRE STATE LEADERSHIP PAC 72. O'BRIEN & GERE, INC. 73. METROPOLITAN PACKAGE STORE ASSOC. / COALITION FOR THE LAST STORE ON MAIN ST 74. SUFFOLK COUNTY CHAIRMAN'S CLUB 75. REALTORS PAC (RPAC OF NYS) 76. AHPIA SOLUTIONS INC. 77. DESPATCH PROPERTIES / DANTE GULLACE 78. MAPCO AUTO PARKS / MAPCO CIVIC CENTER 79. ROGER HERTOG 80. ALEXANDER "SANDY" TREADWELL

Soft Money Contributions 2006 - 2012
$216,350.00 $202,501.11 $198,000.00 $195,200.00 $195,000.00 $193,350.00 $182,050.00 $181,450.00 $180,450.00 $180,000.00 $175,950.00 $175,800.00 $169,483.33 $168,790.00 $164,948.00 $164,150.00 $162,100.00 $161,483.75 $160,000.00 $157,350.00 $156,000.00 $155,000.00 $153,150.00

Industry Category
POLITICS LOBBYIST ; PUBLIC RELATIONS PHARMACEUTICALS REAL ESTATE POLITICS -- PROGRESSIVE GAMBLING ; HORSE RACING POLITICS ; MEDIA ARCHITECTURE ; ENGINEERING GAMBLING ; HORSE RACING FINANCE -- HEDGE FUND (ELLIOTT MANAGEMENT) POLITICS CONSTRUCTION LABOR -- EDUCATION BUSINESS ASSOCIATION ENGINEERING LIQUOR STORES POLITICS REAL ESTATE INSURANCE -- MEDICAL LIABILITY REAL ESTATE PARKING FINANCE (ALLIANCE BERNSTEIN) None (Retired) -- former Chair of NYS Republicans and Congressional Candidate

32

NYS Soft Money Power Donors ($100,000 and up)
81. ROBERT PRICE 82. DANIEL LOEB 83. THE RENCO GROUP / IRA RENNERT 84. MASON TENDERS DISTRICT COUNCIL 85. DISNEY WORLDWIDE SERVICES, INC. 86. DISTILLED SPIRITS COUNCIL (DISCUS) 87. ELLICOTT DEVELOPMENT / CARL PALADINO 88. LU ENGINEERS 89. BERNARD SCHWARTZ 90. RURAL METRO CORPORATION 91. EDWARD COX 92. ECC TECHNOLOGIES INC. 93. GELLER & COMPANY LLC / MARTIN GELLER 94. ANDREW SAUL 95. CBS CORPORATION 96. DELAWARE NORTH 97. ROBERT W. WILSON 98. WEITZ & LUXENBERG PC 99. ABBOTT LABORATORIES 100. RICHARD SOKOLOW 101. THE DURST ORGANIZATION 102. NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION, INC. 103. DLCC 104. NORMAL COMMUNICATIONS, LLC / ARNOLD ROTHSCHILD

Soft Money Contributions 2006 - 2012
$151,700.00 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $145,800.00 $135,000.00 $133,000.00 $132,400.00 $132,200.00 $131,992.57 $131,575.00 $131,000.00 $130,700.00 $130,000.00 $128,800.00 $127,500.00 $125,000.00 $125,000.00 $124,000.00 $123,400.00 $123,000.00 $123,000.00 $122,000.00 $119,000.00 $116,000.00

Industry Category
TELECOM ; POLITICS FINANCE -- HEDGE FUND (THIRD POINT MANAGEMENT) CONGLOMERATE -- HOLDINGS -MANUFACTURING LABOR -- CONSTRUCTION MEDIA LIQUOR PRODUCTION ; DISTRIBUTION REAL ESTATE ENGINEERING None (Retired) -- former Loral Space & Communications Corp CEO HEALTHCARE -- EMT ; FIRE PROTECTION LAW ; POLITICS INFOTECH -- CONSULTING FINANCE -- ACCOUNTING FINANCE MEDIA GAMBLING ; HORSE RACING ; HOTELS ; FOOD SERVICE FINANCE -- HEDGE FUND LAW -- PERSONAL INJURY HEALTHCARE -- TECHNOLOGY FINANCE -- HEDGE FUND (ELLIOTT MANAGEMENT) REAL ESTATE FIREARMS POLITICS ADVERTISING

33

NYS Soft Money Power Donors ($100,000 and up)
105. CLARK PATTERSON LEE / PHILIP CLARK & TODD LIEBERT 106. JOHNSON & JOHNSON 107. NYC DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS 108. REPUBLICAN STATE LEADERSHIP COMMITTEE 109. WILMORITE / TOM WILMOT 110. CONGRESSMAN JOSEPH CROWLEY 111. FOOD INDUSTRY ALLIANCE OF NYS INC. 112. STALLER ASSOCIATES 113. NEW YORK STATE DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE 114. AETNA INC. PAC 115. NEW YORK STATE CORRECTION OFFICERS PBA (NYSCOPBA) 116. WARNER BROS ENTERTAINMENT INC. 117. US AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT INC. 118. ROSE ASSOCIATES LLC / ADAM ROSE 119. THE NYS SOCIETY OF ANESTHESIOLOGISTS 120. STARR UNDERWRITING AGENCIES, LLC 121. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS 122. TONIO BURGOS & ASSOCIATES 123. WEGMANS FOOD MARKETS INC / DANIEL WEGMAN 124. A STRONG ECONOMY FOR ALL COALITION 125. IPNY CAMPAIGN ACCNT 126. NEW YORK STATE BEER WHOLESALERS ASSOCIATION INC. 127. WALGREENS 128. JAMES SIMONS

Soft Money Contributions 2006 - 2012
$115,500.00 $115,150.00 $115,000.00 $115,000.00 $115,000.00 $112,390.00 $111,800.00 $111,568.00 $109,747.00 $109,500.00 $109,047.00 $109,000.00 $107,800.00 $107,000.00 $106,000.00 $105,000.00 $105,000.00 $103,150.00 $102,641.00 $102,584.33 $101,527.49 $101,500.00 $101,500.00 $101,000.00

Industry Category
ENGINEERING ; CONSTRUCTION ; PLANNING MANUFACTURING ; HEALTHCARE LABOR -- CONSTRUCTION POLITICS REAL ESTATE POLITICS RETAIL -- SUPERMARKETS REAL ESTATE POLITICS INSURANCE -- HEALTH LABOR -- CORRECTIONAL OFFICES MEDIA AIRPORT SERVICES REAL ESTATE HEALTHCARE -- ANESTHESIOLOGY INSURANCE MEDIA LOBBYIST ; PUBLIC RELATIONS RETAIL -- FOOD -- SUPERMARKET LABOR ; POLITICS POLITICS BEVERAGES -- BEER RETAIL -- PHARMACY FINANCE -- HEDGE FUND (RENAISSANCE TECHNOLOGES)

34

NYS Soft Money Power Donors ($100,000 and up)
129. SECURITIES INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION NY DISTRICT PAC 130. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP INC. 131. KENNETH LANGONE 132. MCIC VERMONT, INC. 133. NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION (NEA/NY)

Soft Money Contributions 2006 - 2012
$100,700.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00

Industry Category
FINANCE (SIFMA) INSURANCE FINANCE INSURANCE LABOR -- EDUCATION

Appendix C – Top Soft Money Recipients in New York State
Top NYS Soft Money Recipients
($100,000 and up)
1. State Senate Republicans 2. New York State Democratic Committee

Soft Money Contributions (2005-2012)
$19,927,554.54

Party

Committee Name(s)
Two accounts: “NYS Senate Republican Campaign Committee – Housekeeping, and “NYS Senate Republican Conference Committee (Housekeeping)” “New York State Democratic Committee (Housekeeping” Two accounts: “NYS Democratic Assembly Campaign Committee (DACC)” and “NYS Democratic Assembly Campaign Comm. Housekeeping Conference Acct. (DACC)” Five accounts: “Conservative Party NYS (Headquarters Account),” “Conservative Party Dinner Committee Housekeeping Account,” “State Conservative Campaign Committee,” “Conservative Party of NYS (Albany Account),” “New York State Conservative Party (Conference Accounts) (NYSCP)”

REP

$7,021,689.65

DEM

3. State Assembly Democrats

$6,951,799.68

DEM

4. New York State Conservative Party

$5,714,475.87

CON

35

Top NYS Soft Money Recipients
($100,000 and up)
5. State Senate Democrats 6. New York State Republican Committee

Soft Money Contributions (2005-2012)
$5,310,610.82

Party

Committee Name(s)

DEM

“Democratic Senate Campaign Committee – Housekeeping (DSCC Housekeeping)” “New York Republican State Committee – Housekeeping” Four accounts: “Independence Party of New York State – Housekeeping Account,” “NYS Independence Party Housekeeping Account (NYS – New York State),” “NYS Independence Party Chairman’s Club,” “Independence Party Chairman’s Club.” “Monroe County Republican Housekeeping Committee”

$4,870,158.64

REP

7. New York State Independence Party

$4,523,201.90

IND

8. Monroe County Republican Party 9. Queens County Democratic Party 10. Kings County Democratic Party

$4,366,362.21

REP

$3,497,817.69

DEM

“Democratic Organization of Queens County”

$2,115,455.00

DEM

“Kings County Democratic County Committee” Two accounts: “Nassau County Democratic Committee Housekeeping Account” ; “Nassau County Democratic Committee Operating Account” “Working Families Party, Inc.”

11. Nassau County Democratic Party

$2,047,138.65

DEM

12. Working Families Party 13. State Assembly Republicans 14. Bronx County Democratic Party 15. New York County Democratic Party

$2,001,533.17

WFP

$1,658,336.09

REP

“Republican Assembly Campaign Committee – Housekeeping Account” “Bronx Democratic County Committee – Housekeeping”

$1,615,046.97

DEM

$1,599,229.05

DEM

“New York County Democratic Committee”

16. UFT COPE Local

$1,320,694.28

*

“UFT COPE Local” – Transfers from NYSUT to UFT misreported as housekeeping

36

Top NYS Soft Money Recipients
($100,000 and up)
17. New York County Independence Party 18. Monroe County Democratic Party 19. Erie County Republican Party 20. New York County Republican Party 21. Onondaga County Republican Party 22. Erie County Democratic Party 23. Suffolk County Republican Party 24. Westchester County Republican Party 25. Suffolk County Democratic Party 26. Town of Islip Republican Party 27. Town of Brookhaven Democratic Party 28. Queens County Republican Party 29. Bronx County Republican Party

Soft Money Contributions (2005-2012)
$1,266,496.16

Party

Committee Name(s)

IND

“New York County Independence Committee”

$1,262,509.05

DEM

“Monroe County Democratic Committee”

$991,341.90

REP

“Erie County Republican CommitteeHousekeeping” Two committees: “New York Republican County Committee,” “New York Republican County Committee Housekeeping Account.” “Onondaga County Republican Committee Housekeeping” “Erie County Democratic CommitteeHousekeeping” “Suffolk County Republican CommitteeHousekeeping Acct (SCRC)”

$930,474.62

REP

$909,136.18

REP

$829,778.46

DEM

$819,979.00

REP

$496,286.12

REP

“WRCC Housekeeping”

$462,022.00

DEM

“Suffolk County Democratic Committee”

$366,024.10

REP

“Town of Islip Republican Committee”

$312,725.68

DEM

“Brookhaven Town Democratic Committee”

$278,825.00

REP

“Queens County Housekeeping Account”

$241,278.45

REP

“Bronx County GOP Housekeeping”

37

Top NYS Soft Money Recipients
($100,000 and up)
30. Town of Brookhaven Republican Party 31. Rensselaer County Republican Party 32. Richmond County Republican Party 33. Broome County Republican Party 34. Orleans County Republican Party

Soft Money Contributions (2005-2012)
$202,376.34

Party

Committee Name(s)

REP

“Brookhaven Town Republican Committee”

$177,063.00

REP

“Rensselaer County Republican Committee”

$162,935.00

REP

“Richmond County Republican Committee

$146,633.19

REP

“Broome County Republican Committee (BCRC)”

$142,400.49

REP

“Orleans County Republican Committee Housekeeping Account”

35. Village of Rockville Centre Republican Party

$137,500.00

REP

“Rockville Centre Republican Club Housekeeping Account”

36. City of Plattsburgh Democratic Party 37. Nassau County Independence Party 38. Town of Clay Republican Party 39. Albany County Democratic Party 40. Town of Colonie Republican Party 41. Niagara County Republican Party

$137,118.19

DEM

“Plattsburgh Democratic Party”

$119,695.00

IND

“Independence Party Club of Nassau”

$118,341.69

REP

“Clay Republican Committee”

$115,590.00

DEM

“Albany County Democratic Committee”

$113,559.20

REP

“Town of Colonie Republican Committee Housekeeping” “Niagara County Republican Committee Housekeeping Account”

$110,742.33

REP

38

39

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful