MAPLight.org exposes links between political contributions and
legislators in Sacramento
Gilroy – Local Assemblyman Simón Salinas (D- Salinas) overwhelmingly supported any legislation that benefited unions, his biggest source of campaign cash.
One hundred percent of the bills opposed by construction unions – who gave more than $9-million to state legislators between 2001 and 2004 – died before enactment.
A bill to require pharmaceutical manufacturers to disclose any gifts, fees, or other payments to the prescribers of dangerous drugs, was killed by lawmakers who received an average of $19,000-plus in campaign cash from drug makers and other industry groups.
The connection between special interest money and legislation in California came into sharper focus Monday with the launch of MAPLight.org, a new Web site devoted to exposing the links between campaign contributions and legislators in Sacramento.
“We wanted to make money in politics more understandable for people and present it in a way that is about issues they care about,” said Dan Newman, executive director of MAPLight.org, a nonprofit based in Berkeley. “Previously there was no way to put together the money that politicians receive and how they voted on specific issues. … We wanted each citizen to see if an elected official stands with them on an issue or with their special interest contributors.”
The new site relied on 22 student researchers to draw together data from the official California Legislative Information Web site and the Institute on Money in State Politics, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group that tracks campaign contributions across the country.
The site includes 5,000 bills from the 2003-2004 legislative session and campaign contributions made between January 2001 and December 2004.
The release date of the site is no accident, according to Newman, who said it was timed to generate support for Proposition 89. The statewide ballot initiative that goes before voters Nov. 7 would require public financing of political campaigns and place new restrictions on campaign contributions from individuals and special interests.
Opponents say Prop 89 would tax small businesses and nonprofit groups to potentially finance negative campaign advertisements.
Assemblyman Salinas had not yet reviewed MAPLight.org, but supported the concept of the Web site. He was not surprised that his votes swung in favor of labor groups and said he was “proud of his record supporting workers and families.”
Though on his way out of state office, Salinas said he’s a strong backer of Prop. 89.
“By the time you’re elected, you’re already out raising money for the next election,” Salinas said. “It would make it easier not to have to worry about fundraising and be able to talk to voters about issues.”
MAPLight.org is not the only site that focuses on money in politics. Opensecrets.org and Political Moneyline (a pay site at www.tray.com/fecinfo) offer extensive data on campaign contributions to candidates for federal office and unaffiliated, issue-oriented political action committees. The raw data used by the sites comes from the Federal Election Commission at www.fec.gov.
None of those sites, however, connects special interest money with specific votes on legislation. Newman said his nonprofit group plans to extend its reach to federal elections and voting records, and eventually establish a system for California that automatically updates as contributions roll in and legislation gets processed.
Assemblyman John Laird (D–Santa Cruz) supports Prop. 89 and likes the idea of giving voters another way to follow money in politics, though he warned about the Web site’s limitations. The shortcomings of campaign finance data are most glaring in the case of individual contributors, who get classified by generic job codes such as “doctor” or “lawyer” in pursuit of connecting contributions with special-interest legislation.
“I have 800 people come to my fundraising dinner every year,” Laird said. “I’m going to have hundreds of donations, and they just add up how many attorneys came to dinner and see how many bills I voted on that affect attorneys. But at the same time, I have a lot of friends who are attorneys who aren’t there because of any legislation.”
