The Political 1% of the 1% in 2012 - Sunlight Foundation Blog

8/19/2019 The Political 1% of the 1% in 2012 - Sunlight Foundation Blog

1/21


http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/ 1

In the 2012 election, 28 percent of all disclosed political contributions came from just 31,385

people. In a nation of 313.85 million, these donors represent the 1% of the 1%, an elite class

that increasingly serves as the gatekeepers of public office in the United States.

More than a quarter of the nearly $6 billion in contributions from identifiable sources in the last

campaign cycle came from just 31,385 individuals, a number equal to one ten-thousandth of the U.S.

population.

In the first presidential election cycle since the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC,

candidates got more money from a smaller percentage of the population than any year for which we

have data, a new analysis of 2012 campaign finance giving by the Sunlight Foundation shows. These

donors contributed 28.1 percent of all individual contributions in the 2012 cycle, a record high.

One sign of the reach of this elite “1% of the 1%”: Not a single member of the House or Senate

elected last year won without financial assistance from this group. Money from the nation’s 31,385

biggest givers found its way into the coffers of every successful congressional candidate. And 84

percent of those elected in 2012 took more money from these 1% of the 1% donors than they did from

all of their small donors (individuals who gave $200 or less) combined.

This elite 1% of the 1% dominated campaign giving even in a year when President Barack Obama

reached new small donor frontiers (small donors are defined as individuals giving in increments of less

than $200). In 2014, without a presidential race to attract small donors, all indicators are that the 1% of

the 1% will occupy an even more central role in the money chase.

OpenGov Voices

A megaphone for

the movement

Tech Tuesday

How we use

technology to

In-Depth Series

All Technology Policy Investigations Multimedia

F o l l o w U s

L O G I N

BLOG TOOLS APIS POLICY ISSUES PRESS ABOUT CONTACT JOINDONATE

by Lee Drutman

The Political 1% of the 1% in 2012

JUNE 24, 2013, 9 A.M.

The 1% of the 1%

How a small

minority funds

our elections

Where are the 1% of the

1%? Big donors of

elections past already

fueling 2016

More top-heavy, more

Republican: The One

Percent of the One Percent

over time

The Political One Percent

of the One Percent:

Megadonors fuel rising

cost of elections in 2014

Robust Lobbying

Disclosure Needed to

Address Advantage of the

1% of the 1%

More Stories

Tweet 3.1kLike

http://sunlightfoundation.com/https://www.facebook.com/sunlightfoundationhttps://twitter.com/sunfoundationhttps://github.com/sunlightlabshttp://sunfoundation.tumblr.com/https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fsunlightfoundation.com%2Fblog%2F2013%2F06%2F24%2F1pct_of_the_1pct%2F&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&text=The%20Political%201%25%20of%20the%201%25%20in%202012&tw_p=tweetbutton&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsunlightfoundation.com%2Fblog%2F2013%2F06%2F24%2F1pct_of_the_1pct%2F&via=sunfoundationhttp://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/series/1of1/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/27/robust-lobbying-disclosure-needed-to-address-advantage-of-the-1-of-the-1/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2015/04/30/the-political-one-percent-of-the-one-percent-megadonors-fuel-rising-cost-of-elections-in-2014/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2015/05/13/more-top-heavy-more-republican-the-one-percent-of-the-one-percent-over-time/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2015/09/11/where-are-the-1-of-the-1-big-donors-of-elections-past-already-fueling-2016/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/author/ldrutman/http://sunlightfoundation.com/donate/http://sunlightfoundation.com/join/http://sunlightfoundation.com/contact/http://sunlightfoundation.com/about/http://sunlightfoundation.com/press/http://sunlightfoundation.com/issues/http://sunlightfoundation.com/policy/http://sunlightfoundation.com/api/http://sunlightfoundation.com/tools/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/http://sunlightfoundation.com/login/sunlight/http://sunfoundation.tumblr.com/https://github.com/sunlightlabshttps://twitter.com/sunfoundationhttps://www.facebook.com/sunlightfoundationhttp://sunlightfoundation.com/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/multimedia/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/investigations/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/policy/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/technology/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/series/tech-tuesday/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/series/opengov-voices/http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-02-08/politics/35444797_1_small-donors-campaign-finance-institute-reelection-campaignhttp://bulk.sunlightfoundation.com/1of1/one_pct_of_the_one_pct.csv


2/21



The nation’s biggest campaign donors have little in common with average Americans. They hail

predominantly from big cities, such as New York and Washington. They work for blue-chip

corporations, such as Goldman Sachs and Microsoft. One in five works in the finance, insurance and

real estate sector. One in 10 works in law or lobbying. The median contribution from this group of elite

donors? $26,584. That’s a little more than half the median family income in the United States.

THE POLITICAL 1% OF THE 1%

Watch a video summary of The Political 1% of the 1%

Visualizing the inequalities

What does 31,385 people look like? This elite group of donors would occupy a little more than a third

of the seats in Fedex Field, where the Washington Redskins play football (Figure 1). But they pay a

much higher price of admission than ticket-holders there. The smallest contribution required to make it

into the 1% of 1% of political donors last year? $12,950.

Figure 1.

How unequal was political giving in 2012? If we let the Verizon Center (capacity of about 20,000) stand

in for the entire U.S., it would be as if just two people bought out the best 5,610 seats. Figure 2 shows

what that looks like.

Figure 2.

transform

government

Wednesday's

Winners

Transparency

triumphs and

opengov victories

Outside the

Beltway

Shining a light on

the opengov world

beyond Washington

Elections 2016

How money in

politics and civic

tech are shaping the

2016 cycle

Dig Into Data

Scout

Party Time

Influence Explorer

Follow UsGet news, videos, tips and more

from Sunlight.

Facebook

Twitter

Flickr

YouTube

Tumblr

RSS Feeds

Sunlight Foundation blog

1% of the 1%

http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/rss/series/1of1/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/rss/http://sunfoundation.tumblr.com/https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDCQQPn-ROl_47x3s9ED84Qhttp://www.flickr.com/sunlightfoundationhttp://twitter.com/#!/sunfoundationhttp://www.facebook.com/sunlightfoundationhttp://influenceexplorer.com/http://politicalpartytime.org/https://scout.sunlightfoundation.com/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/series/elections-2016/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/series/outside-the-beltway/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/series/wednesdays-winners/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=042xZQZPZjU


3/21



The price of entry to be in this elite group of donors has risen steadily over the years (Figure 3). In

1990, a single $2,000 contribution (about $3,700 in 2012 dollars) could put you in the 1% of the 1%.

By 2000, the minimum contribution had risen to $5,700. It crossed the $10,000 mark for the first time

in 2008, reaching $11,000.

Figure 3.

Why the increase? No doubt, the Citizens United and SpeechNow decisions, which paved the way for

unlimited contributions to super PACs, are a key factor. Of the 1% of the 1%’s $1.68 billion in the 2012

cycle, $500.4 million entered the campaign through a super PAC (including almost $100 million from

just one couple, Sheldon and Miriam Adelson ). However, more money ($670.5 million) went directly to

parties. The vast majority of 1% of the 1% donors – 87.5 percent – contributed absolutely nothing to

super PACs, giving instead directly to candidates, parties and traditional PACs. Only 5.5 percent of the

1% of the 1% donors (1,635 individuals) contributed more than $10,000 to super PACs.

We should also note that this total does not include the at least $305 million in “dark money” in the

2012 election, since the donors behind that spending remain anonymous. But we can reasonably

http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/outside-spending/noncommittees/http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/tag/Sheldon%20Adelson/


4/21



speculate that most of them are in the 1% of the 1%, and had we been able to include them, the share

of 2012 money coming from the 1% of the 1% would almost certainly have been higher.

The rising tide of the 1% of the 1%

The 28.1 percent of total money from the 1% of the 1% marks a dubious new landmark in the history

of modern elections – well above the previous high of 21.8 percent in 2006 (Figure 4). In 2010, 20.5

percent of the money going to federal candidates and campaign committees came from the most

generous 0.01 percent of Americans.

It’s especially striking – and surprising – that the new record should have been set in a presidential

election year. The race for the White House attracts more small donors than mid-term elections. In

recent presidential election cycles (2000, 2004 and 2008), the slice of donations coming from the 1%

of the 1% held solidly around 17 percent. This year’s 28.1 percent share marks a significant break with

the past. It is a new level in political contribution inequality.

Figure 4.

Our data also cast doubt on the stereotype about big money being politically pragmatic. Less than four

percent of the most generous political donors spread their money close to evenly between the two

parties (a 60-40 split or less). Four out of five 1% of the 1% donors were pure partisans, giving all of

their money to one party or the other.

While both parties draw on the generosity of these elites, 40 percent more 1% of the 1% donors

predominantly supported Republicans than predominantly supported Democrats. We also find that

conservative Republican members of Congress depend more on 1% of the 1% donors than moderate

Republicans do, suggesting a polarizing effect of big money, at least on the political right. There is no

corresponding relationship among Democrats.

Why we should care

The 1% of the 1% are the political gatekeepers of American politics. Through countless independent

phone calls and fundraising events, they set the boundaries of acceptable political topics and positions

(i.e., what they care about and believe). They determine who is an acceptable candidate (i.e., those

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-08/small-donors-may-make-politics-even-worse.html


5/21



individuals whom they trust to represent their interests).

Their influence is very rarely found in simple favor trading. Rather, their influence arises from something

subtler yet far more significant: shaping the limits of acceptable political discourse, one conversation

at a time.

In the 2012 cycle, winning House members raised on average $1.64 million, or about $2,250 per day

during the two-year cycle. The average winning senator raised even more: $10.3 million, or $14,125

per day.

That money has to come from somewhere. And while it could come from small donors, it’s much more

time-efficient to host a $1,000-a-plate fundraiser, or spend an afternoon calling corporate executives,

hedge fund managers, lawyers, lobbyists, political action committee managers and others in a position

to give a few thousand dollars. Rare is the candidate with enough small donor appeal to bring in the

kind of money needed to run a successful campaign.

This places limits on what is politically possible. As Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., put it succinctly at a

recent event at Yale University, recalling his time fundraising in his recent (2012) campaign: “I talked a

lot more about carried interest inside of that call room than I did in the supermarket.” (“Carried

interest” refers to profits that private equity and hedge fund managers earn on investments.)

Murphy knows it is much easier to raise the kind of money he needs if he remains sympathetic to the

concerns of private equity and hedge fund managers – and much harder if he supports increasing the

tax rate on carried interest. Murphy is not alone. Every member of Congress faces the same concern.

They don’t want to upset the people most likely to fund their campaigns, and will try their best to avoid

doing so. As costs of elections for office run higher and higher, candidates and parties have less

freedom to cross a potential donor. It amounts to what Lawrence Lessig has called “dependence

corruption” – the way in which political discourse must necessarily shift to reflect the demands and

opinions of the most active donors.

These concerns are likely even more acute for the two parties. In 2012, the National Republican

Senatorial Committee raised more than half (54.2 percent) of its $105.8 million from the 1% of the 1%,

and the National Republican Congressional Committee raised one third (33.0 percent) of its $140.6

million from the 1% of the 1%. Democratic party committees depend less on the 1% of the 1%. The

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee raised 12.9 percent of its $128.9 million from these top

donors, and the Democratic Congressional Committee raised 20.1 percent of its $143.9 million from

1% of the 1% donors.

Party aside, what all these donors have in common is the personal wealth that allows them to

contribute tens of thousands of dollars in an election cycle. And as political scientists Benjamin Page,

Larry Bartels and Jason Seawright explain in a recent paper, the rich are not like the rest of us – and

not just because they have more money. They also have very different political priorities, particularly on

issues of economics and government spending. And as political scientist Marty Gilens has shown,

when rich people and poor people disagree on policy, elected officials almost always side with rich

people.

Where the money goes

Figure 5 breaks down all the sources of money in the 2012 election, comparing 1% of the 1% donors

with other over-$200 donors, small donors and a few other sources of money. (PACs are not included

separately in this total because they are conduits for individual donations). This figure also breaks

http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/08/15/what-do-rich-political-donors-get-for-their-contributions/http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~jnd260/cab/CAB2012%20-%20Page1.pdfhttp://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.htmlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEysKkI5v7c&feature=share&list=PLqHnHG5X2PXAo8rhYsOVedp0V8Kiwnylhhttp://politicalpartytime.org/


6/21



down where the 1% of the 1% money went. In brief: $410 million went directly to candidates ($235

million to Republicans, $173 million to Democrats); $671 million went to party committees ($405 million

to Republican committees, $265 to Democratic committees); $500 million went to super PACs; $89

million went to traditional PACs.

Figure 5.

For those more interested on the inequality of giving within the 1% of the 1%, we have more detail

here. The quick summary: Those in the top 10 percent of the 1% of the 1% (the top 3,139 givers in

American politics) account for about half of the total spending by the 1% of the 1%. More than half of

their contributions went to super PACs.

Congressional dependence

Every single member of Congress elected in 2012 received at least some money from the 1% of the

1% (Figure 6). Only Reps. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., ($4,750 from eight 1% of the 1% donors) and Jose

Serrano, D-N.Y., ($7,000 from six 1% of the 1% donors) received less than $10,000 total. Both

represent safe seats in poor, urban districts, and both get roughly 75 percent of their campaign money

from PACs.

Figure 6.

http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/where-the-1-of-the-1-money-goes/


7/21



Of the 435 House members elected in last year, 372 (86 percent) received more from the 1% of the 1%

than they did from every single small donor combined (Figure 7). And almost half (202, or 46.4 percent)

received more than three times as much money from these large donors than they did from all small

donors combined.

The 33 senators elected in 2012 were only slightly less dependent on the 1% of the 1%. The majority

(20, 61 percent) got more money from the top donors than from all small donors combined. And one

third (11) got three times as much money.

Figure 7.


8/21



For an interactive version of the above graph, click here or on the above graph.

For bulk data on all members elected in 2012, click here.

Combined, winning House and Senate candidates in 2012 received 17.1 percent of their direct

campaign contributions from the 1% of the 1%, as compared to 13.0 percent from all small (under

$200) donors. Overall, the largest share of funding for Congress comes from PACs, which contributed

32.8 percent of the money congressional candidates received. If we combine PAC contributions and

1% of the 1% contributions, that’s exactly half of all winning Congressional candidate campaign

contributions coming from either very wealthy individuals or political action committees. (Of course,

some of the PAC money was originally 1% of the 1% money, since 1% of the 1% donors gave $89.4

million to PACs in 2012).

Overall, a total of 32 members of Congress (24 House members and eight senators) elected in 2012

got at least 25 percent of their total funds from 1% of the 1% donors. And 72 House members and 19

senators got at least 20 percent of their funds from these donors.

Table 1 (below) highlights the 20 members of Congress who depended on the 1% of the 1% for the

biggest share of their contributions in 2012. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., tops the list.

Four out of every ten dollars contributed to her campaign came directly from 1% of the 1% donors (as

http://bulk.sunlightfoundation.com/1of1/candidates.csvhttp://sunlightfoundation.com/content/1of1/small_donors_to_1of1/


9/21



compared to just five percent from small donors). House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, is also in the

top 10 with 31.8 percent of his contributions coming from 1% of the 1%, as is House Majority Leader

Eric Cantor, R-Va., at 34.2 percent.

For more on key Congressional leaders, click here

Boehner also had the highest number of donors from the 1% of the 1% giving to his campaign (2,525

individuals), and accordingly received the most total money from them ($6.8 million). That puts him just

ahead of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., for most 1% of the 1% donors (Warren had 2,361) and

ahead of Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., for most money from 1% of the 1% donors (Kaine raised $5.1 million).

However, since Warren and Kaine both ran in highly competitive Senate raises and raised remarkable

sums (Warren at $42 million, Kaine at $18 million), they don’t show when we look at the top 20 by

share of funds from the 1% of the 1%.

The top 20 list (ranked by share of contributions from the 1% of the 1%) includes slightly more

Democrats (12) than Republicans (8). Even though 1% of the 1% donors concentrate in major cities,

the geographic diversity of these top candidates is impressive. Only New York (3) and Florida (3) have

more than one representative on the list.

Table 1.

Members of Congress with the highest share of donations from the 1% of the 1%,

2012

Candidate State ChamberShare from the 1%

of the 1%

Share from small

donors

Total

raised

Nancy Pelosi (D) CA H 40.4% 4.8% $2,298,844

Roger Williams (R) TX H 38.7% 1.5% $2,736,485

Sheldon Whitehouse

(D)RI S 36.5% 6.4% $3,280,685

Nita M. Lowey (D) NY H 34.2% 3.9% $2,125,851

Eric Cantor (R) VA H 34.2% 4.9% $7,619,202

Jeff Flake (R) AZ S 33.3% 13.9% $8,967,955

Joe Kennedy III (D) MA H 32.6% 0.0% $4,193,094

Bill Foster (D) IL H 32.3% 11.8% $2,956,287

John Sarbanes (D) MD H 31.8% 5.4% $1,010,367

John Boehner (R) OH H 31.0% 26.7% $21,981,789

Jon Tester (D) MT S 29.7% 13.1% $11,881,646

Ron DeSantis (R) FL H 29.1% 6.1% $1,145,859

Ted Cruz (R) TX S 28.8% 17.2% $13,627,317

Jerrold Nadler (D) NY H 28.4% 2.4% $1,114,468

Orrin G. Hatch (R) UT S 28.3% 0.6% $8,829,902

John A. Barrasso (R) WY S 28.3% 4.5% $4,007,574

Tim Kaine (D) VA S 28.2% 17.0% $18,008,380

http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/house-leaders/


10/21



Ted Deutch (D) FL H 27.9% 2.6% $1,263,534

Kirsten Gillibrand (D) NY S 27.6% 8.5% $15,577,940

Debbie Wasserman

Schultz (D)FL H 27.6% 21.0% $3,610,339

For complete data on all members elected in 2012, click here.

Partisanship

Republicans are about 40 percent more common than Democrats among the 1% of the 1%. While

almost half (49.8 percent) of the 1% of 1% gave at least 90 percent of their money to Republicans, just

over one third (35.5 percent) of these donors gave at least 90 percent to Democrats.

Figure 8 bins the donors by their level of partisanship based on how much they gave to parties and

candidates. Since super PACs are technically independent, we do not include donations to these

groups in our totals.

Figure 8.

Meet the 1% of the 1%

Who are the 31,385 individuals who contributed 28.1 percent of the traceable money in the 2012

election?

A few of them are well-known. Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam contributed a combined $97

million. Harold Simmons, who built a business empire around buying Superfund sites, contributed $25

million. Bob Perry, the late Texas real estate mogul, contributed $23.5 million. New York City Mayor

Michael Bloomberg is the seventh largest donor, at $10.6 million. Many of the other names atop the list

will be familiar to readers of our “Stealthy Wealthy” series.

But our analysis is not focused on specific individuals, many of whose campaign largesse and

motivations already have been well-scrutinized. Rather, our interest is in examining the role of this elite

group of donors as the collective gatekeepers of public office.

Mostly, these donors tend to come from top corporate positions, most commonly in the worlds of

finance and law. They most frequently hail from New York and Washington. Of donors for whom we

http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2012/sketch-stealthy-wealthy/http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2013/bob-perrys-legacy-political-giving/http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2012/simmons/http://bulk.sunlightfoundation.com/1of1/candidates.csv


11/21



know the gender, 71.8 percent are male.

For a list of all 31,385 donors in the 2012 one percent of the one percent, click here

Top Professions

While the most common occupation listed among these donors is “Retired” (13.1%), the plurality with

identifiable professions hail from top corporate jobs: 8.8 percent identify themselves as “president,”

8.7 percent as “attorney” or “lawyer” and 8.5 percent as “CEO.” While there is some overlap among

the corporate jobs (for example, various individuals list themselves as “CEO and Chairman,” or

“President/CEO,” etc.), a total of 5,639 top donors (17.0 percent) list themselves as at least one of the

following: “CEO," "President," "Chairman,” “Executive” or “Owner."

Looking purely at the monetary contributions, CEOs and chairmen (frequently the same person)

account for the largest raw percentage of donations, which tells us that they contribute, on average, a

bit more than the average member of the 1% of the 1%. By contrast, retirees give a little less on

average, accounting for only 10.8 percent of the contributions as compared to 13.2 percent of donors.

It’s also worth highlighting that 7.7 percent of the 1% of the 1% list their occupation as “homemaker.”

Since homemakers are rarely compensated for their work, we are left to assume that their ability to

contribute tens of thousands of dollars is due to spousal or inherited wealth. “Homemaker” is the listedoccupation for 27.4 percent of the female 1% of the 1% donors, while “Retired” is the listed

occupation of 17.5 percent of the female 1% of the 1% donors. (As a basis of comparison, 11.5

percent of the male 1% of the 1% donors list their occupation as “retired.”)

Table 2.

Most common professions among the 1 percent of the 1 percent, 2012

Occupation DonorsShare of 1% of the 1%

donors

Total

donations

Share of 1% of the 1%

donations

Retired 4131 13.2% $181,663,338 10.8%

President 2764 8.8% $137,886,277 8.2%

Attorney 2738 8.7% $104,658,811 6.2%

CEO 2671 8.5% $230,678,958 13.7%

Homemaker 2432 7.7% $117,901,507 7.0%

Chairman 2428 7.7% $223,832,610 13.3%

Executive 1886 6.0% $101,835,685 6.1%

Investor 1638 5.2% $106,385,270 6.3%

Owner 1015 3.2% $42,177,945 2.5%

Top Employers

While thousands of different employers are represented among the 1% of the 1%, certain names pop

up more frequently than others. At the top of the list (by far), is Goldman Sachs, with 85 employees

contributing $4.67 million between them. Blackstone, the private equity firm, is next with 49

employees, and the major law firm, Kirkland & Ellis, is third on the list with 40 employees. Financial and

legal/lobbying firms dominate the top 20.

http://bulk.sunlightfoundation.com/1of1/one_pct_of_the_one_pct.csv


12/21



Besides Goldman and Blackstone, financial firms Morgan Stanley (38 donors), Elliot Management (24),

Citigroup (23), Credit Suisse (23), Fidelity (23) and Bain Capital (21) also make the top 20 list. That adds

up to 248 major donors from top financial firms. Elliot donors contributed on average $184,830, the

highest of any of the top employers. Bain Capital came in second, at $131,634.

The top legal and lobbying firms, after Kirkland and Ellis, are Akin Gump (36), Podesta Group (30),

Skadden Arps (29), DLA Piper (21) and Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck (20). That adds up to 176

major donors from top law and lobbying firms.

Rounding out the list of organizations with the most employees in the 1% of the 1%: Harvard

University at 33, Google at 33, Microsoft at 31 and Comcast at 26. One name that may not be familiar

to Washington insiders is the Rothman Institute, a Philadelphia-area orthopedic group with 23

employees in 1% of the 1%. It is the only healthcare organization on this list. Its 1% of the 1% donors

also gave the least on average: $25,668.

Table 3.

Most common employers among the 1% of the 1% percent, 2012

Employer 1% of the 1% Donors Total donations Average donations

Goldman Sachs 85 $4,670,207 $54,944

Blackstone 49 $2,236,050 $45,634

Kirkland and Ellis 40 $1,526,949 $38,174

Morgan Stanley 38 $1,241,241 $32,664

Comcast 37 $1,222,705 $33,046

Akin Gump 36 $1,643,941 $45,665

Google 33 $1,352,312 $40,979

Harvard 33 $1,236,391 $37,466

Microsoft 31 $1,049,667 $33,860

Podesta Group 30 $1,052,179 $35,073

Skadden Arps 29 $1,239,387 $42,737

Patton Boggs 26 $925,528 $35,597

Elliot Management 24 $4,435,923 $184,830

Credit Suisse 23 $705,788 $30,686

Rothman Institute 23 $590,366 $25,668

Citigroup 23 $746,650 $32,463

Fidelity 23 $726,414 $31,583

DLA Piper 21 $864,496 $41,166

Bain Capital 21 $2,764,306 $131,634

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck 20 $627,016 $31,351

Top Sectors


13/21


14/21



Washington has the second most 1% of the 1% donors, and a much higher rate per 10,000: 12.87

donors. If the 1% of the 1% were equally distributed across the country, by definition each city would

have one such donor per 10,000 people. Among the cities with the ten most donors, Greenwich,

Conn., has by far the highest rate of 1% of the 1% donors – 39.34 donors. Greenwich is a popular

home for individuals who work in high finance.

Houston, Los Angeles and Chicago round out the top five. To see how many one percent of the one

percent donors are in your city or town, click here for data on donors by location

Table 5.

Cities with the most 1% of the 1% donors

City Donors Donors per 10,000 Total given

NEW YORK, NY 2,259 2.71 $152,697,066

WASHINGTON, DC 814 12.87 $30,820,906

HOUSTON, TX 664 3.07 $68,272,330

CHICAGO, IL 603 2.22 $45,865,679

LOS ANGELES, CA 598 1.55 $40,424,728

DALLAS, TX 507 4.08 $57,075,447

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 498 6.03 $29,840,911

BOSTON, MA 266 4.18 $17,199,606

ATLANTA, GA 262 5.9 $14,270,899

http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct_by_state


15/21



GREENWICH, CT 240 39.34 $13,751,384

The cities with the highest rate of individuals belonging to the 1% of the 1% are all wealthy suburbs. In

Chevy Chase, Md., a wealthy suburb just outside of northwest Washington, 3.6 percent of the

residents are members of the 1% of the 1%. In Bloomfield Hills, Mich., a wealthy suburb of Detroit, 2.2

percent of the residents belong to the 1% of the 1%. Looking at the cities with the highest rate of 1%

of the 1% donors offers another insight into the elite nature of this group of donors.

Table 6.

Cities with the highest percentage of 1% of the 1% donors

City Donors Donors per 10,000 Total given

CHEVY CHASE, MD 105 361.2 $4,718,768

BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 89 226.41 $4,073,003

PALM BEACH, FL 142 166.43 $8,387,773

ATHERTON, CA 97 134.89 $5,716,703

WAYZATA, MN 50 132.38 $3,735,813

WINDERMERE, FL 31 120.16 $950,060

MEDINA, WA 36 117.42 $1,729,314

PORTOLA VALLEY, CA 44 98 $4,176,231

GATES MILLS, OH 22 97.39 $816,685

NAPLES, FL 183 90.98 $7,908,364

To explore the 1% of the 1% by state, click here

Conclusions

The U.S. now has a campaign finance system where a tiny slice of individuals – 31,385 people, not

even enough to fill half of a professional football stadium – collectively account for more than a quarter

of all individual contributions (that we can trace), even though they represent just one in ten thousand

Americans. Every single member of Congress elected in 2012 received a contribution from this group

of individuals, and the vast majority of those elected (84 percent) received more money from the "1%

of the 1%" than they did from all small donations (under $200).

A tiny sliver of Americans who can afford to give tens of thousands of dollars in a single election cycle

have become the gatekeepers of public office in America. Through the growing congressional

dependence on their contributions, they increasingly set the boundaries and limits of American political

discourse – who can run for office, what their priorities should be and even what can be said in public.

And in an era of unlimited campaign contributions, the power of the 1% of the 1% only stands to grow

with each passing year.

Data sources: Influenceexplorer.com , Opensecrets.org, Fec.gov

Read the other 1% of the 1% posts:

http://www.fec.gov/http://www.opensecrets.org/http://influenceexplorer.com/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct_by_state


16/21



Graphics by Amy Cesal and Ben Chartoff . Thanks to Alexander Furnas and Alison Rowland for their

help in preparing this post.

Previous post in series Next post in series

Lobbyists in the 1% of the 1% 1% of the 1% Lobbyist Donations to Obama

Congressional Polarization and the 1% of the 1% What do 1% of the 1% Lobbyists Want?

Profile of a 1% of the 1% donor Lobbying Disclosure and the 1% of the 1%

Notes on Methodology

To conduct the analysis we reviewed disclosed donations for the 2012 cycle to federal candidates,

party committees, congressional campaign committees PACs and super PACs. Our ability to aggregate

campaign finance data by individual donor comes with a few caveats. To calculate totals, we relied on

the bulk campaign finance records provided by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), and we

summed the totals by a unique ID that CRP adds to the raw Federal Election Commission (FEC) data

for each contributor. CRP, a respected nonpartisan nonprofit, creates these unique ids because the

FEC, which regulates campaign finance in the United States, does not. And because donors – and the

recipients of their funds – aren’t required to accurately and reliably identify themselves in FEC records,

it’s left to CRP to take on the daunting task. In the 2012 election, there were about 1.26 million unique

donors, many with multiple name permutations.

For a good understanding of the challenges of accurate individual counts, we recommend our recent

post, “ What Charles G. Koch can teach us about campaign finance data.” While we do list the

individual members of the 1% of the 1%, we urge caution on the individual donor totals. However,

while there may be some random error in individual totals, we are confident that the aggregate

conclusions are solid, given the large number of cases that make up these aggregate totals.

We also note that our inability to include contributions to “dark money” groups in our individual donor

totals also prevents an exact comparison with our 2010 analysis of the political 1% of the 1%. Back

then, the dark money groups were a small part of the political universe, and 527s (which reveal their

donors) were the bigger vehicle for independent expenditures. The reverse is now true. We also

decided to do a true 1% of the 1% analysis this time around, taking the top 31,385 donors rather than

cutting off at a particular giving threshold, which also mitigates against a perfect comparison (we used

$10,000 as that threshold last time).

The 1% of the 1% How a small minority fundsour elections

Where are the 1% of the 1%? Big donors of elections past already fueling

2016

More top-heavy, more Republican: The One Percent of the One Percent over

time

The Political One Percent of the One Percent: Megadonors fuel rising cost of

elections in 2014

Robust Lobbying Disclosure Needed to Address Advantage of the 1% of the

1%

http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/27/robust-lobbying-disclosure-needed-to-address-advantage-of-the-1-of-the-1/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2015/04/30/the-political-one-percent-of-the-one-percent-megadonors-fuel-rising-cost-of-elections-in-2014/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2015/05/13/more-top-heavy-more-republican-the-one-percent-of-the-one-percent-over-time/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2015/09/11/where-are-the-1-of-the-1-big-donors-of-elections-past-already-fueling-2016/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2011/12/13/the-political-one-percent-of-the-one-percent/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/05/koch_donations/https://www.opensecrets.org/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/27/robust-lobbying-disclosure-needed-to-address-advantage-of-the-1-of-the-1http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/28/mysterious-rick-santorum-super-pac-donor-speaks-outhttp://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/26/what-lobbyists-in-the-1-percent-of-the-1-percent-want-hint-a-lot/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/26/1pct_of_the_1pct_polarization/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/25/despite-ethics-pledge-obama-accepted-k-street-moneyhttp://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/25/lobbyists-in-the-1-of-the-1/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/where-the-1-of-the-1-money-goes/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/01/26/on-fire-how-the-finance-insurance-and-real-estate-sector-drove-the-growth-of-the-political-one-percent-of-the-one-percent/http://sunlightfoundation.com/people/afurnas/http://sunlightfoundation.com/people/bchartoff/http://sunlightfoundation.com/people/acesal/


17/21



Lobbying Lobby Lee Drutman Amy Cesal Money in Polit ics Barack Obama

Republicans Democrats political donations Donations Dark Money

one percent of one percent one percent of one percent 2012 one pct of the one pct Politics

data visualization Campaign Finance Transparency Congress OpenGov Open Government

Lobbyists Sunlight Foundation Super PACs Citizens United data

one-percent of the one-percent infographic video dataviz

30 Comments 1

• •

Rollo Smith •

I'm trying yo compile of a list of just who these 1% of 1% are, any help will be

appreciated. The future of mankind depends on knowing who and where they are and

places they will attend meetings and events. Don't fear the NSA, they're on the list too!

• •

ron44 •

No one tells you how to vote and no twists your arm to vote one way or another. It isup to you to gather facts, and cross check them with other information. At least do one

thing ask questions and watch the MSM for signs that they are slanting it one way or

another. If you catch them doing this then pound on them for the truth. Take no

prisoners and don't take no for an answer when you ask questions. It is hard work but

if you love America, then defend it against the barbarians at the gates of freedom and

liberty.

• •

Dudo •

There most certainly is a link between all these people and that link is Israel. Oppose

Israel or support Palestine and you will get nowhere fast in this world. Our government

is controlled by Israel.

• •

Jesse •

The truth will set you free. Thank you so much for this informative post.

Of course, to play devil's advocate, it should also be noted that the 2012

Congressional election results were essentially identical -- for both House and Senate -

- as the 2010 results. So the added money does not appear for the most part to have

swayed the public's political leanings or voting preferences.

ahynes1 •

I would be interested in hearing more about the demographics of this group and how

More Stories

https://disqus.com/by/ron44/https://disqus.com/by/ron44/https://disqus.com/by/ron44/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-1646751447https://disqus.com/by/rollosmith/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/tag/Sunlight-Foundation/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/tag/one-percent-of-the-one-percent/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/tag/infographic/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/series/1of1/https://disqus.com/by/ahynes1/https://disqus.com/by/ron44/https://disqus.com/by/rollosmith/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-946231008https://disqus.com/by/ahynes1/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-970529774http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-1225146941http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-1646751447https://disqus.com/by/ron44/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-2025639875https://disqus.com/by/rollosmith/https://disqus.com/home/inbox/https://disqus.com/home/forums/sunlightfoundation/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/tag/dataviz/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/tag/video/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/tag/infographic/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/tag/one-percent-of-the-one-percent/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/tag/data/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/tag/citizens-united/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/tag/super-pacs/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/tag/Sunlight-Foundation/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/tag/Lobbyists/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/tag/Open-Government/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/tag/OpenGov/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/tag/Congress/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/tag/Transparency/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/tag/Campaign-Finance/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/tag/data-visualization/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/tag/Politics/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/tag/one-pct-of-the-one-pct/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/tag/one-percent-of-one-percent-2012/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/tag/one-percent-of-one-percent/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/tag/dark-money/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/tag/donations/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/tag/political-donations/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/tag/Democrats/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/tag/Republicans/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/tag/Barack-Obama/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/tag/Money-in-Politics/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/tag/amy-cesal/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/tag/lee-drutman/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/tag/lobby/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/tag/Lobbying/


18/21



• •

closely, or not, it matches the demographics of our country. What these donors

disproportionately members of a specific race, gender, age group, etc?

I'm also interested in how this plays out in state elections. What is the distribution of

high dollar donors in state elections in Connecticut or Maine, for example compared

with the distribution of high dollar donors in state elections in Texas or Florida?

• •

Edward Cate

•

Thank you much for statistically showing exactly how we get a government of the

sociopaths, by the sociopaths and for the sociopaths. The solution is to hold a lotteryof capable citizens who could serve their district in the House Of Representatives for

one year, never to serve again. No campaigning, no mud slinging, and no having to sell

out. Forget political parties, as governing is too important to left to people who like to

party. The Senate and Executive Branch can be left as is to the sociopaths, because

no non-sociopath could stand the stink and smell of doing business in D.C. for more

than one year. Beside that, they've have the 99% 'ers interests at heart because

they've have to come back to their neighborhoods, as well as live the rest of their lives

with their decisions. Wrote this up almost three years ago at

http://GreatRedDragon.com

• •

LongTimeEconomist

•

What about the labor unions?

• •

SustainbleFuture •

Labor unions are made up of individuals, who combine their money and form

Political Action Committees. The issue is not if there money has any influence

on the Politics, it does, the issue is weather that influence is UNDUE based

upon the number of people (i.e. Citizens of these United States) which are

represented by that influence.

Ethically, in an egalitarian democracy, where each person get's one vote, the

idea that money can influence the vote, or decide who gets to run for office, is

anathema to our way of life. We are Americans, not Saudis.

Labor unions represent 7% of our private workforce and as much as 35% of the

public workforce. This is considerably larger than "1% of 1%". This all seems

extremely obvious to anyone who reads and understands this issue, but for

some reason there are always some people who throw "Labor Unions" out as a

corrupting influence upon democracy. The solution is the same, get MONEY

OUT of Politics.

• •

LongTimeEconomist

•

Unfortunately, that requires a Constitutional amendment.

Philosopher3000

•

not really, we've had campaign finance limits, both Federal and

State laws limit individual contributions to campaigns at various

levels. So, we can enact laws locally to limit funds for local

elections, and get congress to pass a new law revoking citizens

united by limiting Political Speech to INDIVIDUAL U.S. CITIZENS.

Then by giving public funding money to candidates, and allowing

U.S. Citizens to run for office and access FREE media over the

public air-waves at any Media Station under U.S. jurisdiction, we

can largely eliminate the political influence of money without

limiting freedom of speech. Corporations are not people, they

can not die, or fight in wars, they are a legal fiction and must not

be allowed to participate in human Politics.

https://disqus.com/by/philosopher3000/https://disqus.com/by/LongTimeEconomist/https://disqus.com/by/SustainableFuture/https://disqus.com/by/LongTimeEconomist/https://disqus.com/by/yahoo-KTGVSXMZJD4U57OZ5ALH6JZ2IQ/https://disqus.com/by/ahynes1/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-1096922932http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-1097004842https://disqus.com/by/philosopher3000/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-1096916746http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-1096922932https://disqus.com/by/LongTimeEconomist/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-945954866http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-1096916746https://disqus.com/by/SustainableFuture/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-945954866https://disqus.com/by/LongTimeEconomist/http://greatreddragon.com/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-946015947https://disqus.com/by/yahoo-KTGVSXMZJD4U57OZ5ALH6JZ2IQ/


19/21



• •

• •

LongTimeEconomist

•

And all those limits have been worked around by both parties,

who will surely do the same for any new limits.

Sad, but true.

• •

Philosopher3000 •

Actually, the limits on individual campaign donations are strictlyupheld and reported by both parties, as are in-kind donations

from businesses, and all campaign expenses, because scandal

will lose you an election as quickly as a felony conviction. There

is public financing for Presidential races, and there are many

states that have public financing for other races as well. You see,

the trick to having and keeping a democracy is to realize that the

rich will always try to corrupt the system, and to constantly and

consistently fight for the values enshrined in the constitution.

True Americans never give up. That's why Republicans are not

true Americans.

• •

Your Mom

•

Great question Idiot. Obviously you did not read the story. Perhaps your Wet

Nurse can read it to you Gramps....

• •

LongTimeFedupWfoxViewers •

did you read any of this at all?

• •

LongTimeEconomist •

I read all of it. And it is entirely about individuals. No mention whatsoever

of unions, which are far and away the largest contributors to one

particular party and its candidates.

• •

LongTimeEconomist

•

Your total immaturity is exceeded only by your extraordinary

need for psychiatric help..

• •

66stingray •

Hope you are 6 feet under by now. POS

• •

Clarice Hair •

Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam made out like bandits during the mortgage

meltdown and sold their bank for a fortune. They should be in JAIL but they must have

donated enough hush money to keep the wolves at bay. Bloomberg, Adelson, what are

some of the other names? It's beginning to sound like the membership list of B'nai

Brith - liberal jews pushing their Marxist/socialist/humanist/anti Constitutional/anti

Christian agenda.

LongTimeEconomist •

Nonsense. Adelson is the antithesis of a Marxist-socialist.

https://disqus.com/by/LongTimeEconomist/https://disqus.com/by/facebook-100001584909080/https://disqus.com/by/66stingray/https://disqus.com/by/LongTimeEconomist/https://disqus.com/by/LongTimeEconomist/https://disqus.com/by/philosopher3000/https://disqus.com/by/LongTimeEconomist/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-943513342http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-946188222https://disqus.com/by/LongTimeEconomist/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-943513342https://disqus.com/by/facebook-100001584909080/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-982451165http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-1310706999https://disqus.com/by/66stingray/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-982448474http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-982451165https://disqus.com/by/LongTimeEconomist/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-946061187http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-946187579https://disqus.com/by/LongTimeEconomist/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-945954866http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-946061187http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-945954866http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-982446432http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-1097009617http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-1097350830https://disqus.com/by/philosopher3000/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-1097004842http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-1097009617https://disqus.com/by/LongTimeEconomist/


20/21



• •

• •

Serious Cat •

Why are we assuming these contributors are necessarily rich? I could give around half

my savings and make it onto this list with $15k in donations. I'd rather not do that and

instead save that money for my first home. But still...

• •

SleepyCat

•

did you read any of this?

• •

Brian Allan Cobb •

Was it ever any different?

• •

PatGinSD •

It's a disgrace that our Congress is OWNED by the filthy rich. THAT is NOT

Government of the People. The only way to wipe out this disgrace is through public

campaign financing, and an amendment to overturn the obscene Citizens United

activist SCOTUS decision.

• •

SustainbleFuture •

Actually, what this says is that our congress is 28% influenced by the super-

rich, and there are many ways to 'wipe out this disgrace' and public financing of

campaigns might be one part of that solution. Citizen's United must be

overturned, and all foreign contributions to our campaigns must be stopped.

Also, it would help if every media company that uses public air-waves was

required to play 2 hrs./day of public service announcements like campaign

commercials without being compensated. This used to be called "the news" but

now that is gone to 'the opinion'.

• •

Maggie_O

•

Go to movetoamend.org and sign the petition to show your support for anamendment that will do exactly that.

• •

Philosopher3000 •

Already did, years ago. But not enough people are educated about

civics.

• •

horace_kent •

I don't have a problem with money as speech.

• •

Philosopher3000

•

Who do I have to pay to get this horace_kent's comment removed?

• •

ctmany •

Some people have MUCH more $ than others, so you would give them MUCH

more speech as well? So you're anti-democracy? #StayClassy

• •

Gene Conway •

Names, I need names and addresses and pictures!

https://disqus.com/by/fuk_mi/https://disqus.com/by/ctmany/https://disqus.com/by/philosopher3000/https://disqus.com/by/horace_kent/https://disqus.com/by/philosopher3000/https://disqus.com/by/Maggie_O/https://disqus.com/by/SustainableFuture/https://disqus.com/by/PatGinSD/https://disqus.com/by/brianallancobb/https://disqus.com/by/serious_cat/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-940723322https://disqus.com/by/fuk_mi/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-940747484http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-962286086https://disqus.com/by/ctmany/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-940747484http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-1097351783https://disqus.com/by/philosopher3000/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-940747484https://disqus.com/by/horace_kent/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-981947399http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-1097351509https://disqus.com/by/philosopher3000/http://movetoamend.org/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-940986258http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-981947399https://disqus.com/by/Maggie_O/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-940986258http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-1096923673https://disqus.com/by/SustainableFuture/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-940986258https://disqus.com/by/PatGinSD/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-942544084https://disqus.com/by/brianallancobb/http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-943479677http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-946061782http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/24/1pct_of_the_1pct/#comment-943479677https://disqus.com/by/serious_cat/


21/21


New bill would create easy online

access to U.S. laws and statutes

•

Avat — Wouldn't it be better to

focus on a user interface that can access

the sites that already have Statutes at …

There are now 8 super PACs supporting

Ted Cruz's 2016 run

•

Avat — and no other candidate

has super pacs?

Politwoops U.S. is back!

•

Avat — HTTPS for politwoops

please? :)

New spending bill prevents agencies

from regulating dark money •

Avat — Does anyone know who

the actual representatives were that

inserted these two provisions into the bill?

SUNLIGHT FOUNDATION

yo ur email add res s you r zip code

202-742-1520

Contact Us

1818 N Street NW Suite 300

Washington, DC 20036

C O N T A C T |

A B O U T |

J O B S

Our privacy policy details how personally identifiable information that is collected

on our web sites is handled. Read our terms of service.

This work by Sunlight Foundation, unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Donate to the Sunlight Foundation

59063

Sign up
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=13197#.UmqVsZTXSG0http://www.cfctoday.org/http://sunlightfoundation.com/donate/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/http://sunlightfoundation.com/legal/terms/http://sunlightfoundation.com/legal/privacy/https://www.youtube.com/user/SunlightFoundationhttp://sunfoundation.tumblr.com/http://instagram.com/sunfoundationhttps://github.com/sunlightlabshttps://www.flickr.com/photos/sunlightfoundationhttps://twitter.com/sunfoundationhttps://www.facebook.com/sunlightfoundationhttp://sunlightfoundation.com/jobs/http://sunlightfoundation.com/about/http://sunlightfoundation.com/contact/https://help.disqus.com/customer/portal/articles/1657951?utm_source=disqus&utm_medium=embed-footer&utm_content=privacy-btnhttps://publishers.disqus.com/engage?utm_source=sunlightfoundation&utm_medium=Disqus-Footerhttps://disqus.com/http://disq.us/url?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsunlightfoundation.com%2Fblog%2F2015%2F12%2F18%2Fnew-spending-bill-prevents-agencies-from-regulating-dark-money%2F%3AkaxqA7faE5k18J2l93JKf0c45ns&imp=6p0993i1ur46eo&prev_imp&forum_id=520009&forum=sunlightfoundation&thread_id=1430399225&thread=4415559697&zone=thread&area=bottom&object_type=thread&object_id=4415559697http://disq.us/url?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsunlightfoundation.com%2Fblog%2F2015%2F12%2F18%2Fnew-spending-bill-prevents-agencies-from-regulating-dark-money%2F%3AkaxqA7faE5k18J2l93JKf0c45ns&imp=6p0993i1ur46eo&prev_imp&forum_id=520009&forum=sunlightfoundation&thread_id=1430399225&thread=4415559697&zone=thread&area=bottom&object_type=thread&object_id=4415559697http://disq.us/url?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsunlightfoundation.com%2Fblog%2F2016%2F02%2F09%2Fpolitwoops-u-s-is-back%2F%3ArG6v8-Qqv1O2l9wrUNacT72PhB0&imp=6p0993i1ur46eo&prev_imp&forum_id=520009&forum=sunlightfoundation&thread_id=1430399225&thread=4565326959&zone=thread&area=bottom&object_type=thread&object_id=4565326959http://disq.us/url?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsunlightfoundation.com%2Fblog%2F2016%2F02%2F09%2Fpolitwoops-u-s-is-back%2F%3ArG6v8-Qqv1O2l9wrUNacT72PhB0&imp=6p0993i1ur46eo&prev_imp&forum_id=520009&forum=sunlightfoundation&thread_id=1430399225&thread=4565326959&zone=thread&area=bottom&object_type=thread&object_id=4565326959http://disq.us/url?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsunlightfoundation.com%2Fblog%2F2015%2F12%2F11%2Fthere-are-now-8-super-pacs-supporting-ted-cruzs-2016-run%2F%3A4mCGofshdNpf0SnVLMtAdl9Eoik&imp=6p0993i1ur46eo&prev_imp&forum_id=520009&forum=sunlightfoundation&thread_id=1430399225&thread=4395592201&zone=thread&area=bottom&object_type=thread&object_id=4395592201http://disq.us/url?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsunlightfoundation.com%2Fblog%2F2015%2F12%2F11%2Fthere-are-now-8-super-pacs-supporting-ted-cruzs-2016-run%2F%3A4mCGofshdNpf0SnVLMtAdl9Eoik&imp=6p0993i1ur46eo&prev_imp&forum_id=520009&forum=sunlightfoundation&thread_id=1430399225&thread=4395592201&zone=thread&area=bottom&object_type=thread&object_id=4395592201http://disq.us/url?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsunlightfoundation.com%2Fblog%2F2015%2F11%2F19%2Fnew-bill-would-create-easy-online-access-to-u-s-laws-and-statutes%2F%3AlQeogFwW4RQxWpKj12aADnbUSMg&imp=6p0993i1ur46eo&prev_imp&forum_id=520009&forum=sunlightfoundation&thread_id=1430399225&thread=4333331432&zone=thread&area=bottom&object_type=thread&object_id=4333331432http://disq.us/url?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsunlightfoundation.com%2Fblog%2F2015%2F11%2F19%2Fnew-bill-would-create-easy-online-access-to-u-s-laws-and-statutes%2F%3AlQeogFwW4RQxWpKj12aADnbUSMg&imp=6p0993i1ur46eo&prev_imp&forum_id=520009&forum=sunlightfoundation&thread_id=1430399225&thread=4333331432&zone=thread&area=bottom&object_type=thread&object_id=4333331432

The Political 1% of the 1% in 2012 - Sunlight Foundation Blog

Documents

Transcript of The Political 1% of the 1% in 2012 - Sunlight Foundation Blog