20130401 NYState 2012 Impact Matching wTables

7/28/2019 20130401 NYState 2012 Impact Matching wTables

1/13

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

MICHAEL J. MALBIN

CHAIRPERSON

ANTHONY CORRADO

TRUSTEES

F. CHRISTOPHER ARTERTON

BETSEY BAYLESS

JEFFREY BELL

RONDA BYBEE

DAVID COHEN

VIC FAZIO

DONALD J. FOLEY

GEORGE B. GOULD

KENNETH A. GROSS

RUTH S. JONES

RON MICHAELSON

ROSS CLAYTON MULFORD

PHIL NOBLE

JEANNE OLSON

ACADEMIC ADVISORS

JAMES E. CAMPBELL

ANTHONY CORRADO

DIANA DWYRE

DONALD GREEN

JOHN C. GREEN

KEITH HAMM

GARY C. JACOBSON

ROBIN KOLODNY

RAY LA RAJA

THOMAS E. MANN

MARK J. ROZELL

KAY SCHLOZMAN

CLYDE WILCOX

ForReleaseApril1,2013

Contact:MichaelMalbin(202)969-8890ext.221

Updated CFI Research on State and Local Elections:

New 2012 Data Reinforces Previous Findings

Public Matching Funds in NY State, Reversing the Financial

Influence of Small & Large Donors, Would Leave the Candidates

Whole While Costing New Yorkers only $2/year

New York States candidates for the legislature in 2012 raised 74% of their money from donors

who gave them $1,000 or more, and from interest groups. Only 8% came from donors who gave

$250 or less. The balance between the states small versus large donors was almost the same in

2012 as in 2010 and 2008.

Until now, big donors have dominated the Empire States politics, said CFIs Executive Director

Michael J. Malbin, who is also a professor of political science at the University at Albany (SUNY).

This study shows that making small donors the linchpins of candidate financing would come at

a very low cost when compared to the benefits.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York has recommended that the state reduce candidates

dependence on big donors by adopting a system of small-donor matching funds similar to New

York Citys. The city provides $6 in matching funds for each of the first $175 that a donor gives

to a candidate participating in its voluntary system. (Gov. Cuomo also proposed lower

contribution limits, improved disclosure, and strengthened enforcement.) Assembly Speaker

Sheldon Silver has reintroduced a bill from previous years that would provide six-for-one

matching funds for a donors first $250, with lower contribution limits. While the details of this

proposal may change, and the Senate and Governor may put forward their own proposals, this

one is a sound basis for analysis.

CFIs previous studies of New York have shown that matching funds could have a profound

effect on the states election financing. The first was a broad peer-reviewed policy analysis in

Election Law Journal(link). The second showed that small donors would likely be responsible for

a majority of the candidates funds under a small donor matching system [link]. A third [link],

published jointly with the Brennan Center, showed that New York Citys system brings a far

more diverse pool of donors into the system than traditional fundraising. A fourth showed that

the percentage of New York population giving a contribution in any amount is among the

nations lowest (link). Finally, this study is a revision of one previously published that was based

only on data from 2010 (link). The results based on 2012 data are virtually unchanged.
http://www.cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/12-03-08/%E2%80%9CSmall_Donors_Big_Democracy_New_York_City%E2%80%99s_Matching_Funds_as_a_Model_for_the_Nation_and_States%E2%80%9D_published_in_Election_Law_Journal.aspxhttp://www.cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/12-03-08/%E2%80%9CSmall_Donors_Big_Democracy_New_York_City%E2%80%99s_Matching_Funds_as_a_Model_for_the_Nation_and_States%E2%80%9D_published_in_Election_Law_Journal.aspxhttp://www.cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/12-03-08/%E2%80%9CSmall_Donors_Big_Democracy_New_York_City%E2%80%99s_Matching_Funds_as_a_Model_for_the_Nation_and_States%E2%80%9D_published_in_Election_Law_Journal.aspxhttp://www.cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/12-04-17/Public_Matching_Fund_System_Would_Reverse_the_Importance_of_Small_and_Large_Donors_in_New_York_State_Elections.aspxhttp://www.cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/12-04-17/Public_Matching_Fund_System_Would_Reverse_the_Importance_of_Small_and_Large_Donors_in_New_York_State_Elections.aspxhttp://cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/12-05-14/Study_Public_Financing_Contributes_to_Greater_Diversity_of_Participation_in_NYC_Elections.aspxhttp://cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/12-05-14/Study_Public_Financing_Contributes_to_Greater_Diversity_of_Participation_in_NYC_Elections.aspxhttp://www.cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/12-12-20/VT_and_RI_Had_the_Highest_Percentages_of_Adults_Contributing_in_2010_and_2006_State_Elections_NY_UT_CA_and_FL_the_Lowest.aspxhttp://www.cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/12-12-03/CFI_Study_on_Public_Financing_in_New_York_State.aspxhttp://www.cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/12-12-03/CFI_Study_on_Public_Financing_in_New_York_State.aspxhttp://www.cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/12-12-03/CFI_Study_on_Public_Financing_in_New_York_State.aspxhttp://www.cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/12-12-20/VT_and_RI_Had_the_Highest_Percentages_of_Adults_Contributing_in_2010_and_2006_State_Elections_NY_UT_CA_and_FL_the_Lowest.aspxhttp://cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/12-05-14/Study_Public_Financing_Contributes_to_Greater_Diversity_of_Participation_in_NYC_Elections.aspxhttp://www.cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/12-04-17/Public_Matching_Fund_System_Would_Reverse_the_Importance_of_Small_and_Large_Donors_in_New_York_State_Elections.aspxhttp://www.cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/12-03-08/%E2%80%9CSmall_Donors_Big_Democracy_New_York_City%E2%80%99s_Matching_Funds_as_a_Model_for_the_Nation_and_States%E2%80%9D_published_in_Election_Law_Journal.aspx


2/13

2

being $200 million per election or $100 million per year. In contrast, the Campaign Finance

Institutes recently completed analysis suggests the cost would be more like $26-$41 million per

year. To arrive at these estimates, CFI assumed the matching fund formulae and contributionlimits of the Silver bill and applied them to the actual donors in the elections of 2010 and 2012.

The CFI analysis assumed that all donors who gave in each election would continue to give the

same amounts under the new system but only up to the new contribution limit. To average

the cost between a gubernatorial and midterm election, the analysis includes one election for

statewide officials (2010) and two elections for the legislature (2010 and 2012). It then assumed

four different scenarios, represented in the table below. The two variables producing the four

scenarios have to do with the rules for contested primaries, and the presence or absence of newdonors in the system.

The Silver bill would allow higher contribution limits and more public funding for a candidate

who is challenged in a primary election than for one who is not. This results in two pairs of

scenarios. For one, we assume a status quo in which only the few candidates who were actually

challenged in 2010 and 2012 would continue to be challenged under the new system. Under

the other scenarios, we assume a substantial increase in primary challenges. By definition, this

assumption would mean that the rules were bringing new candidates into the system.Obviously, we have no idea how many these might be. (Many incumbents presumably would

still be unchallenged.) If we assume arbitrarily and generously that half of the current

candidates would face a primary challenge under the new rules, we can estimate the cost by

treating all of the existing general election candidates as if they would be covered the under

rules for contested primaries. This should produce overly high estimates of the new programs

cost.

Second, any estimate will be sensitive to the number of donors assumed. The table includestwo estimates of the number of donors. Under one, we calculate that only the donors who gave

in 2010 and 2012 will continue to give under the new system. This produces a low estimate for

the cost of public matching funds. The second assumes the programs incentives successfully

bring new donors into the system. To put a dollar figure on this, we make the optimistic

assumption that each candidate doubles the number of his/her donors, with each new donor

giving $50.


3/13

3

Table 1. The Cost of a Public Matching Fund System for New York State Elections

Includes the Four-Year cost for all Statewide and Legislative Candidates

Assumption: all candidates ask for and

receive public funds up to the maximum

allowed for one contested election, usually

the general election. In addition, for

primary elections:

Same Donors as

2010-2012, Lower

Contribution Limit

Each Candidate Doubles

the Number of Donors,

with Each New Donor

Giving $50

Assume higher public funding cap only for

those who actually had two contests

Total Four-Year Cost 104,269,894 132,446,554

Average Cost per Year 26,067,474 33,111,639

Average per year per capita $1.34 $1.70

Treat every 2010-12 general election

candidate as if in a contested primary

Total Four-Year Cost 120,928,616 162,373,570

Average Cost per Year 30,232,154 40,593,393

Average per year per capita $1.55 $2.08

The above table shows the CFI estimate under each of the four scenarios. If no new donors are

brought into the system, the cost would be $26 million - $30 million per year. This would

average to $1.34 - $1.55 per person per year. With new donors, the cost would be $33 million

to $41 million per year. Under these more expensive scenarios, therefore, the average cost for

each of New Yorks 19.5 million residents would be between $1.70 and $2.08 per year, with the

higher figure including generously optimistic assumptions for both of the key variables.

HOW THE CANDIDATES WOULD FARE

Under the Silver bill, candidates would lose some of their current money because the

contribution limits would be lower. But they gain money from the new public matching funds.

Incumbents who are asked to vote for such a program obviously would want to know whether

combining the two provisions would leave them with less money to compete. As the following

summary table indicates, almost all Assembly candidates would have ended up with moremoney, not less. So would most Senate candidates, but the number for the Senate would

depend upon the final bills contribution limits.

The bill as introduced would impose $2,000 contribution limits on any candidate for any state

office, but this would be doubled for candidates facing two contested elections (a contested


4/13

4

Table 2. Number of 2012 Candidates Who Would Have Had Less Money

With Public Matching Funds and Lower Contribution Limits Than They Actually Raised

$2,000 Contribution Limit $4,000 Contribution Limit

Total #

CandidatesSame Donors

More small

donorsSame Donors

More small

donors

Assembly$150,000 cap 232 4 1 0 0

$300,000 cap 232 4 0 0 0

Senate$350,000 cap 101 18 11 2 2

$700,000 cap 101 16 8 1 1

As the table shows, the bill provides adequate public funds to assure that almost every

Assembly candidate receives at least as much by substituting small donor matching funds for

large contributions. The bill is not as finely tuned for the Senate. By imposing the same

contribution limits for all offices, the bill would have left more than one-quarter of all Senate

incumbents (ten Democrats and six Republicans) with less money under the proposed systemthan under the status quo. Most challengers and candidates for open seats would be ahead;

only two would be behind.

To address this, the bills sponsors might want to vary the contribution limits across offices. The

current Silver bill has the same limit for Assembly, Senate and all statewide offices. This need

not be so. In 2011-12, thirteen states had the same limit for all offices, but nineteen had higher

limits for statewide officials and six (including New York) had different limits for statewide office

and each of the two legislative chambers. (Twelve states allowed unlimited contributions.)

New Yorks Senate districts are approximately twice as large as its Assembly districts. One

possibility might be to make the contribution limits for the Senate twice that of the Assemblys.

The Senates current limit is about 2.5 times the Assemblys. A $4,000 limit for the Senate and

$2,000 for the Assembly would still be about half of the current limit for each chamber. If the

Senates limit was $4,000 instead of $2,000, almost all Senate candidates would find it

advantageous to combine the new limits with small donor matching funds.

Attachments

Appendix 1: Candidates for NY State Senate in 2012

Appendix 2: Candidates for NY State Assembly in 2012

Appendices 1 and 2 show: (a) the amount of Money Each Candidate Raised in 2012; (b) how

much each candidate would lose as a result of the Silver Bills contribution limits; (c) how


5/13


6/13


7/13


8/13


9/13


10/13


11/13


12/13


13/13

20130401 NYState 2012 Impact Matching wTables

Documents

Transcript of 20130401 NYState 2012 Impact Matching wTables