Download issue (PDF) - Nieman Foundation - Harvard University

Journalist’s TradeGovernor Gray Davis addresses delegates at the California Democratic Party Conventionwith Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante (to Davis’s right, gesturing), also a candidate forgovernor. Photo by Ciro Cesar/La Opinión.reau in Sacramento.Money spent on presidential andcongressional races attracts interestfrom national media, campaign financereform advocates, and academic researchers.But stakes are high in thestates, as reflected by the findings ofThe Institute on Money in State Politics,based in Helena, Montana, whichcounted $1.54 billion spent on campaignsfor governor, lieutenant governor,and legislative candidates in 2002,up from $1.03 billion in 1998.In California, the campaigns for legislativeseats and statewide offices routinelycost a combined $200 million ormore. Cumulative campaign spendingtopped $500 million in 1998, whenCalifornians elected Davis as governorand decided several high-priced ballotinitiatives. There is, in short, no way toreport fully on state government—orelections to it—without tracking theflow of money. In many instances,money is at the confluence of politicsand policy.Starting in 1999, when Davis tookoffice, I began building an Excel databaseconsisting of his donors. By thetime he left office, the file containedalmost 12,000 entries. I could sort donorsby name, city and state of residence,date of donation, and amountgiven. The file includes informationabout the donor’s employer and industryor interest, ranging from healthcare, gambling, entertainment and telecommunicationsto labor and statecontractors. There were several subclassifications.Within labor, for example,there are state employee unions,firefighter and police unions, buildingtrades and others.Using this accumulated data, mycolleagues and I could write about thenumber of donors from outside thestate who gave to Davis and how manyappointees on boards and commissionswere donors and how much they contributed.This enabled me to report inthe Times, with some authority, that 23percent of Davis’s donations came fromorganized labor. I could readily seethat $175,000 was contributed in 2003from the Mercury Insurance Group,but it’s one thing to know that Mercurygave $175,000 to Davis this year and$270,000 since 1999. It’s another thingto know that in 2003, Mercury sponsoredlegislation beneficial to its business,and Davis signed the bill beforeleaving office. Davis’s aides and Mercurydenied any connection betweentheir contribution and his signature.In his first term, as Davis was raisingmore than $70 million, fundraisingbecame a focus of much of the newscoverage of his administration. Thiswas particularly true in the 2002 electionyear. Newspapers reported thathe offered to meet with students at theUniversity of California, Berkeley, whodonated $100, and that his administrationauthorized an oil refinery to dumpdioxin in the San Francisco Bay afterthe refinery owner donated $70,500.The Times reported that he decidedagainst regulating the dietary supplement,Ephedra, after a manufacturergave him $150,000. After the San FranciscoChronicle reported that Davissolicited a one million dollar donationfrom the California Teachers Association,the Times reported that Davisrequested the money during a meetingin the governor’s Capitol office. Davisnarrowly survived the 2002 re-electionagainst businessman Bill Simon, Jr. Buttales of Davis’s fundraising exploitsserved to increase his vulnerability tothe recall. “[Davis] has two ears andtwo eyes and knows that he was hurt inthe 2002 campaign by the perceptionsthat he was a nonstop fundraiser,”Davis’s chief political adviser GarrySouth said at a forum analyzing therecall campaign, hosted by the Instituteof Governmental Studies at theUniversity of California, Berkeley.Tracking CampaignFundraisingIn California, retail politics is a quaintconcept. Statewide candidates don’thold barbecues or shake hands outsidefactory gates. As a rule, local televisionnews provides little original campaigncoverage. Statewide candidates generallyseek to influence the 15.4 millionregistered voters by spending two milliondollars each week or so on televisionspots. The recall seemed different.News organizations—includinglocal TV—showed intense interest, inpart because Arnold Schwarzeneggerwas running but also because therehad never been a recall of a sittingCalifornia governor.Given this level of media attentionbeing paid to the campaign, politicalexperts believed there would be lessneed to raise large sums. From thestart, they were wrong. Political gadflyTed Costa proposed the recall last De-62 Nieman Reports / Winter 2003