The campaign finance data shows the business executives are a largely bi-partisan group.
By SCOTT Van VOORHIS, SARAH KURANDA and JENNA RUSSO
Unleashed by a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, top corporate power players in Massachusetts are pumping millions into an array of campaign coffers and freewheeling political committees as control of the White House and a coveted Bay State Senate seat hang in the balance, a review of contribution records by the New England Center for Investigative Journalism shows.
A trio of big-name business leaders, including a sneaker tycoon, a top Bain Capital executive and a biotech entrepreneur, has chipped in well over $1 million each into the presidential campaign, the hard-fought U.S. Senate race, and other contests, according to the review.
The center at Boston University analyzed a newly-created, comprehensive data base that combines federal contributions with contributions from seven states, including Massachusetts.
Overall, two dozen Bay State executives have contributed $200,000 and up during the last two years to state and federal candidates, both in the state and across the country.
The data provides a more complete picture of the true scope of Massachusetts donors’ political reach than previously disclosed, revealing deep-pocketed donors give more to federal, not state, causes and candidates. Despite its reputation as the “bluest state,” contributions from Massachusetts were fairly bi-partisan.
Former President Bush, left, campaigns for Massachusetts Republican gubernatorial candidate Mitt Romney, lower right, at the New Balance shoe manufacturing plant in Lawrence, Mass., Thursday, Oct. 10, 2002. New Balance chairman Jim Davis and his wife, Anne, of Newton, made $1,104,100 in political contributions this election cycle, almost all of it on Republican efforts to retake the White House. (File photo | AP)
The surge of spending has been fueled in part by the controversial 2010 U.S. Supreme Court Citizens United decision that gave executives and companies the ability to dole out unlimited amounts of cash for the political causes they support, campaign finance experts say.
In fact, some top executives are now funneling most of their campaign dollars not to the candidates, but rather to the so-called super PACs (political action committees) that have become major players in the nightly political ad wars on TV.
“It is a terrible ruling that has opened the floodgates to unlimited amounts of money to be spent in our elections,” said Pam Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause of Massachusetts, a group dedicated to battling the influence of money in politics. “The result is a distorted election and increasing opportunities for corruption in our political system.”
Bay State power couples are the leading donors in the 2011-2012 election cycle, the New England Center’s analysis shows. They include:
- Reinier Beeuwkes, of Concord, and his wife, Nancy, who top the list of the biggest political givers from Massachusetts, chipping in $1,137,800 to an array of Democratic candidates, from President Barack Obama on down to the Maine Democratic Committee. A former Harvard Medical School professor, Reinier Beeuwkes chairs Ischemix, a Maynard-based biotech;
- Paul Edgerly, a long-time Bain Capital director, and his wife, Sandra, of Brookline, have doled out $1,091,600 to an array of Republican candidates, including Mitt Romney;
- Billionaire Jim Davis, chairman of New Balance, and his wife, Anne, of Newton, have spent $1,104,100, almost all of it on Republican efforts to retake the White House;
- Paul Egerman, co-chairman and chief executive officer of eScription, and his wife, Joanne, of Weston, dropped $904,550 into a range of Democratic causes and candidates across the country, from Senate challenger Elizabeth Warren to Al Franken, the comedian turned U.S. senator; and
- Former Dell chief Kevin Rollins and his wife, Debra, of Dover, have spent nearly $638,700 on contributions to a range of Republican candidates and causes.
A who’s-who list of Massachusetts business executives also coughed up hundreds of thousands in cash for their favored causes and candidates.
Overall, each of 19 executives and wealthy individuals shelled out enough in contributions to buy a house, ranging from just over $220,000 to nearly $500,000. The exclusive club includes philanthropist and backer of women candidates Barbara Lee ($492,371), Putnam Investments chief Robert Reynolds ($438,300) and supermarket fortune heir David Mugar ($367,815).
“Personally, I contribute to progressive candidates, and I have helped to elect every sitting woman Democratic governor and U.S. senator,” wrote Lee, former wife of billionaire Boston financier Thomas Lee, in an email. “My personal giving history is publicly available through the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance and the Federal Election Commission.”
The other power players highlighted either declined comment through public relations representatives or could not be reached for comment.
The Bay State’s corporate elite may be as divided in its loyalties as the rest of the country during what has evolved into a particularly bitterly partisan election season.
A common thread uniting both conservative and liberal contributors has been the rise of the super PACs, which have opened the door to unlimited political expenditures by wealthy individuals and corporations.
Set loose by the landmark Citizens United case, the political action committees are helping reshape the state and national political landscapes this election cycle.
In Citizens United, the high court ruled that government couldn’t ban corporations and unions from making direct political expenditures. A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., later gave even more power to the super PACs, permitting acceptance of unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations and unions.
The only limitation is that such independent expenditure committees can’t coordinate their actions with candidates or directly put money into campaign coffers, Wilmot said. But, free to make their case through advertising and other venues, Super PACs have become a major political force.
And, the high-court decision allows super wealthy contributors to pump large sums directly into races in which they would previously had to spread the money around to multiple committees and candidates to stay within federal and state contribution limits, which remain in place for individual candidates.
“The large contributions to super PACs this year clearly are a function of the Citizens United and Speechnow.org court decisions,” said Robert Boatright, a Clark University political science professor and campaign finance expert. “It’s a regrettable development and the cumulative consequences of all of this money means that candidates have less control of their campaign messages, the public is subjected to a flood of special interest advertising.”
For Massachusetts business executives looking to dish off big chunks of campaign cash, super PACs have become a favorite vehicle, according to the campaign data analysis.
Of the $1,104,100 that Davis, the billionaire athletic shoe tycoon, has contributed this election cycle, a total of $1 million has gone to Restore Our Future, a super PAC backing Romney. Davis spread the rest to a range of candidates, mainly Republicans.
The roster includes Massachusetts congressional candidates Sean Bielat and Richard Tisei, as well as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a contender to take over the powerful Senate Finance Committee should Republicans win control of the chamber come November.
Other conservative power couples also plugged money into Restore Our Future.
The Edgerlys, for instance, pumped $1 million into that SuperPAC, while Rollinses chipped in $500,000. For both couples, this represented the majority of their political expenditures during this election cycle.
Wealthy contributors backing liberal causes and candidates were hardly outdone, though, pumping big money into their own set of super PACs.
Egerman, the eScription chief, ploughed $250,000 into Priorities USA, $200,000 into American Bridge 21st Century and another $100,000 into the House Majority PAC. His wife, Joanne, gave $100,000 to Planned Parenthood Votes.
Meanwhile, Beeuwkes, the Harvard medical professor turned biotech chief, gave $100,000 to Priorities USA while his wife pumped $200,000 into American Bridge and $250,000 into Women Vote!
As financiers and tycoons pump more cash than ever before into campaign coffers, their generosity is raising questions about the potentially corrosive influence such large sums of money can have on the political system.
Boatright said most big contributors aren’t looking to hit the jackpot, just score dinner or a phone call of appreciation from the candidate.
“I don’t know that they are getting individual favors in return, although it’s not uncommon for presidents (Democratic and Republican alike) to occasionally reward a large contributor with an ambassador post or something of that nature,” Boatwright said. “I suspect that large donors agree with a candidate’s general perspective but generally don’t want anything more than the occasional gesture of appreciation – dinner with the candidate, a phone call.”
Other observers contend that power players who contribute more than $1 million are likely taking a business-like approach to their political activity.
While ideology plays into the decision by wealthy individuals to open their wallets for certain candidates, it would be naive to think that high-powered business executives aren’t expecting a return on their investment, said Mary Boyle, a spokeswoman for Common Cause’s national office in Washington, D.C. For big donors and fund-raisers, there can be an array of potential rewards, including political appointments and even an ambassadorship, or the chance to gain favorable treatment for business endeavors.
“A million dollars today is a very significant contribution, whether the givers will acknowledge it or not,” Boyle said. “They are all savvy business people; they don’t invest $1 million without expecting something in return.”
Some contributors say they are none too thrilled with the current system either.
One of the most prolific contributors to political campaigns in Massachusetts and nationally, Lee said she believes the system needs reform.
“I am a strong proponent of reforming our campaign finance system, because a campaign finance system that best serves the interests of the public is one that is transparent and levels the playing field for all people,” Lee wrote in an email inquiry.
Albert Merck, a former director of pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co., was blunter when reached by phone at his Lexington home.
Merck has given thousands over the past two years to the Massachusetts Republican Party and to promising state legislative candidates fielded by the state’s minority party. He’s also donated to the campaigns of U.S. Sen. Scott Brown and Romney.
A lifelong Republican, Merck would like to see more political competition in Democrat-dominated Massachusetts. But, he also made clear he finds the current, increasingly money-dominated political system distasteful, arguing it is “corrupting the system.”
“If you want to run, you can’t run without good amounts of money,” Merck said. “We are trapped.” ÂÂÂÂ
The New England Center for Investigative Reporting is a non-profit investigative newsroom based at Boston University. This story was done in collaboration with the Investigative News Network.