December 11, 2003

Statement of Nick Nyhart, Executive Director, Public Campaign

I’d like to start by saying what a privilege it is to work with Antonio Gonzalez and Stephanie Moore as partners on this project. Too often, campaign finance reform is seen as a “process” or “good government” issue, one that is too much of a luxury for organizations representing underserved communities to spend time working on.

However, what the Color of Money study we are releasing today demonstrates is how the current campaign finance system perverts our core value of equality, of one person’s vote mattering as much as any others. Campaign money is the currency of our elections, determining who runs and who wins office. Because the source of that campaign money is largely an elite white, wealthy group, people of color are effectively disenfranchised.

For this report, we analyzed more than $2 billion in individual contributions of more than $200 to federal candidates, parties, and PACs, over the last two election cycles, 2000 and 2002. We compared these data with 2000 Census information on race, ethnicity and income of people ages 18 and over by zip code. The report provides vivid evidence of how our nation’s system of privately financed elections disenfranchises racial and ethnic minorities while providing disproportionate power and access to wealthy and predominantly white neighborhoods. It’s also important to note that 85 percent of the campaign contributions we studied were “hard money” contributions, untouched by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Wednesday to hold up the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act ban on “soft money” contributed to political parties. Unfortunately, this remains true despite the positive decision by the Supreme Court this week to hold up the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). Clearly, the Court believes money does not equal speech and that we can regulate the role of money in politics to enhance democracy. However, big money is still drowning the voices of average people in our electoral system. Regrettably, the Court did not address this core issue, that candidates and communities without access to wealth are essentially shut out of meaningful participation in the process.

Now, I just want to quickly touch on the highlights of our report. Our analysis shows:

• Nearly ninety percent of the more than $2 billion contributed by individuals in the two recent federal elections comes from zip codes that are majority non-Hispanic white. In comparison, just 1.8% of campaign funds come from predominantly Latino zip codes, 2.8% from predominantly African American zip codes, and .6% from predominantly Asian Pacific American neighborhoods.

• The top contributing zip code nationwide—10021, on Manhattan's exclusive Upper East Side—is the source of $28.4 million for federal campaigns in the 2002 and 2000 elections, and is home to 91,514 people ages 18 and over, 86% of whom are non-Hispanic white. Nearly 40% of the households have incomes of $100,000 or more. This one zip code contributes more campaign cash than:

o the 532 zip codes nationwide with the largest percent of African American population, representing 7,654,609 people ages 18 and over, 84 times more people than live in 10021;

o the 533 zip codes nationwide with the largest percent of Latino population, representing 9,355,643 people ages 18 and over, 102 times the number of people writing the zip code "10021" on the return flap of their envelopes;

o the 167 zip codes nationwide with the largest percent of Asian Pacific American population, representing 3,523,852 people ages 18 and over, 39 times the number of people who call 10021 home.

o The zip code 10021 is also the source of more federal campaign money than is contributed by each of 30 states, with adult population ranging from 4.5 million to 365,000.

• The neighborhoods supplying most of the money for federal campaigns in this country are also among the nation's wealthiest. Nearly one out of two federal individual campaign dollars comes from a person living in a wealthy zip code, although just 12% of the adult population lives in these neighborhoods. Meanwhile, just 5.9% of individual campaign dollars—$118.8 million—comes from poor neighborhoods, although nearly 9% of adult Americans live in these communities. Another way to look at it: individuals living in wealthy neighborhoods supply eight dollars for every one dollar that people living in poor communities give to federal campaigns.

• These disparities play out starkly across America’s states and cities.

• Beverly Hills, 90021, was the source of just over $8 million in federal campaign contributions—almost 8% of the total Los Angeles-Long Beach metro area even though its 17,000 adult residents represent just one-quarter of one-percent of the overall population. A change of one zip code digit takes you to 90221, in Compton, whose 31,0000 residents gave just $18,650. On average, adult residents of 90021 gave $466 each in campaign contributions, while residents of 90221 gave 60 cents.

• The Upper East Side of Manhattan, 10021, was the source of $28.4 million in federal campaign contributions—18% of the total New York City metro area even though its 91,514 adult residents represent just 1.3% of the overall population. A trip a few blocks north to the East Harlem zip code of 10035 unveils a striking disparity. The 23,600 adult residents of this zip code gave just $27,850 over the same two elections. On average, adult residents of 10021 gave $310 each in campaign contributions, while residents of 10035 gave $1.17.

• The northwest Washington DC zip code of 20007 was the source of $8.4 million in federal campaign contributions—about 6% of the total contributed by the whole metro area even though its 26,500 adult residents represent just .7% of the overall population. A trip a few miles southeast in the Anacostia zip code of 20020 shows a striking disparity. The 33,700 adult residents of this zip code gave just $55,268 over the same two elections. On average, adult residents of 20007 gave almost $317 each in campaign contributions, while residents of 20020 gave $1.63.

Thank you for attending this press conference today. I will now turn the virtual microphone over to Stephanie Moore.

# # #