New England Communities with the Most Political Clout

New England Communities with the Most Political Clout

The Sunlight Foundation released data showing federal election campaign contributions across the country by county, spanning the last 22 years -- and found that 30 percent of all of the money raised for federal campaigns in last year's election cycle came from just 10 of the nation's more than 3,000 counties.

GoLocal looked at who the biggest spending counties were in New England, per capita -- and asked political experts what this meant for the local populations and politicians alike.

See Slides Below to See New England Counties with Highest Per Capita Campaign Contributions

"We just put these data maps out, and it's gotten a lot of attention," said Gabriela Schneider with the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan nonprofit that, according to its website, uses the power of the Internet to catalyze greater government openness and transparency. "This sort of information is out there, but to be able to visualize it, know what your neighbors are doing, to see how your county compares, that's of interest to people."

GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLAST

Big Money, Small Money, and Votes

Of the top 25 campaign spending counties in New England in 2012, Massachusetts had 9, New Hampshire had 6, Vermont had 4, and Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Maine had 2 each.  

"Candidates raise funds in certain communities because that is where the money is. There are well-known zip codes that provide the bulk of campaign finance. Politicians target those areas because that is where wealthy people live. They are the individuals who provide support for political campaigns," said Darrell West, Vice President and Director of Governance Studies at The Brookings Institute and former head of the Taubman Center for Public Policy at Brown

West continued, "There will be increased scrutiny to money in politics because of the outside money that flows into the political process. Super PACS have come under heavy criticism nationally. They raise money from ultra-rich people and often run the most negative ads in a campaign. We saw that in the 2012 presidential campaign."

Wendy Schiller, Professor of Politics at Brown University, pointed out that turning out the vote, however, was just as important as raising money

"Campaign contribution patterns are closely studied by political advisors and campaign consultants - candidates and elected officials target their messages towards the highest giving communities, and they are typically more responsive to those communities when issues arise with federal and local governance. But the flip side of this is that in a community that is less well off but where more people give money (even in smaller amounts) you can count on more people getting to the polls."

Schiller continued, "So politicians cannot afford to overly favor areas with concentrated campaign giving to the point of ignoring smaller donors who are equally likely to get out to vote. Wealthy donors finance the campaign but the less wealthy donors add up to more actual votes. Think about it this way - if you are a multi-millionaire you can write a check for 10,000 and you may not notice; but if you are not wealthy and you write a check for $100 that can be a stronger signal of support."

Knowing who spends the most -- and where -- affords advantages though to candidates, according to Rhode Island College Assistant Professor of Communications Kay Israel.

"Generally, the advantage of “big giving” communities has less to do with their political power and more to do with the investment of time and energy of a candidate and his campaign. If a candidate can spend one evening raising $25,000 from 50 donors, that’s far more convenient than having spent hour upon hour to make 50 individual calls. Candidates and their staffs see an advantage to the one-stop nature of that form of fundraising effort and will try to take advantage of it whenever possible," said Israel.  

Questions of Regulation and Reform

As part of their mapping, which was done in conjunction with Azavea, the Sunlight Foundation also showed the proliferation of giving over time.

See Map of Per Capita Contributions Dating Back to 1990 BELOW

Said West of the role of money in politics -- and its oversight, "I don’t expect any major new regulations in the campaign finance area. The Supreme Court has poked major holes in campaign rules so there are very few restrictions that exist any more

Israel agreed. "The recent decisions by the Supreme Court have left regulation of political contributions weak. They now are reviewing whether states can restrict them. Outside sources, such as the Center for Public Integrity and others are finding it costly to monitor and publicize the donations being made to political office seekers. It’s common for non-incumbents to talk about finance reform, but as long as those making the laws continue to have that edge, change at best would be only incremental," said Israel.  

"Change isn’t likely as long as those getting the benefit of the current structure want to continue in office," continued Israel.  "For example, one previously passed campaign financing reform act was sarcastically called “The Incumbent Re-election Act” by its critics. It was an uphill battle to get McCain Feingold passed and took years of debate. Given the nature of both the federal and most state governments, a number of those previous laws probably wouldn’t or couldn’t be enacted today."

John Marion with Common Cause touched upon prospects for change in oversight of campaign contributions

"Speaking of federal campaign finance law, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case several weeks ago (McCutcheon vs. FEC) that could lead to the fall in aggregate contribution limits for federal elections. If that happens then we could see a concentration of giving from the wealthiest sections of the country, including those in Rhode Island, increase. Candidates will cherry pick the most wealthy donors across the United States, regardless of geography," said Marion.

"Prospects for change are mixed. Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell asked the SCOTUS for special time to argue against aggregate limits before the Court," said Marion. "Many Republicans in Congress seem to want to further deregulate campaign finance which will make any reforms, including Senator Whitehouses' DISCLOSE Act, difficult to pass.

Marion also broached the future of campaign contributions -- at the local level.

"Local campaign finance is quite different, although affected by some of the national trends. Just like at the national level, locally we're likely to see more outside spending because Citizens United helped remove limits on that type of spending," said Marion.  "Likewise, McCutcheon may overturn the state aggregate limit ($10,000) which could result in fewer people funding more of our state races."

SEE MAP OF PER CAPITA CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS OVER TIME BELOW (Courtesy of the Sunlight Foundation)