|
THE COLOR OF MONEY IN NEW JERSEY 2003
Campaign Finance, Race and Civil Rights in the Garden State
New Jersey Citizen Action and the
Citizen Policy & Education Fund of NJ
The current campaign finance system acts like a modern-day poll-tax, blocking low and moderate income voters from having an equal, effective voice in the political process. We need to restore the principle of 'one person, one vote' by providing candidates a means to run for office without relying on special interest money.
– Stephanie Moore, Executive Director of the Fannie Lou Hamer Project.
Table of Contents
Background
The Color of Money 2003, a new national study, shows that people of color and people with low income are left out of a significant part of the political process. Despite comprising 33% of the U.S. population, people of color contributed only 10% of the campaign donations over $200 by individuals to parties and federal candidates in the last two elections. New Jersey exemplifies the national trend: while 32% of the state's residents are people of color, only 11% of the money contributed to federal elections comes from residents of zip codes where the majority is people of color.
When considering income, almost 50% of the $2 billion contributed to the federal election campaigns of 2000 and 2002 came from people in the wealthiest zip codes, where only 12% of the adult population lives. The discrepancies are of comparable magnitude in New Jersey: 73.5% of federal campaign contributions came from wealthy neighborhoods; less that 22% of the adult population resides in them. On the other side of the coin, the poorest New Jersey zip codes, where over 8% of the state population resides, provide less than 2% of the money that fuels federal election campaigns. This study provides vivid evidence of how our nation's system of privately financed elections disenfranchises racial and ethnic minorities in New Jersey and across the nation, while providing disproportionate power and access to wealthy and predominantly white neighborhoods.
Released December 11, 2003 by Public Campaign, the Fannie Lou Hamer Project,[1] and the William C. Velasquez Institute,[2] The Color of Money 2003 is an update to Public Campaign's first Color of Money Study, published in 1998. The new version has an accompanying website, www.colorofmoney.org, which provides access to all the data in table format, where users can conduct their own research on campaign money, race/ethnicity, and income in their own communities, looking up information about their state, city, and zip code, as well as viewing color maps of the 25 top contributing metropolitan areas nationwide. Together they demonstrate how the idea of democratic equality is subverted by the unequal distribution, by color, of the money that controls the outcome of most elections.
Two years ago New Jersey Citizen Action (NJCA) and the Citizen Policy and Education Fund of NJ (CPEF) decided to find out whether people of color face the same financial disenfranchisement from state elections as they do from federal elections. Following the example of Public Campaign's first study, we produced a report, The Color of Money in New Jersey, using 2001 general election campaign contributions and 1990 census data. The report compared total and per capita contribution levels and racial composition in the highest giving zip codes areas with total and per capita contributions from the zip code areas with the highest concentration of people of color. The analysis clearly demonstrated that the current system of privately financing New Jersey's political campaigns negatively impacts people of color, who contribute only a small fraction of what their white counterparts donate. This year, we are updating our initial study as well, by producing this report, The Color of Money in New Jersey 2003.
In general, most people of color have less wealth and lower incomes than white people. As a result, they have less money available to contribute to candidates. The connection between contributions and influence is self-evident: "He who pays the piper calls the tune." In New Jersey's state legislative elections of 1999, 2001, and 2003, the winners were the candidates who raised the most money and/or were incumbents. Therefore, those who give the most money decide not only who makes the laws, but influence the content of the laws that are enacted. Whether the issue is racial profiling, rent control, predatory lending, or any other of a host of issues important to people of color, their concerns are less likely to be heard or heeded as long as private money funds elections, since most African-American and Latino voters cannot afford to play the game. The system of campaign financing is not merely an academic issue for communities of color; fundamental change in the system, in order to provide equal participation in the political process, is a question of civil rights.
Major Findings
As one might expect, the zip codes with the highest incomes provide the most money to the political campaign process, and those with the lowest incomes provide the least. Since high income correlates with white communities, and low income with communities of color, it is not surprising that the "color of money" is predominantly white. (See the Data Tables linked from the above Table of Contents.) Listed below are the significant facts about the amount of money invested in New Jersey's electoral campaigns since 2000, and details showing from where and from whom it comes:
2003 NJ Legislative Elections
- Candidates for the New Jersey 2003 state legislative elections raised over $75 million: $27 million for the primaries and $48 million for the general election.
- Just as with federal elections, 90% of the money contributed to New Jersey state elections came from zip codes with a white majority. Only 1.8% came from predominantly Latino areas, a 50-to-1 ratio. Less than 1.1% came from predominantly African-American zip codes. This means white areas outspent black areas 85 to 1, although the population ratio is less than 8 to 1.
- The $410,894 contributed to the 2003 state elections by the 34,321 adults of Morristown (07960) is more than the total given by all 338,415 residents of the 29 New Jersey zip codes with the highest African-American population (all over 40%).
Per Capita State Contributions
- The average contribution to the New Jersey 2003 state elections was $11.85.
- The 138 adult residents of Oldwick (08858) – all but one of whom were non-Hispanic white – gave the highest average: almost $77 for state elections, and over $1,400 per person for federal elections.
- In 24 of the 26 New Jersey zip codes where at least 80% of the population are people of color, the average contribution to state elections is less than one dollar. In both exceptions, Paterson 07505 ($1.20) and Camden 08102 ($2.70), just one or two contributors supplied well over half the money that came from the zip code.
- In the 24 New Jersey zip codes where the African-American population is highest (between 45% and 95%), the average state election contribution is less than one dollar.
- 9 of the 10 majority Latino zip codes gave an average of less than one dollar to state elections.
- Of the 100 zip codes with the highest per capita contributions to the 2003 state elections (excluding downtown Newark and Trenton), people of color constitute over 33% of the population in only seven zip codes.
Federal Elections in NJ, 2000 and 2002
- The state's top contributing zip code for federal elections was 08540, a part of Princeton. There 78% of the adult population is white, and nearly half the households enjoy annual incomes of $100,000 or more. Over the last two elections its residents have contributed more than $4 million. Giving another $341,000 for the 2003 state elections, they were second only to Morristown.
- New Jersey ranks fifth among all states in total federal campaign contributions over the last two elections, providing $92.3 million.
- 21.6% of New Jersey's adult population resides in the wealthiest zip codes; 73.5% of federal campaign contributions came from there.
- The poorest New Jersey zip codes, where over 8% of the state population resides, provide less than 2% of the money that fuels federal election campaigns.
Per Capita Federal Contributions
- New Jersey adults contributed an average of $14.58 to federal elections. They are surpassed by only one state, Connecticut, and the District of Columbia, whose average is skewed upward by the predominantly white Northwest quadrant.
- For federal elections just two of the eight most densely African-American zip codes (80% to 95%) exceeded the one dollar average: Lawnside 08045 ($1.83) and East Orange 07108 ($2.01). The other six are in Newark, Irvington, East Orange, and Vauxhall.
- The 10 majority Latino zip codes are more active in federal than state elections: only one of them averaged less than one dollar, and half of them averaged between $3.35 and $6.29.
Methodology
Using Public Campaign's national report as a model, NJCA and CPEF compared 2003 primary and general election campaign contributions reported to the Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) with demographic information compiled by the 2000 Census. Population figures (including per capita contributions) always refer to voting-age population, i.e., 18 and over. Federal contributions of $200 or more must be reported; the state reporting threshold is $400. Therefore, comparisons between federal and state contributions cannot be precisely calculated.
In identifying ethnicity and determining levels of poverty and wealth for our revised New Jersey study, we have followed the methodology of the national study.[3] In each case, "white" implies European-Americans who do not identify themselves as Hispanic or Latino.
Certain downtown urban zip codes skew the data, because while the residents are primarily people of color, most of the large contributors use their work address there as a home address for reporting to ELEC. This is most apparent in Newark's 07102 and Trenton's 08608, where the white populations are, respectively, only 10% and 17%. The Newark address was ranked 13th for total amount contributed to the 2003 elections. On closer inspection, it turns out that over half the number of contributions – and over half the total amount – came from employees of McManimon and Scotland LLC at 1 Riverfront Plaza. The other problem zip code in Newark for state elections in 07112. Excluding campaign contributions between candidates, only $4,600 came from the rest of the zip code, moving it down from the 70th most generous contributing area to 327.
A similar distortion is produced by the West State Street lobbying firms and PACs in Trenton. An area where 30% of the 431 households are in poverty, and only five have an annual income over $100,000, zip code 08608 boasts the second-highest per capita campaign contributions in the state. In making comparisons between ethnic groups, our study intentionally omits these three zip codes – 07102, 07112, and 08608 – in order to clarify the actual "color of money" emanating from New Jersey communities.
Conclusions
We believe these findings amply demonstrate how thoroughly campaign financing is dominated by the white and the wealthy. Our state study and the national study both show the extent to which this is true for all state and federal elections in New Jersey. Considering the power of money to influence the decisions of the those candidates it helps to elect, communities of color are virtually left out of the legislative and election process due to their inability to pay the price of admission. In other words, laws are made with substantial disregard for the needs of African-Americans, Latinos, other ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, or any group that does not have financial clout.
There is a viable solution to this problem, which has been successfully practiced in two states since the year 2000: Maine and Arizona are entering their third cycle of state elections where qualifying candidates are financed exclusively by public funds. These candidates no longer spend any time raising money from wealthy "investors" – who would expect legislative favors as a return on their investment. Instead they each get equal, limited amounts from the state election fund to run their entire campaigns. The benefits of this system apply to the candidates and the electorate alike:
- Public funding frees candidates to talk to voters and answer to them, instead of being tied to financial backers with private agendas. With no need to fund-raise, anyone can run for office.
- Public funding restores democratic equality to the entire electorate. When fund-raising is no longer part of the electoral process, those with the funds no longer have the advantage over the rest. Then the color of money no longer makes any difference.
New Jersey needs to follow the shining examples of Maine and Arizona, where publicly funded Clean Elections candidates have won in great numbers--often defeating privately financed opponents:
- In Maine, over half of the State Assembly and three-quarters of the State Senate won as Clean Elections candidates.
- In Arizona, of 11 statewide elective offices, 9, including the governor, won as Clean Elections candidates.
- In New Jersey, more and more state office holders are looking at public funding as a solution to the state's political ethics problems. New Jersey Citizen Action has already drafted a bill based on the Maine and Arizona systems and is educating state legislators about the systems already in place in other states.
The civil rights battle for ballot in the 1960's South won a radical change in the political system, but it did not create political equality. As long as having the most money means having the most political influence, we still operate in system of unequal access to power. In the words of Fannie Lou Hamer, when she addressed the Democratic National Convention in 1964, "We didn't come all this way for no two seats." The final step to true democracy – rule by the people, and not just those with money – is publicly funded elections.
Notes
[1] The Fannie Lou Hamer Project is a national grassroots movement that connects voting and civil rights movements with the struggle for campaign finance reform. [back to text at note 1 reference]
[2] The William C. Velasquez Institute was established originally as the Southwest Voter Research Institute to seek and publicize the opinions of the Latino electorate. [back to text at note 2 reference]
[3] The methodology used in this report for determining the racial and ethnic makeup of the U.S. population was developed by the Lewis Mumford Center at the University of Albany, with support of the Ford Foundation, which provided the U.S. Census 2000 data used in this report. The Lewis Mumford Center is a recognized authority on interpretation of census data, publishing dozens of reports on segregation and racial and ethnic patterns throughout America. The Lewis Mumford Center takes the data collected by the U.S. Census and assigns individuals to particular categories accordingly. For example, any person identifying themselves as Hispanic, is coded as "Hispanic"; "non-Hispanic white" are those people who answer only "white" as their race; and a person is coded as African American if they identify themselves as such, do not indicate that they are also Hispanic, and regardless if they also identify themselves as another race. For more details on the Mumford Center's methodology, please view the technical notes at http://mumford1.dyndns.org/cen2000/technote.html.
Data on poverty levels were provided by the Lewis Mumford Center, based on Census 2000 statistics. The U.S. Census Bureau determines "poverty" by setting income thresholds that vary according to family size and makeup. Poverty statistics are therefore presented by household, not by individual. For example, the poverty threshold in 2000 for a single-parent family with three children was $17,524. (For more information, see: http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/povdef.html.) Census poverty statistics are widely considered to underestimate the true levels of poverty in this country, since they are based on an outmoded definition developed in the 1960s. We keep our estimates of neighborhoods with high levels of poverty conservative, by making our threshold twice the poverty level, or 23.5% of households in poverty. We followed a similar strategy when calculating "wealthy zip codes," our measure being zip codes with twice the national average, 24.6%, for households over $100,000. [back to text at note 3 reference]
|
|
|
