Madison - Wisconsin legislators elected last November collectively accepted 70 percent of their large individual contributions in the 2006 election cycle from special interest contributors who could not vote for them, a Wisconsin Democracy Campaign analysis shows.

Wisconsin voters should be alarmed about the high amount of contributions their legislators accept from outside their districts because it makes those officeholders more beholden to their special interest contributors than to the constituents who elect them.

And when 98 of the 116 Senate and Assembly seats were won by the candidate who spent the most money and most of the winners accepted more than half their contributions from outside their districts, it begs the question: Who’s really electing your legislator?

Among WDC’s key findings were:

• Seventy percent or $3.25 million in large individual contributions accepted by the 116 legislators elected in November 2006 came from special interests outside their districts compared to 30 percent or $1.41 million that came from people who could vote for them. The figures represent contributions to the 99 winning Assembly candidates during their two-year election cycle in 2005-06 and contributions to the 17 winning Senate candidates during their four-year election cycle from 2003-06;

• The top 10 out-of-district fundraisers by amount was made up mostly of legislative leaders and winners of targeted races where the parties and special interests accelerated spending to try to pick up a seat held by the other party. Seven legislators – five Republicans and two Democrats – raised more than $100,000 in large individual contributions from outside their districts (Table);

This group was led by Senator Ted Kanavas, a Brookfield Republican who raised nearly $250,000, or 71 percent, of his large individual contributions from 2003 through 2006 from people who could not vote for him. Kanavas was followed by former Republican Senate Majority Leader Dale Schultz who raised nearly $225,000 or 78 percent of his large individual contributions from outside his district from 2003 through 2006. Rounding out the top three was Republican Assembly Speaker Mike Huebsch who raised nearly $163,000, or 87 percent, of his large individual contributions from outside special interests in 2005-06.

• Thirty-four of the 116 legislators who won last November accepted $499,546 in large, out-of-district contributions even though they had no opponent in the primary or general election. Why did they accept large amounts of campaign contributions – let alone from outside special interests – when they didn’t need them? The top recipients were two legislative leaders – Republican Senate Minority Leader Scott Fitzgerald accepted $158,648 or 80 percent of his large individual contributions from outside his district and Democratic Assembly Minority Leader Jim Kreuser accepted $47,453 or 84 percent of his large contributions from people who could not vote for him. Overall, 21 Democrats with no opponents collected $206,394 and 13 Republicans with no opponents accepted $293,152 in large out-of-district contributions;

• Thirty-nine legislators – one in three – got 75 percent or more of their large individual contributions from outside of their districts, including three Democratic legislators who accepted 100 percent of their large contributions from outside contributors.Sixty-one legislators – more than half of the 116 legislators elected last November – got 66 percent or more of their large contributions from outside their districts and 91 legislators accepted 50 percent or more of their large individual contributions from special interests who could not vote for them;

Representative Jason Fields, a Milwaukee Democrat, was among the three who got 100 percent of their large individual contributions from outside donors in 2005-06. He accepted the highest amount of contributions among the three – $9,075. Among his biggest outside contributors were hospital and medical interests at $2,250 and supporters of Milwaukee’s parental school choice program which uses public tax dollars to allow low-income children to attend private and religious schools. They gave him $1,475.

• Overall, out-of-district versus in-district large individual contributions were also split about 70 percent to 30 percent when calculated by house and by party;

Candidates elected in the 99 Assembly races accepted $1.73 million or 70 percent from outside their districts and $730,138 from within their districts. In the 17 Senate races, the candidates who won received $1.51 million or 69 percent of their large individual contributions from outside their districts and $683,907 or 31 percent from people who can vote for them.

By party, the 59 legislative Republicans who won their races got $2.04 million or 70 percent of their large individual contributions from outside their districts and $873,460 from within their districts. The 57 legislative Democrats who won their races accepted $1.21 million or 69 percent from outside their districts and $540,585 or 31 percent of their large individual contributions from their constituents.

• Out-of-district special interest contributions remained the major source of campaign cash for most legislators compared to fundraising in previous election cycles. In the 2004 legislative elections, the winners got $2.65 million, or 66 percent, of their large individual contributions from outside their districts. In the 2002 elections, winners accepted $2.63 million, or 71 percent, of their large contributions from special interests who could not vote for them;

• In addition to direct contributions to candidates from outside special interests, voters in several state Assembly and Senate races were besieged with negative, false mailings, broadcast advertising and other electioneering activities by groups that spent nearly $2.9 million in mostly outside, unreported money to steal legislative elections from the voters.

Phony issue ad groups spent an estimated $2.2 million in outside money on legislative races and other organizations spent $663,993 in disclosed independent expenditures. The phony issue ad independent expenditure groups included the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the state’s largest teachers union; Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the state’s largest business group; the pro-school choice group All Children Matter; the Greater Wisconsin Committee, a union-backed group that supported Democratic candidates; the League of Conservation Voters; Planned Parenthood; American Federation of Teachers; Wisconsin Right to Life; Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation; National Rifle Association; and Wisconsin Family Action, a conservative group that also campaigned in favor of the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, among others.

District Contributions Table