The Color of Money

-5by5: December 21, 2001

One factor seldom discussed in the debate concerning campaign finance reform is the effect of the current system with regards to people of color. As it stands, the system discourages diversity in the political process, and partially if not wholly disenfranchising those who cannot afford to make large campaign contributions. As a result, people of color in general, are politically disenfranchised. Some facts from a report commissioned by the Public Campaign:

*The 26 zip code areas that, combined, provided the most money to federal candidates, parties, and PACs during the 1995-1996 election cycle contributed approximately the same amount as all 2,492 zip code areas in which people of color comprise 50 percent or more of the population ($67,088,583 compared to $66,359,620) — even though the combined population of the 2,492 zip code areas is 60 times greater than the combined population of the 26 zip code areas (41,393,028 compared to 686,075).

*The average per capita contribution from residents of the 26 highest-giving zip code areas was 61 times greater than from residents of the 2,492 zip code areas in which people of color comprise 50 percent or more of the population ($97.79 compared to $1.60) — even though these two zip code sets contributed approximately the same amount of money.

*The donor participation rate (population divided by number of donors) for residents of the 26 highest-giving zip code areas was 54 times greater than it was for residents of the 2,492 zip code areas in which people of color comprise 50 percent or more of the population (4.34 percent compared to 0.08 percent) — even though these two zip code sets contributed approximately the same amount of money.

*The single highest-giving zip code area (10021, in New York City) contributed 67 percent more than all 483 zip code areas in the U.S. in which people of color comprise 90 percent or more of the population ($9,295,990 compared to $5,546,172) — even though 88 times as many people live in the latter set of zip code areas as in the 10021 area (9,468,013 compared to 107,197).

*The average per capita contribution from residents of the 10021 zip code area was 147 times higher than it was for residents of the 483 zip code areas in the U.S. in which people of color comprise 90 percent or more of the population ($86.72 compared to $0.59).

*The participation rate for residents of the 10021 zip code area was 68 times higher than it was for residents of the 483 zip code areas in the U.S. in which people of color comprise 90 percent or more of the population (3.38 percent compared to 0.05 percent).

*The average amount of political contributions from each of the 100 highest-giving zip code areas in the U.S. was 210 times greater than the average amount of political contributions from each of the 100 zip code areas with the highest percentages of people of color ($1,463,034 compared to $6,957).

*The average per capita contribution for the residents of the 100 highest-giving zip code areas in the U.S. was 271 times greater than the average per capita contribution for the 100 zip code areas with the highest percentages of people of color ($65.00 compared to $0.24).

*The participation rate for the 100 highest-giving zip code areas in the U.S. was 109 times greater than the participation rate for the 100 zip code areas with the highest percentages of people of color (3.28 percent compared to 0.03 percent).

In the 1996 elections, 92 percent of the House races and 88 percent of the Senate races were won by the candidate who spent the most money. In the last four presidential primaries the candidate who had the most money by January 1 of the election year has always won his party's nomination - Democrats and Republicans alike. Clearly, money is steering the election process. The public knows more today than ever before about the economic interests behind campaign contributors thanks to academic and public-interest-group research. "The Color of Money" report is an attempt to add a whole new dimension to that body of research by looking at race and campaign contributions.

It analyzed government data to paint a portrait of the people who give and, by extension, those who are shut out. Over and over, in city after city, it was found that the vast majority of contributions came from areas that are primarily white and wealthy. The pattern held in all 50 states. The findings depict the inherent inequality in our campaign finance system and how it puts people of color at a serious political disadvantage.

For example, just one zip code - 10021, in New York City - contributed $9.3 million. There are only 107,000 people in that exclusive slice of Manhattan real estate and the vast majority (91 percent) are white. On the other side of the lop-sided equation are 9.5 million residents of the 483 U.S. communities that are more than 90 percent people of color. They gave $5.5 million.

The results bolster what civil rights leaders have been saying for years. Nelson Rivers III, director of the Southeast Region, NAACP, explained the effect of money-based politics on his community. "We're impacted in a negatively disproportionate way. Since African-Americans have decidedly less income, less disposable money than other people in the country, we're at a disadvantage when money is the deciding factor in whether you can participate. . . . While other folk have the luxury of picking between two people who still might represent them in some way, for us it's a matter of having representation or none."

There are some 2,500 zip codes with more than 50 percent people of color and a total population of 41 million. In those areas, it has been determined that only 8 out of every 10,000 people is a political player, i.e., gives a contribution of $200 or more. Compare that to the 26 top-giving zips, where more than 4 in 100 give a contribution. The overall average participation rate in the U.S. at slightly more than 2 people per 1,000.

Non-contributors are excluded from the system in two major ways. First, they are not able to help their candidates of choice run and win. Second, incumbent lawmakers largely ignore non-contributors because they hold no promise of financial support for the next election. A 1997 study surveyed 1,100 $200-plus contributors.2 Eighty percent said office-holders regularly pressure donors for contributions. Non-contributors are not being solicited by their members of Congress for contributions nor, therefore, are they being asked about their views and concerns. Moreover, half of the donors in the survey said that contributors regularly pressure office-holders for favors and seek access to government. And although our study did not attempt to measure other political activity by non-contributing Americans, it seems highly unlikely that they would be contacting or attempting to pressure their elected representatives at the rates that contributors, embodied by their door-opening dollars, feel free to do. It is ironic that this view of disenfranchisement is reinforced by opponents of campaign finance reform, who stress that giving is a way of participating in our democracy.

What does this mean when the time comes to write the laws? It may mean that a senator or representative will blatantly do a favor - cast a vote, write a loophole into a law - to please a campaign contributor. And this does happen. But the more long-term and socially ruinous effect is that the people we send to Washington no longer look to and listen to those segments of society that don't give campaign money. The tougher the race (or the longer they stay in office), the more time they spend with contributors (vs. constituents) the more they lose touch with the concerns of those ordinary folk back home. The lawmakers no longer have the luxury to talk to their one-time friends and neighbors about school safety and child care and job security. Instead, they have to shake hands at high-donor cocktail parties where they'll hear about capital gains and inheritance taxes and the negative impact of a minimum-wage hike. Whose concerns will be heeded: those of the top 100 donor communities (80 percent white) that gave an average of $1.4 million or the 100 communities with the highest concentration of people of color that gave an average of $7,000?

Genethia Hayes, executive director of the Los Angeles chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Council, offered a view of how the campaign financing system for judicial elections plays out for Latinos, African Americans and other minority groups in Los Angeles. "The fundamental right of communities of color and the poor are being abridged [by the campaign finance system] . . . . They have no hope of moving into judicial offices - the very offices which decide criminal justice issues that affect them. . . . If we are unable, because of this whole notion of the acquisition of wealth and amassing of wealth, to put forth a viable campaign - not a viable candidate but a viable campaign - then, in fact, our constituents don't have the opportunity to participate in the electoral process and vote for the candidate of their choice."

The gulf between the potential interests and concerns of the giving and non-giving groups is perhaps best illustrated by average income figures. In the three highest-giving zip codes, the average per capita income was $71,610. In zip code areas with 75 percent or more people of color, the average per capita income was $7,730. There are barely 160,000 residents in those three highest-giving zips, yet they gave as much as the 20 million people in the 1,050 zip code areas with 75 percent or more people of color.