News Story

Unions, Left-Leaning Groups Dominate List of Largest Political Donors

Twelve of the top 20 spenders are unions

Democrats and many in the media routinely complain about money spent in politics, and they regularly lash out at conservatives and big business. Turns out, unions are the top spenders in politics.

Twelve of the top 20 political donors from 1989 to 2014 have been unions, which overwhelmingly support Democratic causes, according to an analysis done by OpenSecrets.org's Center for Responsive Politics.

Seven of the top 10 donors overall give almost exclusively to politicians or groups on the left.

ActBlue, a political action committee that raises money for Democrats and progressive causes and features Michigan Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mark Schauer on its "Hot List" of state and local of candidates on its website, topped the OpenSecrets list with $97.4 million spent within that time frame. Ninety-nine percent of it supported Democrats.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees was No. 2. The union, which represents Detroit workers and other across the state, spent $60.9 million, with 81 percent going to Democrats; 1 percent went to the GOP.

The parent union for the Michigan Education Association, the National Education Association, came in at No. 3 and spent $58.5 million, with 56 percent going to Democrats. The NEA gave 4 percent to GOP candidates, according to OpenSecrets, a nonpartisan organization that tracks money in politics.

The other unions making the Top 10 for donations from 1989-2014 were:

  • No. 6: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, $45.1 million
  • No. 8: United Auto Workers, $41.7 million
  • No. 9: Carpenters & Joiners Union, $39.8 million
  • No. 10: Service Employees International Union, $38.4 million

All of those labor unions gave overwhelmingly to Democrats, according to OpenSecrets.org.

AT&T Inc. landed at No. 4 for political donations. The telecom company gave $56.7 million between 1989-2014 with 41 percent going to Democrats and 57 percent to Republicans. The National Association of Realtors was No. 5, spending $51.4 million with 44 percent to Democrats and 47 percent to Republicans. Goldman Sachs came in at No. 7, having spent $44.9 million on politics. It gave 53 percent of its money to Democrats and 44 percent to Republicans.

Antony Davies, an associate professor of economics at Duquesne University, said the disturbing thing isn't the amount these special interests spent, but "the asymmetry" in their contributions.

"Corporations tend to spend equally on Republicans and Democrats. So the effect corporations have on legislation is 'around the edges' rather than across the board," Davies said. "Unions, however, are not only the largest contributors but they give almost 90 percent to Democrats. I am not concerned that they give to Democrats versus Republicans, but that they would make any single party so beholden to them is disturbing."

The National Education Association has made a point to say that it represents teachers who are considered to be conservative politically. In the Michigan Education Association's October 2010 magazine, it was reported that NEA statistics showed 45 percent of teachers under 30 classified themselves as conservative and 63 percent of teachers aged 40 to 49 considered themselves conservatives. Yet, OpenSecrets.org reported the NEA gave only 4 percent of its money to GOP campaigns.

The American Federation of Teachers, which represents Detroit teachers, was No. 12 on the list and spent $36.7 million. It gave 89 percent of its money to Democrats and didn't give any to the GOP.

"The list shows that the true money in politics comes from Big Labor," said F. Vincent Vernuccio, director of labor policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. "The unfortunate part is that while union political money may support the interest of union leaders it does not reflect the ideals of many union members. Generally, well over 90 percent of labor's political giving and endorsements go to Democrats, but 40 percent of union members typically vote Republican."

(Correction: This story has been edited since its original posting. Some of the numbers have been updated.)

Michigan Capitol Confidential is the news source produced by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Michigan Capitol Confidential reports with a free-market news perspective.

Commentary

There Is No Relationship Between College Graduates and Economic Growth

It often is argued that the key to grow a state's economy is to increase the population of college graduates.

Yet, over the last decade, this factor has proved to be a poor predictor of economic growth. The states that have a relatively high concentration of college graduates do not expand at rates statistically different from states that do not.

The following chart shows the percentage of each state's adult population with a bachelor’s degree or higher in 2000, and the state's per capita personal income growth from 2000 through 2012 (Michigan is the red dot).

If there were a firm connection between the two, you'd see a clumping of points sloping upward. Clearly, this is not the case.

Still, it's often observed that states with high incomes are those with a high proportion of college grads. But this observation does not tell us anything about how relatively poor states become richer, or, for that matter, how relatively rich states become poorer.

Take Colorado, for example. It was in the top 10 for both per capita personal income and in grads in 2000. It was still in the top 10 for grads in 2012, but had fallen to 16th in per capita personal income.

Michigan's proportion of college graduates didn't change much from 2000 to 2012, but it dropped from 18th highest in per capita personal income down to 36th.

Oregon increased its college population and still dropped nine places in the per capita personal income rankings.

There are states that fit the model that the talent mercantilists (people who assume more college graduates means there is more talent in the economy) are pushing. Vermont continues to have a high level of graduates, and it increased its per capita personal income from 29th to 21st from 2000 to 2012.

(For a look at the relationship between grads and growth using different years and lags, see my 2010 report.)

On an individual level, obtaining a college degree may still, on net, pay dividends for most people (although that may be changing as colleges continue to become more expensive). This, however, does not translate to the state level.

From that perspective, it's better to encourage growth by making it easier for individuals to produce, earn and keep the fruits of their labor — lowering taxes, limiting regulatory burdens and protecting property rights.

Michigan Capitol Confidential is the news source produced by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Michigan Capitol Confidential reports with a free-market news perspective.