Michael,
For years I have complained that the Center for Responsive Politics' website does not make its definitions perfectly clear on any web page on which the numbers are reported. For example go to this page http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00003675&cycle=2010 and find the definition for me (either its not there at all, or its obscure enough on the page that I couldn't find it. This is the first page I called up. At one time, I believe the definitions were not on the site at all. Over the years they have been made more prominent, but even when they appear, they are easily overlooked, especially in light of the headline on the page which labels these corporations the "Top contributors" to the candidates. See for example this page http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00003675&type=I&newmem=N.
The Center for Responsive Politics does much wonderful work in compiling data and making it easy for researchers and the public to use. For that reason, journalists frequently rely on it. But because of that very reliance, I believe that the organization is the single must culpable entity in confusing the public on the source of campaign contributions in America. I wish the group would abandon this exercise in compiling "top contributors" (which is of highly dubious value, as you suggest below, precisely because it combines unrelated contributions) or at least come up with better labeling and more prominent definitions.
Mark,
The Post's headline language, "corporate contributions" is even more inaccurate than you suggest. The bulk of the contributions are directly from individual employees, not through PACs. The underlying numbers come from the Center for Responsive Politics which makes its definitions perfectly clear on any page on which its numbers are reported. Its definitions do result in some strange quirks, which would be hard to correct in any automated procedure. For example, the University of California (a 501c3) shows up as the top contributor to Barack Obama in 2008, Harvard is third and Stanford tenth. Obviously, these are employee (mostly faculty) contributions. But with the definitions in hand, you can decide whether you like them. The Post and most other media do not take the time to define, creating a misleading impression.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Michael J. Malbin
Executive Director
Campaign Finance Institute
1667 K Street NW (Suite 650)
Washington, D.C. 20006
PH: 202-969-8890. ext. 28
FAX: 202-969-5612
email: mmalbin@CFInst.org
web:
http://www.CFInst.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Scarberry, Mark
<Mark.Scarberry@pepperdine.edu> wrote:
The Washington Post story repeatedly refers to contributions by "companies" (presumably corporations or LLCs) and by "corporations." Wouldn't it be helpful if the news media were clearer that such contributions (as opposed to possible independent expenditures) were from PACs funded by individuals associated with the companies and corporations?
It's easier to take complaints seriously when they involve accurate reporting.
Mark Scarberry
Pepperdine
January 22, 2011
***"Contributions Mount for House GOP Chairmen"
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
--