Download as PDF, PPTX
Uploaded byEPIPNational
EPIP/NCRP Webinar | Supersized Imbalance: Post-2014 Election, What Foundations Should Know
The document is a summary of an EPIP/NCRP webinar discussing the implications of post-2014 election dynamics for foundations, including analysis of political donations and legislative actions. It emphasizes the importance of data transparency in influencing public policy and highlights the role of various organizations in tracking political contributions. The webinar also covers the effects of the Citizens United decision on campaign financing and the decline in donor disclosure among certain nonprofit organizations.
More Related Content
Similar to EPIP/NCRP Webinar | Supersized Imbalance: Post-2014 Election, What Foundations Should Know
EPIP/NCRP Webinar | Supersized Imbalance: Post-2014 Election, What Foundations Should Know
- 1. SUPERSIZED IMBALANCE: POST-2015 ELECTION,WHAT FOUNDATIONS SHOULD KNOW EPIP/NCRP Webinar January 9th, 2015 Hosts: Michael Barham and Christine Reeves
- 2. 2 Emerging Practitioners in Philanthropy(EPIP) is a national network of foundation professionals and social entrepreneurs who strive for excellence in the practice of philanthropy.
- 3. 3 We are aninclusive group of highly skilled & effective Change Makers committed to working together to build a just, equitable, & sustainable society.
- 4. 4 We provide aplatform for our community to: Connect with others Learn & practice leadership skills Voice emerging, transformative thoughts in the social sector
- 5. Join EPIP! If you’renot yet a member, join us! More information on our site at www.epip.org/membership or contact michael@epip.org
- 6. Announcements • EPIP NationalConference – Save the Date! • May 13th-14th • New Orleans, LA • Next EPIP Webinar - Wednesday, February 4th, 3pm ET • Black Male Achievement: An Exploration of Systemic and Capacity Building Solutions • Foundation Center, Open Society Foundations, PolicyLink, CLASP • MC MaL • January: Communications • All Events • epip.org/events
- 7. Housekeeping • All attendeeson mute during the presentation • Use the question box for technical difficulties • We’ll save time for Q&A • We’ll be recording this webinar, visit our website to view • Complete the post-webinar survey!
- 8. Supersized Imbalance: Post-2014 Election, WhatFoundations Should Know
- 9. Christine Reeves! Edwin Bender! DanielStid!Tara Malloy! Bert Brandenburg!
- 10. Goals for OurTime Today Frame Overview of NIMSP Tool #1: Who Gives to Influence Policy? (Example: Fracking) #2: Legislative Action in the States (Example: ACA Health Policy) #3: Judicial Independence (Example: Money in Judicial Elections) #4: Defending & Enforcing Campaign Finance (Example: Sun Act) #5: How Election Data Informs the Hewlett Foundation (Example: Madison Initiative Program)
- 11.
- 12.
- 13. FollowTheMoney.org Tracking political donationsin all 50 states National Institute on Money in State Politics EPIP/NCRP JAN. 2015 We Connect the Dots in 50 States Ballot measures Judicial candidates Statewide candidates Legislative candidates Federal candidates Political parties Lobbyists & clients
- 14. FollowTheMoney.org Tracking political donationsin all 50 states National Institute on Money in State Politics EPIP/NCRP JAN. 2015 What Can Data Tell You? $5.6 Billion to Gubernatorial Races $8.4 Billion to Legislative Races $4.3 Billion to Ballot Measures
- 15. FollowTheMoney.org Tracking political donationsin all 50 states National Institute on Money in State Politics EPIP/NCRP JAN. 2015 Our Data Tells You Who gave? How much? To whom? When?
- 16. The Institute isseen as a “gold standard” reference and a “gold mine” of information. —RAND Corp, 2014 FollowTheMoney.org Transparency Media Academia Advocacy Policy Gov t Agencies Sunlight Foundation MapLight Project Vote Smart TransparencyData.com CNN, ABC, CBS, Fox, NPR, MSNBC Wall St. Journal, NY Times, Reuters, Newsweek Center for Public Integrity ProPublica Investigative News Network Stateline.org Harvard, Stanford, Rice, New York Univ. of Law Sustainable Investments Institute American Judicature Society Election Law Journal Common Cause Midwest Democracy Network U.S. PIRG State Voices AARP Campaign for a Just Society Cato Institute Justice at Stake Campaign Finance Institute Progressive States Network Heritage Foundation Brennan Center for Justice All 50 state elections agencies U.S. Supreme Court National Conference of State Legislatures U.S. Government Accountability Office Council on Governmental Ethics Laws
- 17. FollowTheMoney.org Tracking political donationsin all 50 states National Institute on Money in State Politics EPIP/NCRP JAN. 2015 Identify special interest money Data = Informed Power Mapping Who may wish to influence public policy? How much did they give to people in positions of power?
- 18. FollowTheMoney.org Tracking political donationsin all 50 states National Institute on Money in State Politics EPIP/NCRP JAN. 2015 Specific Work for Foundations Ex: The Energy Foundation supported Institute investigation of lobbying influence on laws related to climate change in five states
- 19. FollowTheMoney.org Tracking political donationsin all 50 states National Institute on Money in State Politics EPIP/NCRP JAN. 2015 Legislative Power Mapping Focus on special interest contributors Ex: Oil & Gas
- 20. FollowTheMoney.org Tracking political donationsin all 50 states National Institute on Money in State Politics EPIP/NCRP JAN. 2015 Legislative Power Mapping Which states were targeted?
- 21. FollowTheMoney.org Tracking political donationsin all 50 states National Institute on Money in State Politics EPIP/NCRP JAN. 2015 Legislative Power Mapping Look at the detail …by State … by Contributor
- 22. FollowTheMoney.org Tracking political donationsin all 50 states National Institute on Money in State Politics EPIP/NCRP JAN. 2015 Legislative Power Mapping Is your focus on healthcare? Health-related political giving to state legislators is on the rise nationwide $74M $36M $49M $62M
- 23. FollowTheMoney.org Tracking political donationsin all 50 states National Institute on Money in State Politics EPIP/NCRP JAN. 2015 Specific Work for Foundations Ex: The California Endowment asked the Institute to document the record-breaking pace of the California medical insurance industry’s political contributions to affect 2014 state elections.
- 24. FollowTheMoney.org Tracking political donationsin all 50 states National Institute on Money in State Politics EPIP/NCRP JAN. 2015 Legislative Power Mapping Zero in on key committee members in one state
- 25. FollowTheMoney.org Tracking political donationsin all 50 states National Institute on Money in State Politics EPIP/NCRP JAN. 2015 Legislative Power Mapping Who gave them the most?
- 26. FollowTheMoney.org Tracking political donationsin all 50 states National Institute on Money in State Politics EPIP/NCRP JAN. 2015 Legislative Power Mapping … how much? … from? … to? Save your searches and download results
- 27. FollowTheMoney.org Tracking political donationsin all 50 states National Institute on Money in State Politics EPIP/NCRP JAN. 2015 Legislative Power Mapping Narrow your focus to who has the power in committee (2015 legislative committees coming soon!)
- 28. FollowTheMoney.org Tracking political donationsin all 50 states National Institute on Money in State Politics EPIP/NCRP JAN. 2015 Contact Edwin Bender 406-449-2480 edwinb@followthemoney.org Follow us! Facebook.com/FollowTheMoney.org Twitter: @MoneyInPolitics Want to Learn More?
- 30.
- 31.
- 32.
- 33.
- 34.
- 35. The Disclosure Deficit: AnonymousCampaign Spending after Citizens United and its Effects
- 36. Citizens United v.FEC! Five Justices struck down the federal restrictions on corporate spending to influence elections.! All but Justice Thomas voted to uphold disclosure.!
- 37. The Aftermath ofCitizens United Elec)on$Year$ Total$(non8party)$outside$spending$ 2006$ $69,535,000$ 2008$ $338,400,000$ Ci#zens(United( 2010$ $309,834,000$ 2012$ $1,038,737,000$ 2014$ $560,637,000$ Information from the Center for Responsive Politics
- 38. Biggest “Dark Money”Groups, 2014 Group Spending US Chamber of Commerce $35,464,243 Crossroads GPS $26,015,161 NRA Institute for Legislative Action $12,117,487 Patriot Majority USA $10,652,298 American Action Network $8,958,129 Information from the Center for Responsive Politics
- 39. Section 501(c) groups • A 501(c)(3) organization is a public charity or private foundation (e.g., Boy Scouts of America, Heritage Foundation, churches). A 501(c)(3) is prohibited from participating or intervening in any political campaign for a candidate for public office. • A 501(c)(4) is a social welfare organization (e.g., NRA, Sierra Club). Donors also need not be publicly disclosed under the tax law. Unlike (c)(3)s, these groups can participate in political campaign activity for candidates for public office, provided that this is not their primary activity. Examples of such (c)(4)s are Crossroads GPS and American Action Network. • 501(c)(5)s are labor organizations and 501(c)(6)s are trade associations. They are also not required to publicly disclose their donors under the tax law. Similarly to 501(c)(4)s, these groups can engage in political campaign activity provided that it is not their primary activity. Both of these types of groups were very involved in the 2010 elections; according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the most active (c)(5) was the Service Employees International Union and the most active (c)(6) was the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
- 40. Declining Disclosure 1 Figure:Campaign Legal Center. Data: Center for Responsive Politics.! 0%! 10%! 20%! 30%! 40%! 50%! 60%! 70%! 2008! 2012! Portion of Outside Spending Disclosed1 65 %! 41 %!
- 41. Reasons for theDisclosure Deficit • Federal law not designed to capture large scale spending by corporations and non-profit corporations • IRC does not require donor disclosure from many types of 501(c) groups • The FEC gutted the federal electioneering communications disclosure law was gutted by a regulation in 2007. • Other potential regulators – SEC, FCC – have not taken action
- 42. Multi-prong Approach to ImprovingTransparency a. Legisla)ve$Ac)on$(DISCLOSE$Act)$ b. Affirma)ve$Li)ga)on$(Van$Hollen$v.$ FEC)$ c. Administra)ve$Prac)ce$(IRS,$FEC)$$ d. Defensive$Li)ga)on$
- 43. The Hewlett Foundation’s Madison Initiative Ourgoal: help create conditions in which Congress and its members can negotiate and compromise in ways that work for most Americans
- 46. Ingredients for Impact: FoundationsBuilding Nonprofit Capacity & Real Results #2014GEO @NCRP!