Misusing Opensecrets.org
May 26th, 2010 by Tennessee Walker
Over the last couple of months there have been posts on this site that use campaign finance figures from the Organization Opensecrets.org They are posted here http://www.delawarepolitics.net/who-supports-chris-coons/ here http://www.delawarepolitics.net/follow-the-money/ here http://www.delawarepolitics.net/rep-mike-castles-conflict-of-interest-pt-ii/ and here
http://www.delawarepolitics.net/rep-mike-castles-conflict-of-interest/
In certain instances, allegations of conflict of interest and corruption are made.
Opensecrets.org. is a great resource for the politically savvy. I use it regularly and find that it is a great starting place for doing research. But it is just that, a starting place. One should not use summaries of opensecrets.org to smear certain organizations or candidates where in fact there is no basis in fact that anything illegal or even immoral has been done. I say this because there is a disclaimer that Opensecrets.org lists on the pages of their donors rankings.
This Disclaimer reads as follows:
“This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2009 – 2010 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organization’s PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.”
One can find this disclaimer on this page, which also happens to be the listing of the top 20 donors to the Castle Campaign. This was referenced in another post. http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&type=I&cid=N00009775&newMem=N&recs=20
What this means, and Opensecrets.org explains this at length, is that opensecrets.org will aggregate the total number of individual contributions from employees of a particular firm and that they will attribute those contributions to that firm.
To put it another way, If I, as a successful and valued associate of Walmart, were to run for Federal Office, then all fellow Walmart employees who donated $200 to my campaign would be considered as having made an aggregate “Walmart” donation. If I could get 20 fellow employees to donate $200 then Walmart would be shown as donating $4,000 dollars to my campaign. (Opensecrets would categorize these contributions as having come from individuals but they don’t list the Individuals. Instead they list “Walmart” as the “contributor”) If my opponent was a fellow Walmart employee and he could only get 5 folks to pony up $200, then he would be shown as receiving a $1,000 “Walmart” donation.
I guess at this stage I would be considered a tool of Walmart and certain disreputable folks would be impugning my integrity and stating that I had a conflict of interest and that I would be a shill for Walmart. In fact all I would be doing is getting contributions from those who know me and have worked with me.
This brings me to the case of Young, Conaway et al which has been the subject of several different posts on this site. I knew there was something fishy about the allegations about this firm because the $32,000 mentioned as being a donation from this firm to one Candidate would in fact be a violation of Federal Campaign Finance Laws if the statement was true. However the statement was not true. A few clicks of the mouse revealed that the firm did not donate this amount of money. Instead Individuals from this firm gave individual contributions and Opensecrets.org aggregated these individual contributions and attributed them to the firm. Opensecrets.org correctly lists these aggregate contributions attributed to this firm as coming from individuals.
Young Conaway et al. is a very large firm (over 120 attorneys, this of course does not account for support staff) and if you peruse their list of attorneys one can find some very visible and active Republicans on their list of employees. One can get to $32,000 with the participation of about 15 attorneys or about 12% of the total attorneys.
In short it is inaccurate to say that any candidate received $31,000 + from the firm of Young Conaway et al. Anyone who makes this claim is either ignorant of how the numbers are compiled or is deliberately being misleading in an attempt to create a scandal where none exists. The statement that Young, Conaway et al donated $31,000 is not supported by the facts in the Campaign Finance Reports of the Federal Elections Commission nor is it supported by Opensecrets.org.
It is accurate to state that one candidate received $31,000 + from individual employees of a particular firm that employs well over 200 people.
Of course this last statement just doesn’t give anyone the corruption angle one wants when attacking the source of one’s obsession.
I prefer to believe that a misunderstanding of how opensecrets.org tallies and attributes their campaign contributions has occurred here. The only other explanation is that one is misrepresenting information in an attempt to create a scandal where one does not exist.
There’s no misuse there Tennessee. In fact I explained this very fact to one of the local bloggers last night in a get together. The fact is that while you are correct, that both “company approved” (PAC) contributions AND individuals who list a company as their employer count on the Open Secrets list, it doesn’t change the fact that certain firms, businesses and industries (and their employees by association) direct their funds to certain candidates. You can also bet that some of these folks (lawyers and exectutives especially) are gently nudged one way or another with their contributions, or at least AWAY from some. Also, you can get tremendous insight into who is generally helped/harmed by certain candidates by lumping employee contributions.
So what you’re saying MIGHT be technically correct but in reality, the posters are able to see beyond technicalities and read the common sense through the lines. There is a reason why Michael Newbold Castle recieves so much from them.
(www.lawyercentral.com/Michael-P-Stafford-Interactive-Profile–20-136355.html)
“Wilmington-based Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, which kicked in $127, 979″ – to Biden
(http://michellemalkin.com/2010/01/25/why-did-beau-biden-drop-out/)
Please by all means peruse the link below. Dazzle yourself with names like “Ben T. Castle” and “Michael P. Stafford” even “Tim Lengeek” (went to High School with him). These are Republican lawyers many of whom benefit from Castle’s votes.
(http://www.lawyers.com/Delaware/Wilmington/Young-Conaway-Stargatt-and-Taylor-LLP-344346-f.html)
and one more Young Conway piece…(http://abovethelaw.com/2010/03/heres-one-way-to-reveal-your-firms-non-equity-partners/#more-8616) I wonder if it helps to have a Congressman who is your friend.
Evan, who works for one of the biggest TARP receipients in the United States of America, a guy who might be on the unemployment line today if it wasn’t for $25 billion of our tax dollars, is throwing stones again?
Evan, your disgusting tax dollar eating employer is one of the biggest donors to Democrats in the country, have they “gently nudged” you to support certain candidates? Or do they just pay you outright to screw up the chances of two good republican candidates so their democrat buddies Carney and Coons can take the open Delaware seats?
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by DelawarePolitics.net, delawareBNN. delawareBNN said: DelawarePolitics.net: Misusing Opensecrets.org: Number of comments: 2Over the last couple of months there have bee… http://bit.ly/cramAv [...]
“There’s no misuse there Tennessee. In fact I explained this very fact to one of the local bloggers last night in a get together. The fact is that while you are correct, that both “company approved” (PAC) contributions AND individuals who list a company as their employer count on the Open Secrets list, it doesn’t change the fact that certain firms, businesses and industries (and their employees by association) direct their funds to certain candidates. You can also bet that some of these folks (lawyers and exectutives especially) are gently nudged one way or another with their contributions, or at least AWAY from some. Also, you can get tremendous insight into who is generally helped/harmed by certain candidates by lumping employee contributions.”
Hello Evan actually prove this!!! Otherwise you are a typical Captain Ahab with a huge hard on for Castle. ACTUALLY PROVE this and not engage in your typical smear tactics.
By the way you have in no way disproved my premise that 12% of Young Conaway attorneys voluntarily donate to Castle. For the record Yound Conaway gave NO PAC Contributions to Castle. All of the Contributions were from individuals. EVAN why not call out these individuals as shills for Young Conaway? They are on Castle’s report. Please give us the names of these shills. I will call them and ask why they gave to Castle. Why don’t we do this together? Or are you afraid this will destroy your narrative? The names exist. I have a phone. I am not afraid to talk to anyone. Are you????
I know it is public information, but I am not a big fan of discussing individual’s employers. It is a slippery slope. Most people give money because they believe in a candidate. What company I work for is meaningless. I do understand the idea of looking for the fact that 85% of one company or field goes a certain way. That may be of interest in the aggregate. That does not judge the individual’s motive.
Let’s keep the debate focused on where it needs to be. We do not need to focus on individual people. Besides what news is it that a leading figure in NCC GOP politics gave money to Mike Castle. It would be more interesting if he didn’t.
Gosh, I find myself agreeing with David more and more lately. Some of you may remember that when Celia Cohen was still at the News Journal, somebody at MBNA leaked her the memo from the top “suggesting” contributions to various candidates, not all of them Republicans. Not surprisingly, scores of mostly high-ranking employees made donations to most or all of “suggested” candidates. Unless you have a smoking gun — or rather memo — of that sort, you can make allegations, but don’t be surprised it they aren’t universally believed.
Agreed anon. The smoking memo is the key.
Is it legal to have a smoking memo indoors in Delaware?
T.W., your point is well taken. The question still remains, if a candidate is taking that much money from contributors that work at one company in one industry, should there be concern of a conflict of interest?
This is directly from Open Secrets website, it is their explanation of why they aggregate individual donations from single companies and industries:
“Why (and How) We Use Donors’ Employer/Occupation Information
The organizations listed as “Top Contributors” reached this list for one of two reasons: either they gave through a political action committee sponsored by the organization, or individuals connected with the organization contributed directly to the candidate.
Under federal law, all contributions over $200 must be itemized and the donor’s occupation and employer must be requested and disclosed, if provided. The Center uses that employer/occupation information to identify the donor’s economic interest. We do this in two ways:
First, we apply a code to the contribution, identifying the industry. Totals for industries (and larger economic sectors) can be seen in each candidate and race profile, and in the Industry Profile section of the OpenSecrets website.
Second, we standardize the name of the donor’s employer. If enough contributions came in from people connected with that same employer, the organization’s name winds up on the Top Contributor list.
Of course, it is impossible to know either the economic interest that made each individual contribution possible or the motivation for each individual giver. However, the patterns of contributions provide critical information for voters, researchers and others. That is why Congress mandated that candidates and political parties request employer information from contributors and publicly report it when the contributor provides it.
In some cases, a cluster of contributions from the same organization may indicate a concerted effort by that organization to “bundle” contributions to the candidate. In other cases—both with private companies and with government agencies, non-profits and educational institutions—the reason for the contributions may be completely unrelated to the organization.
Showing these clusters of contributions from people associated with particular organizations provides a valuable—and unique—way of understanding where a candidate is getting his or her financial support. Knowing those groups is also useful after the election, as issues come before Congress and the administration that may affect those organizations and their industries.”
I would ask you to pay special attention to the parts that says,”the patterns of contributions provide critical information for voters, researchers and others. That is why Congress mandated that candidates and political parties request employer information from contributors and publicly report it when the contributor provides it.” Also,”In some cases, a cluster of contributions from the same organization may indicate a concerted effort by that organization to “bundle” contributions to the candidate. ” And lastly,”Showing these clusters of contributions from people associated with particular organizations provides a valuable—and unique—way of understanding where a candidate is getting his or her financial support. Knowing those groups is also useful after the election, as issues come before Congress and the administration that may affect those organizations and their industries.”
So you see T.W. both Open Secrets and congress agree that large amounts of money coming from one firm or company, even when donated by individuals “MAY” be a reason for concern of a conflict of interest. As for my article, first of all, all of my articles are my opinion, second of all the only place I mention in the article other than the title is when I make the statement, “But of course I’m sure that Mr. Castle’s supporters will see absolutely no conflict of interest there.” Born out by your article here today. If others would like to read the entire article here is a link http://politicallyfrank.wordpress.com/2010/03/28/rep-mike-castles-conflict-of-interest/ . And yes it is the identical article as the one posted here at Delaware Politics.
In the article I posted a link to Open Secrets so that people could go and make their own decisions.
I stand behind the questions and statements that I made in the article. I believe that when a Representative is sitting on the House Finacial Services Committee and is recieving large amounts of donations from the banking industry and law firms that deal in the banking industry, then it is fair to ask if there is a conflict of interest. I leave it up to individuals to decide for themselves when they vote.
T.W., your point is well taken. The question still remains, if a candidate is taking that much money from contributors that work at one company in one industry, should there be concern of a conflict of interest?
No need for “concern” when that company is located in the candidate’s state, like Young Conaway.
So alice, undue influence can only come from outside the state? Really? Serious? Are you kidding? Do you believe that ?
“second of all the only place I mention in the article other than the title is when I make the statement, “But of course I’m sure that Mr. Castle’s supporters will see absolutely no conflict of interest there.”
Really Frank????!! Your title for 2 pieces are “Mike Castle conflict of interest” but you really were not making the assertion that Mike Castle had a conflict of Interest? I guess in your universe using the term Conflict of Interest in the Title of an article means you really didn’t say it. From here on out if I see a headline “Boy 12 shot on Wilmington Street” I should assume the writer is referring to the Wilmington Flower Show down at the Riverfront.
“So you see T.W. both Open Secrets and congress agree that large amounts of money coming from one firm or company, even when donated by individuals “MAY” be a reason for concern of a conflict of interest.”
Thus as I said Frank in the opening of my piece. “Opensecrets.org. is a great resource for the politically savvy. I use it regularly and find that it is a great starting place for doing research. But it is just that, a starting place.”
Once you get a lead from Opensecrets.org one needs to follow up to see if the pattern in fact has a basis in fact for claiming a conflict of interest. You did no such follow up. Frank, You did Zero research in terms of the actual individuals from Young Conaway et al who donated to Castle. The Fact that various Republican party officials are part of this very large firm and that they donated to Castle does not scream to me Conflict of Interest. Republicans tend to donate to Republicans.
As David Anderson said “Besides what news is it that a leading figure in NCC GOP politics gave money to Mike Castle. It would be more interesting if he didn’t.”
Peppered throughout your pieces on this topic are quotes such as this,
“As you will see, the number one contributor, amounting to 10% of his campaign contributions is the law firm of Young, Conaway.”
This Statement is a blatant falsehood. You state that the firm is the largest contributor. Your excuse that you provide a link to Opensecrets does not absolve you of the responsibility to accurately convey the nature of the multiple individual contributions. In Fact you use the term Young Conaway in the singular clearly indicating that you want the reader to believe that it is a singular entity making the donation and not multiple individuals. This is dishonest.
You have spent much time explaining how and why Opensecrets operates in the manner in which it does. You only did this once I pointed out how Opensecrets was misused by you.
Too bad you did not use the explanation offered by Opensecrets which you quote in these comments on your first post which was on March 28th. That would have been the honest way to proceed.
“Is it legal to have a smoking memo indoors in Delaware?”
Yes but only in your own home. You can’t smoke memos in Bars and Restaurants. You can smoke them at most American Legions and Volunteer Fire Halls on Casino Night.
Love a good debate.
T.W. , the title, like the article is my opinion. The fact that so many “individuals” from law firms and the banking industry donate to Mr. Castle, so as to populate his top ten list on Open Secrets with pretty much nothing but banking and law firms, does’t give you pause at all? Where are all of the employees of McDonald’s, or Walmart? Why is it that so much of his campaign finances come from these two sectors? I have formed my opinion. I put the question out there for others. If you have no problem with a sitting member of the house Financial Services Committee recieving so many donations from such a small group of people from the financial sector, then that is your opinion. I merely put out there that when you look at these contributions and Mr.Castle’s record of voting for legislation such as TARP. Thinking people, should at least be asking questions.
Frank, I know full well that what you write is your opinon and not in any way factual. Just as you are entitled to your opinion, I am entitled to criticize it and the basis on which you form your opinion. Saying something is your opinion does not absolve you from printing facts to back up your opinion. As I have demonstrated in comment 13, you have made blatantly false statements. Instead of owning up to this mistake you attempt to make your typical straw man argument.
Thinking people should be open to forming and changing opinions based on facts. As you have already stated your mind is made up and I am convinced facts will not change your mind. You aren’t trying to stimulate thought you are throwing as much mud on the wall and hoping it will stick. By they way that is my opinion, I back it up with the facts based on the piece above.
I see no conflict of interest when a candidate receives donations from individuals who work for major industries in the candidate’s state.
Would it be a conflict of interest to find donations from people working in the coal industry to Jay Rockefeller, or donations from people working in technology companies to Arnold Schwarzenegger? No. It’s unsurprising and logical.
We have large banking and legal sectors, so it would make sense that those industries are outsized. And because of our legal and corporate community, we are able to have no sales tax and low corporate taxes. So everyone’s free to do what they want, but I’m not going to be disparaging those sectors or accusing them of untoward motivations.