Update, Nov. 9: In the wee hours of Sunday morning, Wisconsin’s state Senate passed a bill that ends the requirement for donors to disclose their employers when giving to state-level campaigns or other political committees. The bill, along with others that would raise contribution limits, eliminate the Government Accountability Board and allow coordination between candidates and nonprofit issue advocacy groups, must be reconciled with language in the Assembly’s versions of the legislation before going to Gov. Scott Walker for his signature.

State senators in Wisconsin may eliminate language in the Assembly-passed overhaul of the state’s campaign finance laws that would do away with donors having to disclose their employers.

Many of the changes in the bill — scheduled for a vote in the state Senate on Friday — are designed to allow campaigns, political parties and other organizations to raise more money from a variety of sources. Other provisions would allow for explicit coordination between candidates and groups running “issue ads” that mention those candidates — while the groups raise unlimited contributions from undisclosed sources.

There are strong feelings on both sides about those measures. But the provision that would eliminate the requirement that campaigns disclose the employers of their donors has received less attention. Each donor’s occupation would still be reported, but no information about the specific company or organization for which he or she works would be available to the public from campaign finance reports. The stated justification for the change is to reduce the burden on campaigns and donors while still providing information about the background of the contributor.

The proposal is misguided in critical ways and would lead to less transparency in the system.

At the Center for Responsive Politics, we’ve spent decades working to understand the dynamics of campaign finance. As that work has evolved, we’ve come to understand the critical role that economic interests play in the financial support of political organizations. Contributions from individuals representing specific economic interests have grown in importance in federal campaigns, magnifying the role of these interests in the system.

Some of the changes are simply results of changes in the federal law. One largely forgotten provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (better known as McCain-Feingold) was the doubling and indexing for inflation of individual contribution limits. So the limit for an individual donor to a campaign — $1,000 per election before the law was enacted and $2,000 just after — has now become $2,800 per election. The limit for PAC contributions to candidates (which we once thought of as the primary way that companies and other interests participated in the process) remains unchanged at $5,000 per election from each PAC. So, while it used to take five individuals to equal the contributing power of a PAC, it now takes fewer than three maxed-out donors to give the same amount.

Help us keep government accountable by making a donation today.

Perhaps as a result, the percentage of campaign funds that comes from PACs has declined slightly since 2000 for Senate and House campaigns, but the ability of industries and other interests to make their presence felt in campaign budgets is in no way diminished. We know this only because we are able to aggregate contributions from individuals based on their employer — not just their occupation. That information has consistently shown that leaders of corporations, business associations and other organizations have significantly increased their individual giving, ensuring access to candidates and elected officials that is critical to protecting their interests in Washington.

More specifically, we’ve seen major growth in giving by people in important segments of the economy. Individuals working in the sector of the economy that includes financial, insurance and real estate interest, along with PACs and organizations in that sector gave a total of $320 million to federal political committees in the 2000 election cycle. Individuals gave $163 million of that, while $47 million came from PACs and $110 million was given as ‘soft money’ to parties from companies and individuals in the sector. During the last presidential cycle in 2012, the comparable totals were $443 million for individuals, $81 million for PACs and $153 million given to outside groups. So while money from PACs and outside sources in this critical segment of the economy increased somewhat since 2000, growth in individual contributions was nearly three times greater.

We wouldn’t know this without access to information about individual contributors’ employers. Without employer disclosure we would only have been able to document the PACs that represent these industries – which was 15% of their money in 2000 and 11% in 2012. The vast majority of the power of these interests in federal campaigns would have been invisible.

Good disclosure isn’t just about providing some information about donors. Its about giving voters useful information about how politics is funded. Is it sufficient to know, for example, that a donor’s occupation is “Medical Director” or is it more relevant within this context to know that this person’s employer is Pfizer, Inc.? Knowing only that someone is a CEO, or an accountant or attorney, while helpful in some respects, would prevent voters from knowing how specific companies or their industries and sectors are changing their behavior and seeking influence through political donations. The information written in the “occupation” field is simply too vague or subjective too much of the time.

Or it’s downright wacky or hostile. Intentionally misleading or snarky descriptions we’ve run across include “Maverick,” “Messiah,” “Domestic Engineer,” “Domestic Slave” and “Jesus Christ.”

In a recent appearance at Harvard University Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy restated the Court majority’s belief that disclosure is critical to a proper campaign finance regulatory regime, saying that, “You live in this cyber age. A report can be done in 24 hours.” But, he added, “that’s not working the way it should.”

Real transparency means carefully tying the required information to a meaningful and accurate understanding of what is happening and who the important participants really are. Changes like the one being considered now in Wisconsin are steps in the wrong direction; the state Senate shouldn’t allow the provision in the Assembly’s bill to survive.



For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: [email protected]





Support Accountability Journalism At OpenSecrets.org we offer in-depth, money-in-politics stories in the public interest. Whether you’re reading about 2020 presidential fundraising, conflicts of interest or “dark money” influence, we produce this content with a small, but dedicated team. Every donation we receive from users like you goes directly into promoting high-quality data analysis and investigative journalism that you can trust.Please support our work and keep this resource free. Thank you. Support OpenSecrets ➜