Papers

Over the past five years, the Americans appearing in Forbes’ list of the richest 400 Americans in 1997 have given a surprisingly small share of their fortunes to federal political campaigns. Collectively, their net worth was $623.7 billion in 1997 and they gave $21.3 million in federal campaign contributions between January 1993 and December 1997 -- just 0.0034 percent of their wealth. The $21.3 million was divided as follows: $11.5 million went to Republican campaigns, parties, and organizations, $8.1 million went to Democrats, $10,000 went to third-party candidates, and the rest, $1.7 million, went to bipartisan/nonpartisan PACs. Based on current Federal Election Commission (FEC) data for the 1993-94, 1995-96, and 1997-98 election cycles through December 1, 1997, this study found that contributions went to Republicans only slightly more so than Democrats, by a slim majority, 54 percent to 38 percent.

This study is the result of months of painstaking examination and classification of over 8,100 individual contributions of $200 or more to federal campaigns, PACs, and parties¹ over the course of the past five years. It is part of the National Taxpayers Union Foundation’s ongoing effort to provide citizens with important information on the public policy process.

I. SUMMARY AND HIGHLIGHTS

This paper summarizes the findings of a comprehensive computerized study of all campaign contributions of at least $200 made between January 1, 1993 and December 1, 1997 by individuals named by Forbes magazine as the richest 400 Americans in 1997.

Among our findings:

• Only 38 of the "Forbes 400" are also on the list of the 400 biggest federal campaign contributors according to Mother Jones.²
• Over 335 of the "Forbes 400" made federal campaign contributions, but half of the total contributions came from just the 38 members mentioned above. (See Table #2).
• Collectively, the "Forbes 400" contributed over ten to one against President Clinton’s re-election³ . The "Forbes 400" gave $40,515 to Mr. Clinton, compared to $427,972 to Republican presidential candidates and $3,000 to third-party presidential candidates.
• There was a pro-incumbent bias overall⁴, with 62.5 percent of the contributions being given to Congressional incumbents versus 19 percent to Congressional challengers. However, in the presidential race, 91 percent went to challengers to President Clinton. Among all contributors tracked by the FEC the rate was 74 percent.
• The "Forbes 400" consistently backed the majority Congressional party, even after it changed. For the 1994 elections, they supported Congressional Democrats by a six percent margin even when Congressional Republicans were outraising Democrats by ten percent overall. However, in the 1996 elections, they gave Congressional Republicans 82 percent more than Congressional Democrats while Republicans only outraised Democrats by eighteen percent overall.
• Their pro-Republican swing was so strong that when presidential candidates are included, in the 1996 federal elections, Republican candidates received $1.83 million while Democratic candidates received only $0.81 million.
• The $12.5 million in federal campaign contributions by the "Forbes 400" during the 1995-96 cycle constituted 0.52 percent of all contributions, but three percent of the total "soft money ⁵" in the same period.
• More than three times as much money was given to campaigns out of state or district in which the contributor resided as was given to candidates the contributors actually could have voted for. The "Forbes 400" gave $3.9 million to candidates they could not vote for, but only $1.7 million to those they could have voted for in an election. That was more than double the ratio for all contributions $200 and above tracked by the FEC⁶.
• There were 468 checks to presidential candidates, of which 31.4 percent went to Dole/Kemp, 17.0 percent to Pete Wilson, 13.6 percent to Lamar Alexander, 9.6 percent to Phil Gramm, 9.2 percent to Clinton, 7.7 percent to Steve Forbes, 6.2 percent to Richard Lugar, 3.2 percent to Arlen Specter, 1.1 percent to Pat Buchanan, and one check each to Libertarian Harry Browne, Democrat Bob Casey, and Reform Party candidates Dick Lamm and Ross Perot.
• Almost two-thirds of the federal campaign contributions went to national parties while only 14.0% went to Senate campaigns, 10.8% to House campaigns, and 2.5% to presidential campaigns. The rest went to PACs, and federal accounts of local and state parties.

II. ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS

Detailed analysis of the data revealed how the "Forbes 400" were similar to, and different from, average contributors. First of all, there was a noticeable and predictable bias in favor of congressional incumbents. In all three of the election cycles examined most of the contributions, both in number and in amount, went to Congressional incumbents. However, the opposite was the case in the 1996 presidential campaign. Moreover, there was a strong pro-incumbent bias that resulted in challengers receiving less than one-third the amount of money that incumbents raised. That bias was stronger than that of the average contributor. Overall, incumbents raised less than twice as much as challengers for both the 1994 and 1996 elections.

This study also showed that incumbent members of Congress as a group enjoy a large financial advantage over their challengers. The 826 incumbents raised $698.3 million from 1993 to 1996 while the 1,905 challengers raised $414.6 million in the same time period. Thus, on a per capita basis, incumbents raised $5.44 for every $1.00 challengers raised ⁷. From the "Forbes 400," Congressional incumbents received $3.28 for every $1.00 their challengers received. However, that was far from the case when it came to the presidential race. By contrast, for every $1.00 Clinton received from the "Forbes 400", they gave $10.52 to one of his challengers. Put another way for every penny Clinton received, his challengers received over one dollar.

Table #1: Incumbents vs. Challengers
	Congress	Presidential	Cong. Ratio  Inc. to Chal.	Pres. Ratio Inc. to Chal.	Cong. Perc. of Total	Pres. Perc. of Total
Incumbent	$3,096,532	$40,515	3.28 to 1	0.01 to 1	62.55%	8.68%
Challenger	$941,670	$426,222			19.02%	91.32%
Open Seats	$912,370	NA			18.43%	NA
Totals	$4,950,572	$466,737			100.00%	100.00%
Key: Cong. Ratio Inc. to Chal.: Ratio of amount raised by congressional incumbents versus challengers.  Pres. Ratio Inc. to Chal.: Ratio of amount raised by presidential incumbents versus challengers8.

 

Another finding was that only 25 percent of federal campaign contributions by the "Forbes 400" went to campaigns, but 64 percent was in the form of so-called "soft money." That distribution is unusual for most contributors. In 1996, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, $2.4 billion was raised for campaigns, of which 10 percent went to PACs, eleven percent went to soft money, 25 percent came in the form of checks between $200 and $1,000, 30 percent came in the form of checks below $200, with the rest mostly coming from taxpayer-financed public money, candidates or miscellaneous sources. Thus, unsurprisingly, it seems that the "Forbes 400" were as atypical in their contributions as they were in their economic success.

Table #2: Top Contributors Sorted by Totals and Ranking in "MoJo 400" and "Forbes 400"
Name (Parties contributed to)	Totals	Mojo 400 Rank	Forbes 400 Rank	Name (Parties contributed to)	Totals	Mojo 400 Rank	Forbes  400 Rank
1. Carl H. Lindner (DR)	$638,800	55	282	20. Alex Spanos (R)	$256,200	58	325
2. Dirk Ziff (D)	$638,000	6	138	21. Charles Schwab (DR)	$254,363	28	84
3. Walter Shorenstein (D)	$609,350	11	324	22. Henry R. Kravis (DR)	$229,500	97 (tie)	132
4. Richard T. Farmer (R)	$495,750	41	190	23. Andrew Jerrold Perenchio (DR)	$226,000	110	102
5. Steven Spielberg (D)	$487,873	53	146	24. George Roberts (DR)	$216,200	329 (tie)	134
6. Julian Robertson (R)	$484,000	64	165	25. John Berry, Sr. (R)	$213,250	400 (tie)	240
7. David Koch (R and Libertarian)	$470,380	10	66	26. Anne Cox Chambers (D)	$174,976	164 (tie)	20
8. David Geffen (D)	$470,207	42	69	27. Gary Wilson (DR)	$174,250	233 (tie)	367
9. Marvin Davis (DR)	$407,500	364 (tie)	46	28. Edward L. Gaylord (R)	$171,050	267	129
10. Robert Day (DR)	$396,500	76	375	29. Floyd D. Gottwald (R)	$168,800	203	337
11. Sheldon Adelson (DR)	$392,750	46	343	30. Steven Jobs (D)	$162,500	128 (tie)	257
12. Max Fisher (R)	$346,310	67	368	31. George Soros (DR)	$159,000	164 (tie)	27
13. Donald Fisher (R)	$299,800	72	99	32. Melvin Simon (DR)	$150,604	224	310
14. Stanley Druckenmiller (R)	$296,500	26	219	33. William I. Koch (DR)	$142,000	161 (tie)	319
15. Eli Broad (DR)	$274,360	111	118	34. Sidney Kimmel (DR)	$132,500	285 (tie)	186
16. Peter B. Lewis (DR)	$272,000	31	157	35. Bruce Kovner (DR)	$131,750	177	293
17. Ronald S. Lauder (R)	$268,944	60	60	36. Al Checchi (DR)	$121,000	256 (tie)	315
18. Michael Bloomberg (DR)	$262,000	48	117	37. Ted Waitt (DR)	$87,000	392 (tie)	41
19. Thomas H. Lee (DR)	$260,270	65	242	38. Richard Marriott (R)	$74,500	228 (tie)	111
Key: (D) refers to only contributing to Democrats, (R) refers to only contributing to Republicans and (DR) refers to contributing to both parties.
Totals refer to the total amount contributed by the individual to federal campaigns in contributions of $200 or more.  See Appendices for more detailed information on contributions.View Appendix A-- View Appendix B View Appendix C

Although the "Forbes 400" appear to have given quite a lot during this election cycle, they still accounted for only 38 of the top 400 campaign contributors during the 1995-96 election cycle (the so-called "MoJo 400"). Moreover, individuals gave far less than organizations gave in the 1996 cycle⁹. For example, the top 85 contributors overall each gave $1,000,000 or more during the cycle. No individual gave over $1,000,000 in one election cycle although three of the "MoJo 400" gave $500,000 or more; none of these three were also in the "Forbes 400." ¹⁰

It is interesting to note the top recipients of federal campaign contributions by the "Forbes 400." Unsurprisingly, the top sources were in the form of so-called "soft-money," in other words, the national parties and their Congressional campaign arms.

Very little "hard money" contributions went to the national parties; only $6,500 was contributed in the form of checks of $1,000 or less to the DNC and $48,220 in the same way to the RNC. "Soft money" is where they made a much bigger impact. In the 1995-96 cycle, the "Forbes 400" accounted for almost three percent of the total amount both the DNC and the RNC raised in that time frame¹². Moreover, they provided almost five percent of the total income of the DSCC and three percent of the NRSC. This seems to indicate that there is a concentration of political power in the form of campaign contributions in the hands of the richest 400 Americans. However, in terms of the rest of the ultra-rich, the "Forbes 400" are arguably less influential.

Out of the ten most expensive Senate races in 1994 and 1996, there was at least one contribution by one of the "Forbes 400." However, only three of the top ten most expensive Senate races were also one of the top ten most popular Senate campaigns of the "Forbes 400," and in no campaign did they even provide two percent of all funds.

Incidentally, Senator Alfonse D’Amato’s (R-NY) campaign has already raised enough ($69,100) for it to rank as the third-highest campaign. This is no surprise, since the D’Amato campaign also managed to raise more money in both the 1993-94 and 1995-96 cycles than any other than any other campaign of a candidate running in 1998. In House races, the "Forbes 400" had little impact. In fact, of the ten most expensive races, three campaigns received no contributions from them and only two of their favorite candidates managed to make it on the list of the top ten campaigns that raised the most money overall.

The favorite candidates of the "Forbes 400," in terms of federal campaign contributions at least, were quite different from the favorites of the voters. For example, Pat Buchanan, often described as an "outsider" and very anti-establishment, won over twenty-one percent of the Republican caucus and primary vote in 1996, but only about one percent of "Forbes 400" campaign contributions to presidential candidates. Other candidates who received almost no votes did receive many times more in contributions as Buchanan. Ironically, Steve Forbes, who is worth enough to make it on the "Forbes 400" list but is never included, only received seven percent of the contributions. Also, Ross Perot, the only one of the "Forbes 400" who ran for president, received just one check from another member of the "Forbes 400." Therefore, the "Forbes 400" did not provide much support for their economic peers. Instead, they contributed to ultimately less popular pro-establishment candidates. The "Forbes 400" gave 37 percent to presidential candidates who won less than one percent of the Republican primary vote and over half of their contributions to presidential candidates who won less than five percent of the vote overall. 

Table #7: Favorites of the People versus Favorites of the "Forbes 400"
Candidate	Percentage of GOP vote19	Total contributed	Total given by "Forbes 400"	No. of Checks by "Forbes 400"
1.Bob Dole	58.22	$59,162,998	$157,000	147
2.Pat Buchanan	21.71	$21,472,659	$5,000	5
3.Steve Forbes	10.26	$5,237,313	$30,300	36
4.Lamar Alexander	3.68	$16,487,811	$61,368	64
5.Alan Keyes	3.23	$3,489,723	$92,750	0
6.Richard Lugar	0.95	$7,103,059	$12,500	29
7.Phil Gramm	0.57	$24,648,008	$41,700	45
8.Pete Wilson	0	$6,950,962	$92,750	80
9.Arlen Specter	0	$3,139,127	$12,750	15
Note: Total contributed does not include candidate self-financing or public funding.

 

III. CONCLUSION

Contrary to the suspicions of some campaign finance reform proponents, the "Forbes 400" did not have a massive and widespread impact upon the political process. In fact, the "Forbes 400" had an arguably significant impact upon the political process only when it came to "soft money." Therefore, efforts to ban "soft money" while maintaining current contribution limits may well result in the "Forbes 400" becoming totally irrelevant in terms of federal campaign fundraising in the future. That is because they had little direct impact on campaigns per se, and never constituted even two percent of all contributions in any one campaign.

Also, the "Forbes 400" behaved differently from voters in the aggregate on several counts. First, they had a strong antipathy towards the current incumbent in the White House, but displayed a pro-incumbent bias when it came to the House and Senate.

Second, the "Forbes 400" were very establishmentarian in terms of contributions to Congressional candidates. Overall, Republicans outraised Democrats by 18 percent for the 1996 elections and ten percent for the 1994 elections. Specifically, in the 1994 cycle, Congressional Republicans outraised Congressional Democrats $385.3 million to $350.3 million while in the 1996 cycle it was $424.7 million to the GOP versus $359.6 million to the Democrats. However, the "Forbes 400" gave Congressional Democrats²⁰ six percent more than Congressional Republicans in 1994. In 1996, the "Forbes 400" gave the Congressional GOP 82 percent more than the Congressional Democrats. If the presidential race is included in 1996, but not contributions to parties or party affiliated PACs, then they gave Republican candidates $1.83 million, but only $0.81 million to Democratic candidates.

Third, the "Forbes 400" greatly increased the amount they contributed to campaigns between 1994 and 1996. While the increase between the two years for all FEC-tracked contributions was reasonably in line with inflation, for the "Forbes 400" the amount of contributions more than doubled.

Fourth, they gave much more to out-of-state candidates. Analysis of a Congressional Research Service study by Joseph E. Cantor found that only 10.7 percent of federal contributions to all House and Senate candidates in 1994 and 1996 were proved to be from out-of-state. However, that figure understates the situation, since out-of-state and in-state determinations were only made for those contributions of $200 and above. When only contributions of that amount are included, the figure rises to 28.6 percent²¹. However, in the case of the "Forbes 400," out-of-state contributions constituted 70.4 percent of all federal campaign contributions to Congressional candidates.

Fifth, the "Forbes 400" focused their funds into "soft money" accounts. As shown in Table #4, they provided between 1.59 and 4.91 percent of all the soft money accounts of the six party organs. As large as that seems, the "Forbes 400" did not constitute most of the largest contributors. Ten percent of the "Forbes 400" provided half of the amount of contributions and out of the "Mojo 400" list of the 400 largest contributors, only 38 were also on the "Forbes 400." Therefore, while some complain that the "rich" are "hijacking" the political system, this study seems to indicate that only a handful of the "rich," and not the most successful of them, are even seriously attempting to influence, much less "hijack" the political process with their large campaign contributions.

Last, most of their contributions went to party organizations, not campaigns. About two-thirds of the amount contributed went to national parties. By contrast, only twelve percent of the total amount contributed went to "soft money" for the 1996 federal elections²².

There are several ways in which the "Forbes 400" are similar to all other contributors. First, they give mostly to winners in House and Senate races. Moreover, they were not more likely to "pick winners" than all other contributors. In the presidential race, as mentioned earlier, they were very different, in that most of the contributions went to candidates who won less than five percent of the Republican caucus/primary votes each. Third, the "Forbes 400" contributed mostly to incumbents, although they did so to a greater extent than most contributors. Fourth, the "Forbes 400" changed their behavior from 1994 to 1996 and became much more Republican, as did most contributors. However, the swing was not to the same extent.

"The rich are different," but not as the public may assume. In the case of the "Forbes 400" they are not strongly pro-Republican, only mildly so, and that only happened after the 1994 elections. Also, as a whole, the "Forbes 400" are not very active politically. Over fifteen percent did not contribute at all (or less than $200 to a federal candidate) and ten percent of them accounted for half of all contributions in the period examined. As far as federal political campaigns are concerned, most of the movers and shakers in our economy would rather keep their fortunes than give them away to politicians.

The data contained in this report comes from the FEC and the "FECInfo" website, run by Tony Raymond, webmaster of the Center for Responsive Politics. The FEC can be found at www.fec.gov and "FECInfo" can be found at www.tray.com/fecinfo.

All contributions of $200 or more to organizations registered with the FEC were included in this report. The names and addresses of each "Forbes 400" individual who contributed $200 or more according to the FEC’s list were cross-checked for verification with the names and residences of those people mentioned in Forbes’ "Forbes 400" and Mother Jones’ "MoJo 400." In some instances, an individual’s name was written differently across the lists. If the difference was due to an obvious misspelling, such as "Emerson" and "Emmerson," and his or her address matched across the lists, then the individual was counted as the same person. The same applies for individuals whose names appeared differently across the lists purely because of suffix and other name variations. For example, "A.J Perenchio," "Andrew J. Perenchio," "A. Jerrold Perenchio," and "Mr. A.J. Perenchio" were all considered to be the same person since his address matched across lists.

For instances in which two people had the same name, but different suffixes (such as "Joe Smith, Jr." and "Joe Smith, Sr."), the addresses were checked to determine proper attribution. In the case of Stewart Bainum, all contributions listed under "Bainum, Stewart, Sr." were considered to be made by Stewart Bainum, Sr., all contributions listed under "Bainum, Stewart Jr." were considered to be made by Stewart Bainum Jr., and all contributions listed under the name "Bainum, Stewart" (with no suffix attached) was considered to be made by Stewart Bainum, Jr.

In instances in which a candidate switched his or her political affiliation from one party to another, the party affiliation of that candidate was assumed to be that which he or she was a part of on the date that a contribution was made. Contributions made by any "Forbes 400" individuals to his or her own campaign were not included in this study. This applies only to Ross Perot, who contributed $8.2 million to his own campaign in 1996 and is not part of the $21.3 million in total federal campaign contributions.

1.Contributions to national parties included contributions to the national committees, as well as House and Senate campaign committees.  The Federal Election Commission (FEC) does not have purview over all elections in the United States.  However, federal accounts of state and local parties do fall under the FEC’s jurisdiction, and they were included in this study for that reason.
2.See Forbes October 13, 1997 for listing of the “Forbes 400” and  Mother Jones, April 1997 for the “MoJo 400.”  For “MoJo 400” see www.motherjones.com/coinop_congress/97mojo_400/mojo_400.html.
3.Total raised by Republican presidential candidates, not including candidate self-financing and public financing.  See Center for Responsive Politics, “The Big Picture: Where the Money Came from in the 1996 Elections,” Overview.  See www.crp.org/crpdocs/bigpicture/overview/bpoverview.html.
4.According to the Federal Elections Commission.  See www.fec.gov/finance/hsehist.html and www.fec.gov/finance/senhist.html.
5.Center for Responsive Politics, “The Big Picture: Where the Money Came from in the 1996 Elections,” Overview.  See www.crp.org/crpdocs/bigpicture/overview/bpoverview.html.
6.Joseph E. Cantor, “Out-of-State Money in the Congressional Elections of 1992, 1994, and 1996: Trends and Policy Issues,” Congressional Research Service Report to Congress, January 10, 1997.  Available on-line at www.crp.org/crpdocs/oct97/s97-894.html.
7.FEC.  See www.fec.gov/finance/hsehist.html and www.fec.gov/finance/senhist.html.
8.See Center for Responsive Politics, “The Big Picture: Where the Money Came from in the 1996 Elections,” Overview.  See www.crp.org/crpdocs/bigpicture/overview/bpoverview.html.
9.See Center for Responsive Politics, “The Big Picture: Where the Money Came from in the 1996 Elections.” They were divided in the following manner:  22 were unions, 16 were interest groups, and the rest were businesses.
10.See www.motherjones.com/coinop_congress/97mojo_400/mojo_400.html.for Mother Jones list of the 400 top campaign contributors, April 1997.
11.Includes Dole for President, Kemp for Vice President, and Dole/Kemp campaigns.
12.According to the Federal Election Commission, the money raised in  non-federal  (also known as “soft money”) accounts in the 1995/1996 election cycle.
13.According to the Federal Elections Commission.  See www.fec.gov/finance/hsehist.html and www.fec.gov/finance/senhist.html
14.See Michael Barone and Grant Ujifusa, The Almanac of American Politics 1996 (Washington, DC: National Journal, 1995) pp.1511-2, and Michael Barone and Grant Ujifusa The Almanac of American Politics 1998 (Washington, DC: National Journal, 1997) pp.1597-8.
15 .Amount only refers to contributions received after she won her special election in June 1993.
16.See Michael Barone and Grant Ujifusa, The Almanac of American Politics 1996 (Washington, DC: National Journal, 1995) pp.1511-2, and Michael Barone and Grant Ujifusa The Almanac of American Politics 1998 (Washington, DC: National Journal, 1997) pp.1597-8.
17.Amount refers to contributions received in 1995 prior to his special election win in December 1995.
18.Amount refers to contributions received in 1996 after he won his special election in December 1995.
19. Associated Press.  Percentages refer to total votes received by Republican candidates in state caucuses and primaries as of June 1996.  See www.usatoday.com/elect/ed/edtotal.html.  Percentage of vote for Specter and Wilson not available except for the 8,270 (0.06 percent) under “others.”
20.According to the Federal Elections Commission.  See www.fec.gov/finance/hsehist.html and www.fec.gov/finance/senhist.html.
21.Cantor, “Out-of-State Money in the Congressional Elections of 1992, 1994, and 1996: Trends and Policy Issues,”  Available on-line at www.crp.org/crpdocs/oct97/s97-894.html.
22Center for Responsive Politics, “The Big Picture: Where the Money Came from in the 1996 Elections,” Overview.  See www.crp.org/crpdocs/bigpicture/overview/bpoverview.html.  For the 1996 federal elections, there were $211 million in “soft money” contributions out of $2.197 billion raised plus $211 million in public financing.