It can be interesting to follow the evolution of a story as it is told
and retold from one person to the next. This is especially true when
some of those who retell the story are arguably less than objective.
Such was the case with a story released by the Center for Responsive
Politics on December 11, 2002 which was referenced by an editorial in
the Washington Times a week later. This editorial was then referenced
by an article on the Rush Limbaugh website. The original story is at
http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/DonorDemographics02.asp.
Following are the first three paragraphs of the story:
> BIG-TIME DONORS SMALL IN NUMBER - Less Than One-Tenth of 1% of
> Population Gave 83% of Itemized Contributions
>
> Less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the U.S. population gave 83
> percent of all itemized campaign contributions for the 2002
> elections, an analysis of campaign giving by the non-partisan
> Center for Responsive Politics has found.
>
> Nearly 237,000 donors -- just 0.08 percent of the total U.S.
> population and 0.11 percent of U.S. adults -- were responsible for
> $728 million of the almost $873 million in political contributions
> that were itemized in campaign finance reports filed by federal
> candidates, political parties and political action committees.
>
> Just over 600,000 people -- 0.21 percent of the U.S. population and
> 0.28 percent of U.S. adults -- gave contributions large enough to be
> itemized at all. During the 2000 presidential election cycle, 0.28
> percent of the nation's population, and 0.37 percent of U.S. adults,
> gave itemized contributions.
The story then goes on to describe how the Federal Election Commission
obtained the data and begins to give a breakdown of the data by the
level of the contribution. In the seventh paragraph, the story states:
> The study also found that Republicans raised more than Democrats
> from individuals who contributed small and medium amounts of money
> during the 2002 election cycle, but Democrats far outpaced
> Republicans among deep-pocketed givers.
It then goes on to give the precise numbers. Those numbers can be
seen in the following table, excerpted from the table found at
http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/DonorDemographics.asp?cycle=2002
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, 2001-2002 ($200 or more, Hard and Soft Money)
Amount To To To % %
given Count Total* Dems* Repubs* PACs* Dems Repubs
--------------------------------------------------------------------
$200-$999 363744 144.6 43.6 67.6 34.1 30 47
$1,000+ 236470 728.0 307.1 317.0 131.9 42 44
$10,000+ 8870 275.6 140.1 110.8 39.2 51 40
$100,000+ 309 105.7 71.5 33.6 1.8 68 32
$1,000,000+ 14 39.8 36.4 3.4 0.2 91 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------
200+ 600214 872.5 350.7 384.6 166.0 40 44
Donors giving to:
Repubs only^ 277315 341.5 0.0 321.9 29.6 0 100
Dems only^ 195672 310.3 289.7 0.0 33.6 100 0
Both 21946 136.1 61.0 62.8 20.0 45 46
* Amounts are in millions of dollars.
^ Contributions to candidates, parties and Leadership PACs.
Source: Federal Election Commission, numbers released on Dec 2, 2002
THE WASHINGTON TIMES EDITORIAL
The Washington Times carried an editorial on the above story on
December 18, 2002 titled "The richest 1 percent". It can be seen at
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20021218-363082.htm. The editorial
makes no mention of the original story's major point - that less than
one tenth of one percent of the population gave 83% of the itemized
contributions and that only 0.21 percent gave contributions large
enough to be itemized at all. In fact, they made absolutely no
mention of any of the counts of contributors in the above table.
Instead, they quoted the seventh paragraph of the story given above
and quoted the dollar figures in the table above. In the second to
the last paragraph, the Washington Times story concludes:
> In other words, in 2002 a select group of bigwigs dumped big money
> into Democratic causes, while a broad base of folks donated
> respectable (but not overwhelming) amounts to Republican candidates.
> That goes a long way toward explaining the Democrats' shallow
> support in the midterm elections, and should give an indication of
> which party's agenda has been hijacked by the big money-men.
The editorial's title (The richest 1 percent) might imply to some that
these "big money-men" were members of the richest 1 percent. The fact
is, the entire population of contributors in this study, including the
"broad base of folks" who donated to Republicans, make up just 0.28
percent of the US adult population. To get a better view of the "big
money-men" who favored the Democrats, it's useful to recalculated the
numbers in the previous table so that the groups no longer overlap.
Following are those numbers:
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, 2001-2002 ($200 or more, Hard and Soft Money)
Amount given To To To % %
From To Count Total* Dems* Repubs* PACs* Dems Repubs
---------------------------------------------------------------------
200 999 363744 144.6 43.6 67.6 34.1 30 47
1,000 9,999 227600 452.4 167.0 206.2 92.7 37 46
10,000 99,999 8561 169.9 68.6 77.2 37.4 40 45
100,000 999,999 295 65.9 35.1 30.2 1.6 53 46
1,000,000+ 14 39.8 36.4 3.4 0.2 91 8
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Total (200+) 600214 872.5 350.7 384.6 166.0 40 44
* Amounts are in millions of dollars.
As can be seen, the Republicans received more money from individuals
who contributed less that $100,000. For those who contributed between
$100,000 and $999,999, the Democrats held a slight 53 to 46 percent
advantage. The big advantage was in the 14 individuals who gave a
million dollars or more. Eleven of these gave chiefly to Democrats.
Were these 11 individuals trying to "hijack" the Democratic party's
agenda or were they just trying to counteract the Republican party's
advantage in the rest of the select group (0.28% of the adult
population) who contributed $200 or more? Only they know for sure.
But since $200-plus contributors comprise such a select group, it
can well be argued that they are in a position to hijack the agendas
of both parties.
THE RUSH LIMBAUGH ARTICLE
The first page of the Rush Limbaugh website (www.rushlimbaugh.com)
contains a link to an article titled "Democrats Get More Money From
Rich" that references the Washington Times editorial. It appears to
be closely drawn from the editorial, quoting the same numbers. Like
the editorial, it makes no mention of the number of contributors or
the main conclusions of the original CRP story. However, it does see
fit to expand the accurate quote of "deep-pocketed givers" to the
less-than-accurate "rich or deep-pocketed givers". More importantly,
it incorrectly describes the group giving $1,000 or more as giving
$1,000 to $9,999. This may be simply due to sloppy reporting.
However, it does serve to cover up the fact that the Republicans did
receive more in contributions from individuals giving more than $1,000
as well as from individuals giving less.
Finally, the Rush article added references to Hollywood, showing a
picture of Clinton and Barbara Streisand and stating "Just look at
the Hollywood left, and you see where the big money goes". In fact,
a donor search at http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/index.asp returned
35 records for Barbara Streisand, showing a combined contribution of
$93,500 in the 2002 election cycle. That puts her near the top of the
$10,000 to $99,999 group of contributors who, as a whole, gave more to
Republicans. A search of the top 100 individual contributors at
http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.asp?cycle=2002 shows
just eight names in the Los Angeles area. One gave 99% of their
contributions to Republicans and the rest gave just to Democrats.
Five of the Democratic contributors are in the entertainment industry
but none of the names are recognizable as actual entertainers.
Hence, it's inaccurate to imply that the "Hollywood left" is where
all of the "big money goes" or that individual liberal entertainers
are making the huge contributions.
In conclusion, I think that the evolution of this story shows how
important it is to look at the original sources when possible and
not simply accept other people's interpretation of those sources.
That's especially true when those doing the interpretation have a
history and/or reputation of being less-than-objective. Of course,
nobody has time to completely check out all sources. For example, I
didn't have the time to check out the sources of the original Center
for Responsive Politics story. However, I think you need to always
demand an easily verifiable source, even if you don't have time to
check it out. A story without a source is of little use to me. At
best, it motivates me to investigate the issue and find a verifiable
source.