PBC Education Foundation 

PACTrac 2007 - 2008

Business Community Releases Study of Top Political Action Committees in 2007-2008
IBEW #98 Pennsylvania’s Top PAC for Two-Year Cycle

Labor unions outspent business and political parties alike in the 2007-2008 campaign cycle according to new research from the PBC Education Committee – a research organization operating under the umbrella of the Pennsylvania Business Council.  Political Action Committees (PACs) made about $126 million of contributions and campaign-related expenditures within Pennsylvania in the two-year period.

“The PBC Education Foundation is proud to carry on the tradition and research of one of our founding organizations, Pennsylvanians for Effective Government (PEG) which, since 1991, has released this research biennially," said PBC Chair John T. Tighe, III.

Researchers examined over 230,000 campaign finance expenditures from 1,222 PACs and analyzed the way in which the money was spent, according to lead researcher Anna L. McCauslin.  Researchers looked only at expenditures of PACs registered in Pennsylvania for state and local elections, or expenditures of federally-registered PACs used specifically for Pennsylvania elections and candidates. 

Researchers attempted to identify the end-use of each contribution.  Of the total $126 million of PAC contributions and campaign-related expenditures, more than $33 million were contributions from a PAC in support of candidates’ election to a state offices (legislature, state row office, state judge), reported McCauslin.  About $25 million of the total were contributions from PACs to political party organizations or political funds controlled by legislative leaders for elections to their caucuses.  More than $7 million of PAC contributions went to candidates for election to local government offices. Nearly $6 million were contributions made form one PAC to another PAC.

Researchers could only describe some $55 million of contributions and expenditures as “miscellaneous.”  Researchers believe that a large proportion of these funds may have been payments to campaign workers for Election Day activities or other similar independent expenditures, however, campaign finance reporting laws do not require PACs to be explicit in their expense report disclosures. 

“PBC and the business community do not see anything wrong with political giving,” commented PBC President David W. Patti.  “And the PAC Trac report is an aggregation of completely legal and reported campaign contributions and expenditures,” he stressed.  “We think measuring political contributions and ranking donors is a useful exercise in democracy.  Political giving is as American as apple pie.”

The table below lists the top 10 PACs ranked by Pennsylvania expenditures in 2007-2008 and provides their rank in the 2005-2006 study conducted by PEG.  “John Dougherty and IBEW Local #98 in Philadelphia have been strong PAC players for several election cycles,” said McCauslin, “and this year they made it to number one on our “Top 10 PAC List” at $6,790,467 in total expenditures to influence political campaigns.”

McCauslin said, Republicans outnumber Democrats on the “Top 10 List” of political parties and organizations.  The Republican State Committee spent over $10.3 million on behalf of its candidates for state and local office in the two year cycle, outspending the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, which spent $8.8 million.  By comparison, the House Democratic Campaign Committee expended nearly $7.2 million, and the House Republican Campaign Committee expended nearly $5.9 million.  The Senate Republicans outspent their Democrat counterparts at $4.7 million to $2.2 million.

Researchers sorted PACs into categories by organization types and industry sectors.

Trial lawyers were the top trade association PAC outspending their nearest competitor, the Pennsylvania Realtors PAC more than two to one -- $1.8 million to $772,549.

The Pennsylvania Bankers Public Affairs Committee was at the top of the Insurance and Financial category at $532,993, followed by the Pennsylvania Insurance PAC at $484,406 and the Bank of NY Mellon at $312,667.

The Pennsylvania and Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Associations out-spent any other legal association or law firm in the Legal category by significant margins.  Wolf Block spent the most of any law firm, coming in at $596,339.  Buchanan Ingersoll and Rooney came in at $439,931 followed by Duane Morris LLP at $394,126.

The top three PACs among contract lobbyists were Greenlee Partners State PAC at $288,185, S.R. Wodjak and Associates at $220,187, and Malady and Wooten Public Affairs at $147,418.

Sunoco’s SunPAC remained at the top of the Manufacturing category with $458,967 in expenditures.  The United States Steel Corporation PAC came in at second with $125,630 and SmithKline Beecham Corp PAC was third at $104,048.

PPL’s People for Government PAC came in at number on in the Energy category with $393,386.  PECO PAC was second, spending just over $311,000 and First Energy PAC remaining at third, spending $258,385.

Researchers also looked at how political candidates made use of the funds contributed to them.  Overall, the average amount spent per state Senate race (sum of all General Election candidates) was $396,229.42, according to PBC’s Eric R. Kratz who completed the analysis.  Kratz noted the average state Senate race spent almost four times as much as the average amount spent per state House race at $117,844.18.  When re-elections of incumbent lawmakers were removed, focusing on so-called “open seat races” – the average spent per open seat Pennsylvania Senate race was $730,143.24; the average spent per open seat Pennsylvania House race was $194,612.59.

Not surprisingly noted Kratz, spending more money generally meant victory in the General Election.  In 20 of 25 Pennsylvania Senate races, the candidate who spent the most money was victorious.  In 192 of 203 state House races, the candidate who spent the most money was victorious.  Incumbent officeholders who benefit from higher name identification and other advantages, also tend to raise more money benefiting them on Election Day.

“In only one case, the 142nd House District race between Representative Chris King (D-Bucks) and Frank Farry, did an incumbent that outspent their opponent end up losing their re-election bid,” noted Kratz.

In the Senate, incumbents spent an average of $224,845.17 on their re-election bids; whereas challengers spent an average of $49,834.65 (this includes challengers who did not spend any PAC dollars).  In the House, incumbents spent on average $194,612.59 compared to challengers, who spent on average $34,542.06 (again including those that spent zero PAC dollars).

For more details, click here for a PDF of the PACTrac PowerPoint presentation. 

For a table listing the Top 50 PACs (by expenditures) in 2007 - 2008, click here.

The PBC Education Foundation is a charitable organization approved by the IRS under section 501(c)(3) of the Code  (EIN 20-0771774).  The PBC Education Foundation is registered with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of State, Bureau of Charitable Organizations (certificate 36887). The PBC Education Foundation stimulates and encourages Pennsylvania citizens, and especially business persons, to take a more active part in civic and political affairs.  The PBC Education Foundation commissions research, publishes reports and conducts seminars to disseminate unbiased information on issues of civic affairs.  The PBC Education Foundation does not advocate the adoption of any public policy proposal, or the election or defeat of any candidate.  The PBC Education Foundation works for increased and better informed voter participation.  The PBC Education Foundation often employs college and graduate interns as research analysts.  Many PBC interns go on to careers in public or government affairs.

--30--