The Big Switch CWF

7/31/2019 The Big Switch CWF

1/50

Q: Are campaign contributions generally provided to

support a particular political party, candidate or

ideology? Or does money simply follow power, implying

that the contributor is seeking a return on the

investment?

A: When the Republican Party held a majority of seats

in the New York State Senate in 2008, Republican

legislative committee chairs were showered with

campaign cash from corporations, including senators

who did not face a competitive election. When the

Democrats took control in 2009, a big switch occurred:

money flowed away from the Republicans and toward

the new Democratic committee chairs. When the

Republicans regained control in 2011, we witnessed

another big switch.

A Report By

Center for Working Families

1133 Broadway, Suite 332

New York, NY 10010

www.cwfny.org

October 2012
http://www.cwfny.org/http://www.cwfny.org/


2/50

2

Credits

Research

Mark Treskon, Senior Policy Analyst

Analysis and writing

Joseph G. Rappaport, Policy Director

Additional research

Sunshine Ludder, Senior Economic Policy Strategist

Stephan Edel, Green and Equitable Economies Organizer

Editing, analysis and logo design

Dave Palmer, Executive Director

Additional assistance

Susie Lim, CWF Administrator

Jessica Wisneski and Charlie Albanetti, Citizen Action of New York

Michael Kink, Strong Economy For All

The Center for Working Families is a non-partisan and independent think- and do-tank

that conducts research and advocates for policy change in New York State to benefit

low- and middle-income people.


3/50

3

In Table of contents

SECTION PAGESummary and recommendations 4

Overall corporate donations 7

Top 15 committee profiles 8

Civil Service and Pensions 9

Codes 11

Commerce, Economic Development

and Small Business 13

Consumer Protection 15

Energy and Telecommunications 17

Environmental Conservation 19Finance 21

Health 23

Housing, Construction and

Community Development 25

Insurance 27

Judiciary 29

Racing, Gaming and Wagering 31

Rules 33

Transportation 35

Veterans, Homeland Security and

Military Affairs 37

Appendix A: Methodology 39

Appendix B: Annual contributions

by committee 43

Appendix C: 2008 and 2010 electoral results

involving committee chairs 48

Appendix D: Average corporate contributions 50


4/50

4

In Summary & recommendations

Q: Are campaign contributions generally provided to support a particular political party,

candidate or ideology? Or does money simply follow power, implying that the

contributor is seeking a return on the investment?

A: When the Republican Party held a majority of seats in the New York State Senate in

2008, Republican legislative committee chairs were showered with campaign cash from

corporations, including senators who did not face a competitive election. When the

Democrats took control in 2009, a big switch occurred: money flowed away from the

Republicans and toward the new Democratic committee chairs. When the Republicans

regained control in 2011, we witnessed another big switch.

For nearly a half-century,power in Albanys two legislative houses had stayed

constantthe Republicans the majority in the senate and the Democrats in the

assembly. That ended with the election of 2008, when Democratic candidates won a

majority of the senates seats and took control of the chamber in 2009.

The change-over from Republican to Democratic control, and then back again from

Democratic to Republican control in 2011, provided the equivalent of a real-life

experiment. While Albany observers might speculate where corporate dollars would go

in a change of legislative power, here was a once-in-a-half-century chance to see what

would actually occur.

Our findings, based on a review of 48,699 campaign finance filings from 2008 to August 2012,

show that corporate money did indeed follow the leader. In 2009 and 2010, when the

Democrats held power (other than a brief interlude in June and July 2009), corporationsswitched their allegiance to them from the Republicans. And when the Republicans regained

control, corporations switched back.

Our key findings include:

A big switch took place in 2009 and again in 2011, when the senate changedhands (see chart and table, page 5).

-- In 2008, the Republican senate majority collected almost $5 million in

corporate donations, while Democrats collected nearly $2.8 million.

-- In 2009, when the Democrats took power, corporations sent almost

$3.7 million their way. In 2010, the Democrats took in about $4.2 million.

Over the two years they held power, their corporate take increased 41

percent annually.


5/50

5

Meanwhile, the Republican take in 2009 and 2010 fell by about half,

averaging $2.5 million annually.

In 2011, when the Republicans regained power, corporations also

switched allegiance, donating $4.1 million. In 2012 (through August),

another $3.2 million came to the Republicans.

Meanwhile, the Democrats took in corporate donations of$1.7 million in2010 and another $1.4 million through August 2012.

Leadership of the 15 committees (those with the most corporate contributionsannually) changed from one party to another 30 times during this periodand in

22 of those handovers, corporate donors redirected the bulk of their funds to

the new chair.

In the other eight instances, Republicans retained their corporate fund-raising

advantage even when the Democrats controlled the committee.

For committees like Transportation or Housing, corporate donors with aninterest in the committees area typically did not discriminate between

Republican and Democrat in giving campaign funds to the chair. Our individual

committee profiles outline this.

Contributions rolled into the chairs of the top 15 committeeseven when theyfaced little or no opposition at the polls. In the 58 races we reviewed, all but

eight of the chairs won by more than 14 percentage points. In 21 of the races,

the chairs either ran uncontested or won with more than 80 percent of the vote.

On average, corporate donations to Republican senate committee chairsoutpaced those to Democratic chairs. In the top 15 committees, Republican

chairs received an average of $199,759 in corporate donations in the two full

years we examined (2008 and 2011).

Meanwhile, Democrats received an average of $167,327 in 2009 and 2010, when

they controlled the senate.

Corporate donations to sitting senators made up 66.2 percent of the total valueof all non-individual campaign contributions. (By contrast, union donations made

up 22.6 percent of such gifts.)

When corporate donations are combined with individual gifts of $1,000 or more,they account for nearly seven out of every ten dollars donated to legislative

incumbents.

The results of this real-life experiment go to the heart of our political system. Elected

officials typically deny that corporate donationsor any donationto their campaign


6/50

6

chests affect the decisions they make in the capitol. And it is difficult to trace a quid pro

quo.

But with millions in corporate campaign donations given no matter which party is in

power, New Yorkers may rightly question who ultimately influences policy in Albany.

They might speculate that some bills get taken up or left to languish based on who is

giving money, rather than which party is in charge. They may wonder if there is a role

for the regular citizen, who legislators are in fact elected to represent.

Clearly, though, the men and women who run corporations believe that its better to

give to candidates, even those who face no real electoral challenges, than to abstain.

And, as our report shows, they believe it is best to give to whichever party holds power.

To alter the balance of power and lessen the influence of corporate donors, the Center

for Working Families has joined with more than 120 other groups in the Fair Elections

campaign, which has proposed the public financing of elections in New York State and

other campaign finance changes. Our specific recommendations follow.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1) The single most important reform to lessen the improper influence of large corporate

contributions to candidates running for office in New York State is to implement Fair

Elections a system of public financing of elections that would provide qualifying

candidates with public matching funds on small donations (e.g., $6 for every $1 of

private donation on donations up to $175).

2) Any Fair Elections system must also include other key campaign finance reforms, such

as:

a. lower contribution limits for participating and non-participating candidates;

b. reasonable limits and rules on housekeeping accounts; and

c. increased enforcement and candidate compliance services.


7/50

7

In All corporate donations

Corporate donors gave more moneynearly $5 millionto Republicans when the party

held the senate majority in 2008. But when the Democrats finally took over in 2009

after more than four decades out of power, corporate donors turned to them, and the

Democrats out-raised the Republican minority. In 2010, with the Republicans back in

power, corporate donors also went back to them. (Solid line indicates party was inpower.)

All Senate (all corporate donations)

Year Republicans Democrats

2008 $4,968,859 $2,784,380

2009 $1,896,570 $3,660,335

2010 $3,110,693 $4,182,087

2011 $4,101,691 $1,662,3922012 $3,264,967 $1,398,138

Totals $17,342,780 $13,687,331

2009-2010 $5,007,263 $7,842,421

2011-2012 $7,366,658 $3,060,530


8/50

8

In Top 15 committees

The chairs of these 15 senate committees collected the most corporate dollars on

average over the past five years.

We determined this by first ranking the senates 33 standing committees by the dollar

amount committee chairs received in corporate contributions. We identified theamount of corporate contributions given to Republican chairs in 2008, 2011 and January

through August 2012 and to Democratic chairs in 2009 and 2010.*

We then ranked these contributions to committee chairs annually; the overall ranking is

the five-year average of those individual-year rankings. We then used these overall

rankings to select the top fifteen committees. (See Appendix A for donation information

and methodology for further explanation of our rankings.)

Our charts illustrate the path of these corporate donations, with the darker lines

representing corporate donations during the period when a senator chaired the

committee. Republican senators are represented by red lines and Democratic senators

are represented by blue.

*For sake of simplicity, the analysis does not account for the period in June and July 2009 when

Democratic senators joined with Republicans in an effort to switch senate control.


9/50

9

In Civil Service and Pensions

The Civil Service and Pensions committee attracted limited corporate donations from

companies we identified as having direct interest in its work. However, the Republican

chairs of the committeesenators Joseph Robach in 2009 and Martin Golden in 2011 to

August 2012took in substantial dollars from corporate donors.

Both Republicans outraised the Democratic Senator Diane Savinos corporate take, even

when she chaired the committee. While no switch occurred, the Republicans did see

some loss in corporate donations when they were out of power, particularly Robach.

CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS OVERALL

In 2008: Corporations donated $197,546 to Robach, who chaired the committee.

Savino, the ranking minority member, received $33,600.

In 2009-2010: Savino brought in $42,125 as chair. Her predecessor, Robach, saw

corporate donations decrease to $62,361 during his two years in the minority.

In 2011-2012: Golden, now the chair, collected $428,250 in corporate donations.

Meanwhile, Savino collected $94,675 as the ranking minority member.


10/50

10

(Not surprisingly, unions contributed generously to the Republican chairs and Democrat

Diane Savino, who chaired the committee in 2009-2010. In total, however, corporate

donations to the chairs exceeded union donations.)

MARGIN OF VICTORY

Money follows power in the form of campaign contributions, even when an incumbent

faces little or no electoral competition at the polls. While Robach faced a real challenge

in 2008 and won by only three percentage points, his successor, Savino, won with nearly

79 percent of the vote. Golden won with 66 percent in 2010.


11/50

11

In Codes committee

Since the Codes committee often considers legislation first reviewed by other

committees, our review focuses on all corporate contributions to the chairs. Money

flowed to power, whether Republican senators Dale Volker or Stephen Saland chaired

the committee or Democrat Eric Schneiderman.

CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS OVERALLCODES

In 2008: Volker, chair in 2008, took in corporate donations of $190,349. Schneiderman

took in only $22,500 in corporate donations when he held the committees ranking

minority position in 2008.

In 2009 and 2010:Schneidermans fortunes didnt change immediately when he took

over the committee in 2009, though he did increase his take by $16,300 for a total of

$38,800. By 2010, though, corporations found Schneiderman worthy of their money and

gave him $155,250. (Schneiderman ran for attorney general that year, which

undoubtedly made him more attractive to corporate donors.)

In 2011 and 2012: Saland ascended as chair when the Republicans took back the senate

and brought in $181,425 in corporate donations in the next 20 months. Salands vote in

favor of the Marriage Equality Act may have brought him some additional corporate

funding.


12/50

12

Why contribute?

The Codes committee reviews legislation on changes in New York State law on

everything from motor vehicle penalties to drug policy. In the past year, legislation

concerning battery recycling and campaign finance came under its purview.

Which interests gave money?

Whether a Republican or Democrat led Codes, real estate interests and developers

donated the most money to them. These tables show the top five contributors byindustry when each senator chaired the committee.

VolkerIndustry 2008 % of Total

TOTALS $190,349 100.0%

Real Estate and development $68,600 36.0%

Health care $16,247 8.5%

Construction, contracting, building $10,650 5.6%

Legal $9,600 5.0%Lobbyist $6,150 3.2%

SchneidermanIndustry 2009 2010 TOTALS % of Total

TOTALS $38,800 $155,250 $194,050 100.0%

Real Estate and development $5,000 $29,750 $34,750 17.9%

Health care $4,500 $24,500 $29,000 14.9%

Legal $9,250 $15,150 $24,400 12.6%

Lobbyist $4,750 $13,000 $17,750 9.1%Insurance $2,100 $6,600 $8,700 4.5%

SalandIndustry 2011 2012 TOTALS % of Total

TOTALS $98,575 $82,850 $181,425 100.0%


Construction, contracting, building $8,625 $6,200 $14,825 8.2%

Health care $4,725 $5,200 $9,925 5.5%

Insurance $6,250 $2,200 $8,450 4.7%Lobbyist 8525 6100 $14,625 8.1%

MARGIN OF VICTORY


faces little or no electoral competition at the polls. In 2008, Schneiderman won with 91

percent of the vote; in 2010, Saland won with 60 percent of the vote. However, he won

in a very close primary this September.


13/50

13

In Commerce committee

Whether the Commerce, Economic Development and Small Business committee was led

by Republican senators James Alesi (in 2008 and 2011 to June 2012) and Patrick Gallivan

(current chair) or Democrat William Stachowski in 2009-2010, money from corporations

flowed into their campaign chests.

CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS OVERALLCOMMERCE

In 2008, Alesi collected $189,000 in total corporate donations; Stachowski collected

$131,435. That changed in 2009-2010, when Stachowski took over the committee and

collected $219,397 in corporate donations. Alesi, who became the committees ranking

minority member, saw his take fall to $156,275.

In the two full years Republicans chaired Commerce, they collected an average of

$123,565 annually. The Democrat took in $109,699 annually as chair.

INDUSTRY CONTRIBUTIONS

*

Why contribute?

With Commerces power to legislate everything from eminent domain law to the

publishing of environmental regulations, decisions by the committees chairs can affect

corporate profits and practices.

*Since we did not match all contributions to particular interests, industry-specific tallies likely

underestimate the overall contribution dollars coming from particular industries.


14/50

14

In 2008: As chair in 2008, Alesi collected $64,000 from corporate donors we identified

as potentially interested in influencing Commerce legislation.

In 2009 and 2010: Stachowski, now the chair, collected $35,885. Meanwhile, Alesis take

still exceeded Stachowskis, but fell by more than a quarter to $46,250.

In 2011 through August 2012: In 2011-2012, Alesi collected $36,500 from corporatedonors with potential interest in Commerce committee legislation. (Gallivan, who took

over the committee in July because Alesi announced he would not run in 2012, has

collected $46,366 from corporate donors with potential interest in Commerces work

since he became a senator, though much of that money came before he took over the

committee.)

Overall: Altogether, Alesi took in an average of $45,625 in the two full years he led the

committee. Stachowski took in an average of $17,943 in his two years at the helm.

MARGIN OF VICTORY


faces little or no electoral competition at the polls. Alesi won by a 6-4 margin in 2008,

though Stachowski won by a relatively close six percent in 2008 and lost in a 2010

Democratic primary.


15/50

15

In Consumer Protection

No matter who led the Consumer Protection committeeRepublicans Charles Fuschillo,

Jr. in 2008 and Lee Zeldin in 2011-2012 or Democrats Hiram Monserrate in 2009 and

Jose Peralta in 2010money from corporate donors flowed into their campaign chests.

Corporate donors with a likely interest in influencing consumer protection legislation

also contributed to their campaigns generously.

CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS OVERALLCONSUMER PROTECTION

As chair in 2008, Fuschillo collected $151,928 in corporate donations (including

Consumer Protection-related donations), while Zeldin raised $351,925 in his near-two

years as chair. In their two full years chairing Consumer Protection, the Republicans

raised an average of $146,064 annually. Zeldin also raised $133,600 from corporate

donors in his race for the job in 2010.

Monserrate and Peralta collected $141,712 in 2009-2010. In their two years at the helm,

Democrats raised an average of $70,856 annually. Monserrate also raised $216,659from corporate donors in his race for the job in 2008. Peralta also raised corporate

money in his campaign for his seat in mid-2010.

INDUSTRY CONTRIBUTIONS*

Why contribute?

The Consumer Protection committee has the power to affect everything from conditions

for nail salons employees to the proper disposal of mattressesquestions that affect

profits and the operation of small and large businesses alike.




16/50

16

In 2008: As chair in 2008. Fuschillo collected $27,950 from donors likely to be interested

in influencing consumer protection legislation.

In 2009 and 2010: Two Democratic senators served as chair and collected $20,500 in all.

Monserrate collected only $4,000 in 2009 and no money in 2010. (Monserrate was

expelled from the senate in 2010 after a misdemeanor conviction on assault charges.)

However, Peralta collected $16,500 when he joined the senate and took over the

committees helm in 2010.

In 2011 and 2012: Zeldin, now the committees chair, collected $38,805 from corporate

contributors with a potential interest in consumer protection legislation. Peraltas take

decreased to $10,300 during this period.

Overall: Republicans who headed the committee received an average of $22,438 in

Consumer Protection-related donations during the two full years theyve headed the

committee. Democrats collected an average of $10,250 in such donations during the

two years they held power.

MARGIN OF VICTORY


faces little or no electoral competition at the polls. For example, Monserrate had no

opponent in 2008, when he received generous corporate donations. Zeldin won his

2010 race by 14 percentage points, though he was facing an incumbent.


17/50

17

In Energy & telecom

The Energy and Telecommunications committees chairs attracted more than $1 million

dollars in overall corporate donations between 2008 and August 2012. However, unlike

other committees we examined, the Republican chair, Senator George Maziarz, never

lost his corporate funding advantage to the Democrat, Senator Darrell Aubertine.


Overall, corporations (including energy and telecommunications-related interests)

contributed $1.02 million to Maziarz in the four years he chaired the committee, an

average of $254,847 annually. Aubertine received $95,150 in the one year he headed

the committee. Unlike many other committees, no switch occurred.


Why contribute?

The Energy and Telecommunications committees oversight and decisions affect rates

for electricity and telephone service, the introduction of new technologies for energy

production and jobs programs for green retrofits of homes and business. For example,

the committee has considered legislation to increase the use of solar energy in New

York State and held hearings to close the Indian Point nuclear facility, which attract

considerable corporate interest.




18/50

18

In 2008: As chair in 2008, Maziarz collected $43,000 from energy and

telecommunications interests.

In 2009: Aubertine, now the chair, received $16,250 from energy and

telecommunications interests. Meanwhile, Maziarzs take fell $25,000 to $18,000,

though he still exceeded contributions to Aubertine by $1,750.

In 2010: Maziarz assumed leadership of Energy and Telecommunications in 2010,

although the Democrats still controlled the chamber. Industry contributions to his

campaign fund grew to $57,832. Meanwhile, Aubertine took in $9,820.

In 2011 through August 2012: Maziarz stayed on as Energy and Telecommunications

chair when the Republican regained the majority. He collected $115,462 over this 20-month period.

Overall: Altogether, Maziarz collected $216,294 during his four years as chair. In the

three full years he led the committee, he collected an average of $60,250 in industry-

related corporate donations. In the one year Aubertine ran the committee, he collected

$16,250.

MARGIN OF VICTORY


faces little or no electoral competition at the polls. Maziarz won with 68 percent of thevote in 2008 and 2010. Aubertine won by only six percentage points in 2008; he lost in

2010.


19/50

19

In Environmental Conservation

Corporations gave the chairs of the Environmental Conservation committee

Republican senators Carl Marcellino in 2008 and Mark Grisanti in 2011-2012 and

Democrat Antoine Thompson in 2009-2010nearly a half-million dollars between 2008

and August 2012. Overall corporate donations showed a significant switch depending on

which party held power.


In 2008, corporations gave Marcellino $106,762 and Thompson $104,487, nearly the

same amount of money. That changed dramatically in 2009 when Thompson became

the committees chair, as he received $198,361 over two years. Meanwhile, Marcellino

received $84,975 in corporate donations.

In 2011, Grisanti took the committee helm and collected $189,770 in corporate

donations. In the two full years theyve led the committee, Republicans received

$110,455 annually; the Democrat collected $99,181 annually.


Why contribute?

The Environmental Conservation committees purview includes the recycling of

electronic goods, water and air quality and the heavily disputed use of hydraulic

fracturing to obtain natural gas.




20/50

20

In 2008: As chair in 2008, Marcellino collected $5,250 from corporate donors we

determined had an interest in environmental conservation legislation. Thompson, the

ranking minority member, collected $2,428.

In 2009 and 2010: Thompson, now the chair, collected $11,855 in industry donations.

Meanwhile, industry contributions to Marcellino, now the ranking minority member,

increased to $6,750. His take trailed Thompsons by $5,105.

In 2011 through August 2012:Grisanti, now the committees chair, collected $8,329 in

industry contributions.

Overall: Republicans chairs collected $13,579 from corporations wedetermined had an

interest in Environmental Conservation-related matters, an average of $6,790 annually

over the three full years they have run the committee. The Democratic chair collected

$5,928 annually in his two years as chair.

MARGIN OF VICTORY

Money follows power in the form of campaign contributions, even when an incumbentfaces little or no electoral competition at the polls. In 2008, Thompson won by a 6-4

margin; however, Grisanti defeated him in the 2010 election by a less than a percentage

point.


21/50

21

\ In Finance committee

Senator Owen Johnson, the Republican Finance committee chair in 2008, took in limited

dollars from corporate interests. But his successor in 2009-2010, Democratic Senator

Carl Kruger, took in hundreds of thousands of dollars. In 2011-2012, Republican Senator

John DeFrancisco also took in substantial corporate contributions as chair, though

nowhere close to Krugers take. The Finance committee attracted limited corporatedonations from companies we identified as having direct interests in its work.


Corporations flipped the bulk of their contributions to the chairs based on who was in

power. Overall, they contributed $1.5 million to Johnson, Kruger, and DeFrancisco from

2008 to August 2012. That includes $676,665 for Kruger during his one term as chair and

$281,424 for DeFrancisco in 2011 through August 2012.

In 2008: Corporations donated $73,775 to Owen Johnson, who chaired the committee.

In 2009-2010: Kruger brought in $676,665 in his two years as chair. Kruger had

bargained with his Democratic colleagues to take over the Finance committee when the

party won the majority and corporate donors clearly responded to his influential

position. Meanwhile, his predecessor, Johnson, saw corporate donations decrease to

$38,400 during his two years in the minority.


22/50

22

In 2011-2012: DeFrancisco, now the chair, collected $281,424 in corporate donations.

(Kruger resigned from the Senate in December 2011 after a federal indictment on

corruption charges. He was convicted earlier this year.)

Overall: In the two full years Republicans led Finance, they collected an average of

$116,337 annually. Democrat Kruger vastly outraised them, with an average of $408,258

annually in the two years he was chair.

MARGIN OF VICTORY


faces little or no electoral competition at the polls. In 2008 Johnson had a 20 percent

margin of victory and Kruger won with 93.3 percent of the vote. DeFrancisco received

more than 60 percent of the vote in both 2008 and 2010.


23/50

23

In Health committee

The Health committees chairs attracted hefty campaign contributions from

pharmaceutical companies, pharmacies, health insurance and other health-related

interests between 2008 and 2012. Republican Kemp Hannon took in $258,950 as chair in

2008 and 2011-2012; his Democratic counterpart, Thomas Duane, took in $94,350 as

chair in 2009-2010.


Overall, Hannon has attracted about double the amount of corporate donations as

Duane. But corporations, health-related and otherwise, did start sending campaign cash

Duanes way after the Democrats took power in 2009. He received $131,300 in

corporate dollars that year, and another $76,775 in 2010.

But Hannon proved a strong fund-raiser, even in the second year his party was out of

power. Altogether, he has collected $677,625 in corporate donations from 2008 to

2012; Duanes take was $326,750. Between the two senators, they have collected about$1 million.


Why contribute?

The Health committee can determine policy on medical and dental treatment, nursing

homes, womens health care and prescription drugs rules, among other things. These

issues can affect funding and practices in a wide range of for-profit corporations.




24/50

24

In 2008:Hannons take as committee chair in 2008 of $121,950 outpaced industry

contributions to ranking minority member Duane by a 17-1 margin. Duane brought in

only $7,300.

In 2009: A year later, Duane led the committee, which gave his industry fund-raising a

shot in the arm. He received $57,050, a two-to-one advantage over ranking minority

member Hannons $28,800.

In 2010: That trend reversed itself sooner than for other committees, however. In 2010,

Hannons campaign coffers grew by $83,200 in health-related industry contributions,

while Duane took in only $37,300.

In 2011:Hannon again took the Health committees helm when the Republicans gained

control of the senate. As chair in 2011, he brought in another $88,650more than six

times Duanes $13,750 take as ranker. Overall, the two senators brought in industry

contributions of about a half-million dollars$496,350between 2008 and 2012, with

Hannon collecting about two-thirds.

MARGIN OF VICTORY


faces little or no electoral competition. Hannon did face a tough race in 2008, winning

with only 51 percent of the vote. But in 2010, he beat his Democratic opponent by a

three-to-two margin. Duane never faced a viable opponent, winning 86 percent of the

vote in 2008 and 85 percent in 2010. He is retiring from the senate this year.


25/50

25

In Housing committee

The foundation of a sturdy campaign chest in New York State often starts with generous

donations from corporations promoting real estate and construction interests. The

chairs of the senates Housing, Construction and Community Development committee

Republicans John Bonacic in 2008 and Catherine Young in 2011- 2012 and Democrat

Pedro Espada Jr. in 2009-2010can attest to this.


Other corporations flipped the bulk of their contributions from Bonacic to Espada to

Young, depending on who was in power. Overall, corporations (including housing

interests) contributed $1.04 million to Bonacic, Espada and Young from 2008 to August

2012. That includes $389,215 for Republicans Bonacic and Young when they were chairs

of Housing; Espada collected $223,500 when he chaired the committee.


Why contribute?

With the Housing committees power over rent regulation in New York City, grants and

other housing-related matters, its no wonder its chairs attract significant contributions

from the industry.




26/50

26

In 2008: As chair, Bonacic collected $57,600 from industry-related interests. Meanwhile,

Espada saw no industry-related money that year.

In 2009 and 2010: Espada, now the chair, collected $112,625 from contributors we

identified as having real-estate related interests, including $92,725 in his first year in the

job. Meanwhile, Bonacics take dipped to $52,655 as the committees ranking minority

member.

In 2011 through August 2012:Young, now the committees chair, collected $123,556

from real-estate interests. She had collected $12,675 in 2009-2010.

Overall: Altogether, the Housing chairs collected $293,781 since 2008 from the housing-

related interests we identified. In the two full years theyve held the position,

Republicans Bonacic and Young collected an average of $77,515 annually. Espada, the

Democrat, collected an average of $56,313 in his two years at the helm.

MARGIN OF VICTORY


faces little or no electoral competition at the polls. In 2008, Bonacic faced no opposition

and Espada won with 97.5 percent of the vote. Young won by an 85-15 percent marginin her 2010 race.


27/50

27

In Insurance committee

Senators angling for a lucrative committee to lead should consider the Insurance

committee. No matter who led the committeeRepublican James Seward in 2008 and

2011-2012 or Democrat Neil Breslin in 2009-2010money from insurance interests that

we identified and other corporations flowed into their campaign chests.


Corporations flipped the bulk of their contributions from Seward to Breslin and back

again to Seward, based on who was in power. Overall, corporations (including insurance

interests) contributed $1.4 million to Breslin and Seward from 2008 to August 2012.

That includes $379,459 for Breslin during his one term as chair; Seward has collected

$571,261 during his two terms.


Why contribute?

With the power to affect rates, health insurance coverage and other industry practices,

the committees chairs clearly get the attention ofinsurance companies. For example,

the Insurance committee in 2010 considered a proposal requiring prior approval for

health-insurance rate increases, which many insurers vigorously opposed. Eventually,

Governor Paterson included prior approval in his 2010-2011 budget and signed it into

law.




28/50

28

In 2008: As chair, Seward collected at least $102,280 from insurance interests that we

identifiedalmost five times the $21,900 that Breslin, the ranking minority member,

received from them.

In 2009 and 2010: Breslin, now the chair, collected $156,050 from insurance interests

three-and-half times his take when he was in the minority. Meanwhile, Sewards take

dipped to $89,320 as the ranker.

In 2011 through August 2012:Seward, again the committees chair, collected $175,755

from insurance interests. Breslin, back in the minority, collected $63,150 during the

same period.

Overall: Altogether, Seward has received $278,035 from insurance interests as chair, an

average of $99,305 annually in the two full years he has been chair; hes on pace to top

that in 2012. Breslin, at $156,050, averaged $78,025 annually during his two years in the

job.

MARGIN OF VICTORYMoney follows power in the form of campaign contributions, even when an incumbent

faces little or no electoral competition at the polls. For example, Seward faced no

opposition in the 2010 election and won with 72.1 percent of the vote. Breslin won with

72.4 percent of the vote in 2008, though he narrowly won in 2010 and faced a primary

in 2012.


29/50


30/50

30

commercial interests. However, Sampsons leadership position clearly attracted most

corporate donors, not the committees own business.


For Sampson, entities we identified as representing health care and assisted living

interests, which we listed separately, made up 28.7 percent of his corporate take. Real

estate and development interests contributing about half that.

Bonacic received about three of every 10 corporate dollars from real estate and

development interests, with another 11.1 percent from related construction,

contracting and building interests. DeFrancisco took in more health care dollars, with

real estate and development close behind.

Bonacicname 2008 % of Total

TOTALS $128,300 100.0%Real Estate and development $40,350 31.4%

Construction, contracting, building $14,200 11.1%Legal $7,600 5.9%

Gambling and racing $2,000 1.6%

Assisted living $900 0.7%

Sampsonname 2009 2010 TOTALS % of Total

TOTALS $454,190 $822,580 $1,276,770 100.0%Assisted living $98,140 $88,659 $186,799 14.6%


Health care $72,250 $107,668 $179,918 14.1%

Legal $22,025 $37,000 $59,025 4.6%

Insurance $15,000 $66,500 $81,500 6.4%

DeFrancisconame 2011 2012 TOTALS % of Total

TOTALS $158,899 $122,525 $281,424 100.0%Health care $18,050 $18,500 $36,550 13.0%


Lobbyist $11,250 $12,750 $24,000 8.5%

Insurance $10,050 $8,700 $18,750 6.7%

Legal $12,750 $4,350 $17,100 6.1%

MARGIN OF VICTORY


faces little or no electoral competition at the polls. In 2008, DeFrancisco won seven of

every 10 votes in the November election; Sampson, his successor, won his seat with 95

percent. Sampson won with 93 percent in 2010, while Bonacic won by a 6-4 margin.


31/50

31

In Racing & wagering

Overall corporate contributions to the committees chairsRepublicans William Larkin

Jr. in 2008 and John Bonacic in 2011-2012 and Democrat Eric Adams in 2009-2010

outpaced most committees. Beyond that, the change in donation patterns effectively

illustrates how corporate donors switched from Republican to Democrat to Republican.


All three senators raised significant funds from corporations beyond their take from the

racing industry itself. As chair, Adams had a higher average annual take ($120,143) than

Larkin ($92,961) and Bonacic ($84,507) when they led Racing.

Overall, though, Bonacic hit the jackpot with about $100,000 more in corporate

contributions than either Larkin or Adams over the nearly five years we examined.

Corporations gave Bonacic $429,050, while Larkin placed with $332,791 and Adams

showed with $330,060. From 2008 to 2012, the three senators have collected

$1,091,901 in corporate campaign donations.


Why contribute?The Racing committees power over off-track betting, racetracks and casino gambling

proposals also affects hoteliers and other tourism interests.




32/50

32

In 2008: As chair in 2008, Larkin received $7,940 from industry-related interests we

identified. Meanwhile, Adams received no industry money that year.

In 2009 and 2010: Adams, now the chair, collected $38,800 from racing and other

related interests. That was five times the amount of campaign cash given to the

Republican ranking minority member, Senator John Bonacic, who received $7,600

during his two years as the ranker.

In 2011 through August 2012:Bonacic, now the committees chair, collected $54,170

from racing and other contributors with an interest in the industry. Adams, now theranker, pulled in only $7,750.

Overall: Between 2008 and 2012, industry interests gave a total of at least $100,910 to

Racing & Wagering chairs. In the two full years theyve held the position, Republicans

Larkin and Bonacic collected an average of $27,195 annually. Adams, the Democrat,

collected an average of $19,400 in his two years as chair.

MARGIN OF VICTORY


faces little or no electoral competition at the polls. Adams faced no primary and wonwith 93.1 percent of the vote in the general election in 2008, just before he took over

Racing. Before Bonacic became chair, he beat his opponent by 19 points.


33/50

33

In Rules committee

As a rule, the Rules committee chair also serves as the senates majority leader, the

most powerful position in the chamber. No surprise, then, that the committees current

and past chairsRepublicans Joseph Bruno in early 2008 and Dean Skelos in late 2008

and again in 2011-2012 and Democrat Malcolm Smith in 2009-2010--garnered $3.2

million in corporate cash between 2008 and August 2012.


In 2008: As chair in 2008, Bruno collected $227,900 in corporate money in 2008, until he

resigned from his post to fight an indictment on corruption charges. His successor,

Skelos, collected $427,400 in 2008 (including corporate funds donated before he took

over from Bruno).

Democrat Senator Malcolm Smith tallied almost as much as Skeloss 2008 corporate

take as the committees ranking minority member; he collected $421,400. However, our

analysis shows that the bulk of those funds came after the Democrats won control ofthe house in the 2008 election.

In 2009 and 2010: As chair, Smith collected $535,819 in corporate donations, with

$422,369 of that money coming in 2009. However, Smith lost his leadership standing

after mid-year upheaval in the senate, including a short-lived coup in which two

Democrats voted to replace Smith with Skelos as the chambers chief.

Smiths corporate take dropped to $113,450 in 2010. When the committee chairs

power was diluted in mid-2009, corporations shifted their campaign donations to

Majority Leader Sampson.


34/50

34

In 2011 and 2012:Skelos, again Rules chair, collected $545,393 in 2011 and another$347,650 so far in 2012. Meanwhile, Smith, now in the minority, collected $87,950 in

2011 and $10,600 in 2012.

Why contribute?

Most legislation before the senate passes through Rules. Since the senates majority

leader controls which bills go through Rules and to the floor of the senate, corporations

donate generously. When the committee chairs power was diluted in mid-2009,corporations shifted their campaign donations to Sampson.


Whether a Republican or Democrat led Rules, real estate and developers gave donated

the most money to them.

BrunoIndustry 2008 % of Total

TOTALS $227,900 100.0%Insurance $28,000 12.3%

Real Estate and Development $26,500 11.6%

Finance $16,850 7.4%


Lobbyist $14,500 6.4%

SkelosIndustry 2008 2011 2012 TOTALS % of Total

TOTALS $457,400 $545,393 $347,650 $1,350,443 100.0%Insurance $56,200 $61,350 $53,500 $171,050 12.7%

Real Estate and Development $27,850 $79,800 $37,550 $145,200 10.8%

Health care $52,200 $54,000 $24,700 $130,900 9.7%Alcohol $14,300 $26,050 $46,250 $86,600 6.4%

Lobbyist $25,300 $24,250 $20,100 $69,650 5.2%

SmithIndustry 2009 2010 TOTALS % of Total

TOTALS $422,369 $113,450 $535,819 100.0%Construction, contracting, building $83,250 $33,250 $116,500 21.7%

Real Estate and Development $39,140 $37,000 $76,140 14.2%

Health care $32,000 $5,300 $37,300 7.0%

Legal $23,650 $4,000 $27,650 5.2%

Lobbyist $13,500 $11,200 $24,700 4.6%

MARGIN OF VICTORY


faces little or no electoral competition at the polls. In 2008, Smith ran uncontested,

while in 2010 Skelos received 66 percent of the vote.


35/50

35

In Transportation committee

No matter who led the Transportation committeeRepublican senators Thomas Libous

in 2008 and Charles Fuschillo, Jr. in 2011-2012 or Democrat Martin Malave Dilan in

2009-2010money from transportation and other corportations flowed into their

campaign chests. While corporate donations to Republicans did decrease significantly

when the party was out of power, Dilan never outpaced them in fund-raising.


Corporations gave generously to the Transportation chairs, whether or not we identified

them as transportation-related corporations. In 2008, Libous received $366,825 from

corporations, while Fuschillo received $251,609 in 2011 to August 2012. In 2009-2010,

Dilan received $120,350 in corporate donations.

In the two full years they led the committee, Republicans collected $270,567 in

corporation donations annually. The Democrat collected $60,175 annually.


Why contribute?

The Transportation committee influences funding for road repair and capital projects for

highways, bridges and mass transit and legislates rules for the states roadways and

railroad rights-of-way, among other transportation-related matters.




36/50

36

In 2008: As chair, Libous collected at least $110,980 from transportation interests. His

successor, Dilan, received just $2,000.

In 2009 and 2010: Dilan, now the chair, collected $19,100 from transportation interests.

Meanwhile, transportation industry contributions to Libous fell to $47,650still higher

than Dilans take but a loss of $63,330 from the year before.

In 2011 through August 2012:Fuschillo, now the committees chair, collected $64,125

from transportation interests. Dilan, once again in the minority, collected just $3,000during the same period.

Overall:Altogether, the Republicans chairs received $138,125 from transportation-

related interests in 2008 and 2011-August 2012. In the two full years they led the

committee, they collected $59,513 annually. The Democrat collected $20,800 in 2009-

2010$10,400 annually.

MARGIN OF VICTORY


faces little or no electoral competition at the polls. Dilan won with nearly 93 percent ofthe vote in 2008, while Fuschillo won by more than a two-to-one margin in 2010.


37/50

37

In Veterans committee

The chairs of the Veterans, Homeland Security and Military Affairs committee collected

little money we could identify as related to committee business. But no matter who led

the committeeRepublican senators Vincent Leibell in 2008 and Greg Ball in 2011-2012

or Democrat Eric Adams in 2009-2010corporate money from real estate, insurance

and other interests flowed into their campaign chests.


In 2008: As chair, Leibell collected $145,231 in corporate money in 2008. His successor,

Adams, collected $18,375 as a member of the Democratic minority.

In 2009-2010: Adams, now the chair, collected $240,785 in his two years at the helm.

Adams also played a leadership role in the Democratic majority. Leibells take decreased

to $85,110 in 2009; he ran for local office in 2010 and collected only $30,705. (Leibell

later pled guilty to two felony corruption charges and is now in federal prison.)

In 2011 through August 2012:Ball, now the committees chair, collected $323,854 fromcorporations for his campaign chest.

Overall: Altogether, Republicans collected $469,085 in corporate contributions in 2008

and from 2011 to August 2012. In the two full years theyve led the committee, they

collected $171,562 annually. The Democrat collected an average of $120,393 in the two

years he led the committee.


38/50

38

Why contribute?

Leibell and Adams played leadership roles in their conference. Ball, new to the chamber,

is considered a key senator if the Republicans wish to hold the majority. These tables

show the top contributors by industry when each senator chaired Veterans.

Leibell

Industry 2008

% of

Total

TOTALS $145,231 100.0%Real Estate and Development $46,843 32.3%

Insurance $13,325 9.2%

Construction, contracting, building $12,415 8.5%


Legal $6,325 4.4%

Adams

Industry 2009 2010 TOTALS

% of

TotalTOTALS $107,200 $133,585 $240,785 100.0%Real Estate and Development $35,500 $40,600 $76,100 31.6%

Gambling and racing $16,800 $19,500 $36,300 15.1%

Lobbyist $4,050 $10,500 $14,550 6.0%

Construction, contracting, building $3,000 $10,550 $13,550 5.6%

Ball

Industry 2011 2012 TOTALS

% of

Total

TOTALS $197,892 $125,962 $323,854 100.0%Real Estate and Development $47,350 $27,550 $74,900 23.1%Construction, contracting, building $25,700 $23,200 $48,900 15.1%

Health care $25,250 $18,450 $43,700 13.5%

Business services and accounting $8,500 $5,500 $14,000 4.3%

Legal $8,762 $3,000 $11,762 3.6%

MARGIN OF VICTORY


faces little or no electoral competition at the polls. Leibell ran uncontested and Adams

received 93 percent of the vote in 2008. However, Ball won by only two percent in his

2010 race.


39/50

39

APPENDIX A: Methodology

The Big Switch traces one way in which corporations may attempt to influence the

legislative process in New York State: through contributing money directly to the

campaign coffers ofelected officials who lead the New York State Senates 33 standing

committees. There are many other ways a corporate entity can influence policy through

campaign contributions, whether through contributing to lobbyists (who may then

contribute to legislators), party committees or to those in leadership positions. Ourreport strictly analyzes the directcontributions of corporations to these elected officials.

State contributions data

Contribution data come from financial disclosure reports available from the New York

State Board of Elections.*

We combined data from between January 1, 2008, and August

31, 2012 and included data on all sitting senators and successful candidates.

The Board

of Elections data include information on the name and address of the contributor, the

contribution date and amount, and the recipient elected official or candidate. In a small

number of cases, the data do not include a full address.

The Board of Elections uses a number of categories for contributions. For this report we

looked at two: monetary contributions from corporations (Schedule B) and

monetary contributions from all other contributors (Schedule C), which include

contributions from political committees, political action committees (PACs), Limited

Liability Corporations (LLCs), unions, foundations, and other non-corporate

organizations. We do notanalyze monetary contributions from individuals, non-

monetary contributions (such as services rendered), other receipts (such as proceeds

from a sale) or transfers between political committees. Our analysis focuses on

corporate and business entities only and we do notanalyze political committees,

nonprofit or fraternal organizations, or unions. We do this for two reasons. First,

corporate contributions accounted for the bulk (66.2%) of non-individual contributions(unions contributed 22.6% and other entities contributed 11.2%). Second, unions,

because they are made up of and represent individuals, and political committees and

other non-corporate organizations, because they lack a profit motive, contribute for

inherently different reasons than do corporations.

Identification

We identified 48,699 contributions for $46,893,136 to senators between 2008 and

August 2012. From this we identified 21,549 contributors by combining multiple

contributions from those with the same name. This figure somewhat overstates the

actualnumber of contributions, because the data contain a number of alternate names,alternate spellings and misspellings which result in multiple names for single entities.

* http://www.elections.ny.gov/CFViewReports.html

Our analysis included contributions to successful senate candidates in the year running up to the

election.
http://www.elections.ny.gov/CFViewReports.htmlhttp://www.elections.ny.gov/CFViewReports.html


40/50

40

Our next step was to code the contributions by industry and organizational type. We

used a two-step process. The first step was to create a broad set of categories useful for

analyzing contributions from corporate interests, lobbyists and special interests and

professional groups with corporate (or industry) ties.

These included:

Corporate Lobbyist Special interest Political committee (including candidate funds) Union Professional group (non-union)

The second step was to identify an industry category for the particular contributor. We

created broad categories designed to include a range of related business types. Some

contributors were easy to identify: The Coca Cola bottling Company of New York, for

example, was categorized as food and beverage production (businesses involved in

the production, distribution or selling of alcoholic beverages were considered

separately).

Obvious misspellings (such as The Coco-Cola Bottling Company of NY PAC) were

similarly categorized. Other contributors were identified through internet searches

using both the entity name and address. When in doubt, we refrained from categorizing

a business.

Given the size of the database we were not able to identify 100% of the contributors,

although we did link 91% of the overall contribution dollar amount to a particularcontributor category. We were left with three sets of unidentified contributors:

Unidentified corporations (those identified under Schedule B) Unidentified non-corporate Limited Liability Companies (LLCs under Schedule

C)*

Other unidentified non-corporate contributions (Schedule C)When analyzing overall analysis of corporate contributions, we included the first two

categories but excluded the third category. Because our industry-specific analysis

requires a more detailed level of identification, those numbers likely understateindustry-specific contribution amounts due to contributors unmatched to particular

industries.

*Previous studies have shown that LLCs are commonly used by real estate developers. These entities,

which are difficult to link to a particular interest, have become increasingly common as sources of

campaign donations in recent years. See: http://www.thenewyorkworld.com/2012/09/12/litwin-senate-

spending/
http://www.thenewyorkworld.com/2012/09/12/litwin-senate-spending/http://www.thenewyorkworld.com/2012/09/12/litwin-senate-spending/http://www.thenewyorkworld.com/2012/09/12/litwin-senate-spending/http://www.thenewyorkworld.com/2012/09/12/litwin-senate-spending/


41/50

41

The top ten categories in descending order are:

1. Real Estate and Development ($5,651,252)2. Health care ($2,965,169)3. Construction and contracting ($2,258,747)4. Legal ($2,241,039)5. Insurance ($1,840,334)6. Assisted living ($938,481)7. Lobbyists ($935,428)*8. Energy ($905,401)9. Alcohol ($898,685)10.Transportation ($871,929)

Committee selection and analysis

Our next step was to rank the senates 33 committees by the dollar amount committee

chairs received from corporate contributions. We identified the amount given to

Democratic chairs in 2009 and 2010 and Republican chairs in 2008, 2011 and 2012.Senators serving as committee chairs on multiple committees at the same time were

counted separately for each committee.

We first ranked contributions to committee chairs annually, and the overall ranking is

the five-year average of those individual-year rankings. While we could have simply

taken the average dollar amount over the five years, we chose this method for two

reasons. First, it limits the ability of any outlier to skew the overall rankings, especially

when senators in leadership positions received corporate contributions for other

reasons. Second, it allows us to directly compare our partial-year data from 2012 with

the entire-year data from previous years.

We used the overall rankings to select the top fifteen committees in terms of corporate

dollars. (We excluded Alcoholism and Drug Abuse because it did not exist as a stand-

alone committee prior to 2011 and therefore had no potential switch.)

For the fifteen committees we analyzed in detail, we traced corporate contributions to

senators who serve as committee chairs at any point during the five-year 2008-2012

period. We first attempted to identify a particular corporate interest or industry likely

interested in influencing the work of that committee. From there were conducted two

analyses: the first traced the annual contribution trends from that industry, and the

second traced the annual contribution trends from allcorporate interests.

*We treated lobbyists as a stand-alone corporate interest, even though significant numbers also self-

identify as law firms. While lobbyists may represent either corporate or non-corporate interests, they are

themselves businesses.

For sake of simplicity, the analysis does not account for the period in June and July 2009 when

Democratic senators joined with Republicans in an effort to switch senate control.


42/50

42

There were four committees where straight-forward industry-committee relationships

did not exist: codes, judiciary, veterans and rules. For these we did not undertake an

industry-specific analysis, although we did indicate industries that donated most heavily

to committee chairs.

Election results

We reviewed 2008 and 2010 primary and general election result data, available from

the New York State Board of Elections.* We looked at the electoral results for all

contests involving the senates committee chairs, tallying up vote counts, margin of

victory and whether or not the election was contested.

* See http://www.elections.ny.gov (Election Results)
http://www.elections.ny.gov/http://www.elections.ny.gov/


43/50

43

Appendix B: Annual Contributions by Committee*

Civil Service and Pensions

Insurance and legal industry contributions

Senator 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** Total

Robach $29,300 $3,350 $1,500 $7,750 $17,050 $58,950Savino $8,250 $3,750 $2,850 $7,500 $3,750 $26,100

Golden $27,050 $19,400 $11,150 $21,775 $12,225 $91,600

All corporate contributions

Senator 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** Total

Robach $197,546 $29,710 $32,651 $85,000 $67,800 $412,707

Savino $33,600 $27,650 $14,475 $62,575 $32,100 $170,400

Golden $202,308 $175,250 $160,855 $258,500 $169,750 $966,663

Codes

All corporate contributionsSenator 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** Total

Volker $190,349 $24,211 $21,600 $0 $0 $236,160

Schneiderman $22,500 $38,800 $155,250 $0 $0 $216,550

Saland $116,150 $45,025 $177,555 $98,575 $82,850 $520,155

(See profile for industry chart)

Commerce, Economic Development and Small Business

Real estate, construction, gambling and racing, and other business

corporate contributions

Senator 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** TotalAlesi $64,000 $18,650 $27,600 $27,250 $9,250 $146,750

Stachowski $30,928 $11,670 $24,215 $0 $0 $66,813

Gallivan $0 $0 $25,178 $23,043 $23,323 $71,544


Senator 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** Total

Alesi $189,000 $54,300 $101,975 $101,450 $32,900 $479,625

Stachowski $131,435 $107,680 $111,717 $1,100 $0 $351,932

Gallivan $0 $0 $46,214 $58,126 $60,187 $164,527



** January to August only


44/50

44

Consumer Protection

Legal and insurance industry contributions

Senator 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** Total

Fuschillo $27,950 $14,950 $19,400 $17,200 $6,550 $86,050

Monserrate $12,909 $4,000 $0 $0 $0 $16,909

Peralta $0 $0 $16,500 $7,000 $3,300 $26,800

Zeldin $0 $1,150 $4,500 $16,925 $21,880 $44,455


Senator 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** Total

Fuschillo $151,928 $91,500 $94,150 $173,859 $77,300 $588,737

Monserrate $216,659 $37,562 $0 $0 $0 $254,221

Peralta $0 $0 $104,150 $44,800 $51,120 $200,070

Zeldin $0 $16,975 $133,600 $140,200 $211,725 $502,500

Energy and Telecom

Energy and telecommunications industry contributions

Senator 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** Total

Maziarz $43,000 $18,000 $57,832 $79,920 $35,542 $234,294

Aubertine $2,650 $16,250 $9,820 $0 $0 $28,720


Senator 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** Total

Maziarz $226,510 $156,269 $227,321 $388,415 $177,142 $1,175,657

Aubertine $101,995 $95,150 $127,900 $0 $0 $325,045

Environmental Conservation

Energy industry contributions

Senator 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** TotalMarcellino $5,250 $2,650 $4,100 $1,450 $1,500 $14,950

A. Thompson $2,428 $9,175 $2,680 $0 $0 $14,284

Grisanti $0 $0 $0 $4,850 $3,479 $8,329


Senator 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** Total

Marcellino $106,762 $25,450 $59,525 $42,525 $52,675 $286,937

A. Thompson $104,487 $123,296 $75,065 $0 $0 $302,848

Grisanti $0 $0 $8,572 $114,147 $75,623 $198,342



45/50

45

Finance

Finance industry contributions

Senator 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** Total

O. Johnson $4,500 $0 $0 $500 $1,000 $6,000

Kruger $0 $11,000 $13,300 $0 $0 $24,300

DeFrancisco $4,675 $2,425 $5,375 $6,250 $7,500 $26,225


Senator 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** Total

O. Johnson $73,775 $10,600 $27,800 $20,000 $12,700 $144,875

Kruger $130,350 $334,200 $342,465 $9,500 $0 $816,515

DeFrancisco $114,125 $56,570 $66,075 $158,899 $122,525 $518,194

Health

Health, health insurance, pharmacy and pharmaceutical industry contributions

Senator 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** Total

Hannon $121,950 $28,800 $83,200 $88,650 $48,350 $370,950

Duane$7,300 $57,050 $37,300 $13,750 $10,000 $125,400


Senator 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012* Total

Hannon $174,050 $45,850 $165,075 $157,750 $134,900 $677,625

Duane $58,150 $131,300 $76,775 $40,475 $20,050 $326,750

Housing, Construction and Community Development

Real estate and construction industry contributions

Senator 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** Total

Bonacic $57,600 $18,325 $34,330 $17,315 $14,435 $142,005

Espada $0 $92,725 $19,900 $0 $0 $112,625Young $16,775 $7,750 $4,925 $97,431 $26,125 $153,006


Senator 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** Total

Bonacic $128,300 $54,025 $76,810 $114,405 $51,610 $425,150

Espada $0 $157,600 $65,900 $0 $0 $223,500

Young $76,193 $30,953 $24,994 $173,701 $87,214 $393,055

Insurance

Insurance industry contributions

Senator 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** TotalSeward $101,280 $47,580 $41,740 $96,330 $79,425 $366,355

Breslin $21,900 $63,600 $92,450 $30,150 $33,000 $241,100


Senator 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** Total

Seward $202,741 $102,330 $109,980 $195,066 $173,454 $783,571

Breslin $73,225 $149,800 $229,659 $72,800 $111,790 $637,274


46/50

46

Judiciary


Senator 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** Total

DeFrancisco $114,125 $56,570 $66,075 $158,899 $122,525 $518,194

Sampson $40,730 $454,190 $822,580 $111,500 $84,900 $1,513,900

Bonacic $128,300 $54,925 $76,810 $116,905 $53,110 $430,050


Racing, Gaming and Wagering

Racing, gaming and hospitality industry contributions

Senator 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** Total

Larkin $7,940 $0 $200 $120 $1,120 $9,380

Adams $0 $18,300 $20,500 $3,500 $4,250 $46,550

Bonacic $3,300 $4,750 $2,850 $46,450 $7,720 $65,070


Senator 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012* Total

Larkin $92,961 $45,711 $73,234 $45,555 $75,330 $332,791Adams $18,375 $106,700 $133,585 $40,150 $31,250 $330,060

Bonacic $128,300 $54,925 $76,810 $115,905 $53,110 $429,050

Rules


Senator 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** Total

Bruno $227,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $227,900

Smith $421,982 $422,369 $113,450 $87,950 $10,600 $1,056,351

Skelos $457,400 $179,275 $372,100 $545,393 $347,650 $1,901,818


Transportation

Transportation and construction contributions

Senator 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** Total

Libous $110,980 $47,650 $28,075 $54,625 $37,600 $278,930

Dilan $4,625 $19,100 $1,700 $3,000 $12,750 $41,175

Fuschillo $11,775 $13,300 $14,000 $45,025 $19,100 $103,200


Senator 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** Total

Libous $366,825 $212,475 $159,775 $317,300 $223,975 $1,280,350

Dilan $22,875 $73,000 $47,350 $9,900 $46,100 $199,225

Fuschillo $151,928 $91,500 $94,150 $174,309 $77,300 $589,187



47/50

47

Veterans, Homeland Security and Military Affairs


Senator 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012** Total

Leibell $145,231 $20,770 $10,205 $490 $0 $176,696

Adams $85,110 $107,200 $133,585 $40,150 $31,250 $397,295

Ball $30,705 $0 $169,909 $197,892 $125,962 $524,468




48/50

48

Appendix C2008 and 2010 electoral results involving committee chairs

Senator Year VotesVote

Share

Margin of

Victory

Adams (Democratic, Working

Families)2008 79,000 93.1% 86.1%

Adams (D, WFP) 2010 51,598 92.2% 84.4%Alesi (Republican, Independent,

Conservative)2008 85,403 60.3% 20.6%

Alesi (R, I, C) 2010 57,025 53.2% 6.4%

Aubertine (D, WFP) - general 2008 52,908 53.0% 6.0%

Aubertine (D, WFP) - special 2008 29,504 52.53% 5.1%

Ball R primary 2010 10,087 61.1% 22.2%

Ball (R, C) 2010 50,705 51.1% 2.2%

Bonacic (R, I, C) 2008 ran uncontested

Bonacic (R, I, C) 2010 52,533 59.5% 19.0%

Breslin (D, WFP) 2010 53,724 57.1% 14.1%

Breslin (D, WFP, I) 2008 101,794 89.9% 79.7%

DeFrancisco (R, C, I) 2008 87,795 69.0% 38.0%

DeFrancisco (R, C, I) 2010 58,892 64.8% 29.6%

Dilan (D) 2008 57,762 92.5% 85.0%

Dilan (D) 2010 31,483 91.1% 82.2%

Duane (D, WFP) 2008 114,103 85.7% 71.4%

Duane (D, WFP) 2010 71,645 85.2% 70.3%Espada (D) 2008 52,090 97.4% 94.8%

Espada (D) - primary 2010 NA -- lost

Fuschillo (R, I, C) 2008 74,374 60.5% 21.1%

Fuschillo (R, I, C, Tax Revolt Party) 2010 53,439 64.5% 29.0%

Gallivan (R) - primary 2010 8,250 37.3% 4.3%

Gallivan (R, I, C) - general 2010 59,208 58.8% 28.3%

Golden (R, I, C) 2010 28,270 65.8% 31.7%

Grisanti (R, C) 2010 33,243 50.4% 0.8%

Hannon (R, I, C) 2008 60,590 51.3% 2.6%

Hannon (R, I, C, TRP) 2010 45,970 60.3% 20.5%

Johnson, O. (R, C, I) 2008 60,007 59.0% 20.2%

Kruger (D) 2008 42,066 93.3% 86.5%

Larkin (R, I, C) 2008 72,952 61.1% 22.2%

Leibell (R, I, C) 2008 ran uncontested


49/50

49

Senator Year VotesVote

Share

Margin of

Victory

Marcellino (R, I, C) 2008 79,645 60.90% 21.8%

Maziarz (R) - primary 2008 10,179 81.1% 62.2%

Maziarz (R, I, C, WFP) 2008 78,798 68.2% 36.5%

Maziarz (R, I, C, WFP) 2010 59,097 67.6% 35.1%Monserrate (D, WFP) 2008 ran uncontested

Peralta (D, WFP) - general 2010 23,962 82.8% 65.6%

Peralta (D, WFP) - special 2010 10337 71.0% 42.0%

Robach (R, I, D) 2008 62,383 51.7% 3.5%

Saland (R, I, C) 2010 56,680 59.7% 19.4%

Sampson (D) 2008 69,811 95.1% 90.3%

Sampson (D, WFP, I) 2010 43,450 93.4% 86.8%

Savino (D, WFP) 2008 46,386 78.6% 57.2%

Savino (D, I, WFP) 2010 ran uncontested

Schneiderman (D, WFP) 2008 80,832 90.6% 81.3%

Seward (R, I, C) 2008 73,814 63.5% 27.0%

Seward (R, I, C) 2010 ran uncontested

Skelos (R, I, C) 2010 59,252 65.8% 31.6%

Smith (D, WFP) 2008 ran uncontested

Smith (D, WFP) 2010 43,356 73.2% 60.0%

Stachowski (I, WFP) 2010 6,611 7.3% NA - lost

Stachowski (D, WFP) 2008 64,116 53.0% 6.0%

Thompson, A. (D) - primary 2008 18,083 72.6% 45.1%

Thompson, A. (D, WFP) 2008 76,835 60.0% 20.1%

Thompson, A. (D, WFP) 2010 32,724 49.6% NA - lost

Young (R, I, C) 2010 67,212 84.7% 69.4%

Zeldin (R, I, C) 2010 41,063 57.1% 14.2%

* Lost September 2010 primary; vote information not available on Board of Elections site.


50/50

Appendix D: Average corporate contributions

Committee

Republican

leadership:

2008 and 2011

average

Democratic

leadership:

2009 and 2010

average

Civil Service and Pensions $228,023 $21,063Codes $144,462 $97,025

Commerce, Economic

Development and Small

Business

$145,225 $109,698

Consumer Protection $146,064 $70,856

Energy and

Telecommunications$307,463 $95,150*

Environmental Conservation $110,455 $99,181

Finance $116,337 $338,333

Health $165,900 $104,038

Housing, Construction and

Community Development$151,001 $111,750

Insurance $198,904 $189,729

Judiciary $115,515 $638,385

Racing, Gaming andWagering

$104,433 $120,143

Rules $615,346 $267,910

Transportation $346,531 $60,175

Veterans, Homeland Security

and Military Affairs$171,562 $120,393

* Based on 2009 data only (committee reverted to Republican chair in 2010).

The Big Switch CWF

Documents

Transcript of The Big Switch CWF