There’s no way around it: The economy was nasty last year.
It was lousy for job seekers. It was wretched for businesses. And according to political fundraisers, it was a downright drag on donors.
Or was it?
A Chicago Current analysis of campaign-finance data from 2009 shows that, despite the bad economy, political donations in the state were up — way up.
The analysis, a year-to-year comparison of state and federal giving from Illinois, shows donations climbed to about $85 million last year, up from about $50 million in 2005, the previous year before a national midterm election.
The statewide figures match a national trend, and they defy easy explanation. In interviews, some political consultants and campaign-finance experts were surprised by the jump, and differed on what could have caused it.
But whether it was the product of a national health care debate, broad competition for open state seats, or the Illinois’ earlier primary, there’s no denying that political pocketbooks opened up as the economy teetered on shutting down.
“There may be a variety of reasons for why this is happening, but at the end of the day, it is happening,” says Dave Levinthal, spokesman at the Center for Responsive Politics. “It is real. People are putting dollars and cents behind their political motivations.”
Levinthal and his colleagues track political spending on the center’s Web site, OpenSecrets.org. He says that while it’s impossible to tell exactly why donors contributed more money last year — campaign regulations don’t require such disclosures — much of the spending was clearly related to the national health care debate.
“Health care has been a definite driver in political activity,” Levinthal says.
Figures in Illinois seem to bear that out. The top donor in 2009 was the Service Employees International Union’s Healthcare Illinois and Indiana unit. The local union spent more than $831,000 supporting various causes and candidates in 2009. In all, the union says it spends about $8 or $9 per member per year on political contributions.
Brynn Seibert, spokeswoman for the local, says the union was pushing for reform on the state level as the national health care debate took place.
“Across the board, we’re supporting candidates who we believe will stand up for working families and push progressive public policy,” Seibert says, “and that’s certainly why we’re politically engaged.”
But John Anzalone, a Democratic strategist who works with Illinois candidates, argues that the surge in Illinois contributions had little to do with health care or contributions from powerful organizations such as the service union.
“Here’s the reality,” Anzalone says. “The guys who are running for state office — none of them talk about the health care reform bill, none of them. Any Democratic congressman in any normal cycle is gonna get a check from SEIU.”
What did make a difference in 2009, he says, is competition. Not only are Republicans more competitive this year than they were in 2005, but also, Democrats are fighting each other.
The seats for U.S. senator, Illinois governor, lieutenant governor, comptroller and treasurer were all contested in each party during the primary.
The governor’s race alone had at least half a dozen viable candidates. Gov. Pat Quinn, who took over after the impeachment of Rod Blagojevich, faced a tough fight from fellow Democrat Dan Hynes, who will vacate the comptroller’s office. By the time of the primary election, six other candidates, the Republicans, were also battling for a gubernatorial nomination.
That’s different from 2005, when Illinois had a future president for a U.S. senator; an elected, albeit troubled, incumbent governor; his lieutenant; and the rest of the statewide executive slate quite secure.
“Anytime you have an open seat in a competitive primary, you’re going to have more money spent,” Anzalone says. Multiply the effect, and the pile of cash grows even larger.
Another reason 2009’s figures were so high in the state was Illinois’ earliest-ever primary, Anzalone says. Hardly five weeks into the new year, the Feb. 2 primary date forced donors to give earlier than they normally would have. To make their money count, many of them wrote checks around Christmastime, rather than Valentine’s Day.
“That money has to come in at the end of the year rather than at the beginning of the year,” Anzalone says. “In 2006, the primary was in March instead of February. That means a bigger chunk of money was coming in in January versus December.”
Some broader trends also help to explain the rise.
The Current’s analysis included donations from individuals, corporations and PACs to state campaigns, as well as individual contributions to federal camapigns.
PACs, in particular, fueled much of the spending last year.
“Issue donors are giving to a much greater extent,” Chicago political consultant Phil Molfese says.
Still, Molfese says, the jump in contributions contradicts what political consultants are feeling economically.
“What we’re getting here on the ground is, generally, people are feeling tighter,” Molfese says.
Despite the apparent crunch with individual donors, last year’s dramatic spike in state political giving makes sense when compared with national precedent.
According to the Federal Election Commission, contributions to congressional candidates grew similarly during another four-year period, from $295 million in 2001 to $470 million in 2005. In 2009, that figure expanded to $598 million.
“As a rule, we don’t tend to see fundraising go down,” says Cindi Canary, director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. “It’s like inflation or the cost of milk. Two or four years on, it’s never cheaper.”
Windy Citizen 