CAMPAIGN FINANCE

Contributions From

Gambling Interests

Have Increased

United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Honorable Frank R. Wolf

House of Representatives

July 1999

GAO/GGD-99-127

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

General Government Division

B-282479

Page 1 GAO/GGD-99-127 Campaign Finance

GAO

July 27, 1999

The Honorable Frank R. Wolf

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Wolf:

As part of our overall response to your request for an analysis of the

impact of gambling in the United States, this report provides information

regarding contributions by gambling interests to federal candidates and

national party committees. The information that you requested on

campaign contributions to candidates from gambling interests in selected

state elections will be provided at a later date.

As agreed with your office, our objectives were to determine for the 1992,

1994, 1996, and 1998 elections the total amount of contributions from

gambling interests to (1) federal candidates, including the total number of

federal candidates that accepted those contributions, and (2) national

political party committees,1

 as well as separate totals for (3) the

Republican National Committee (RNC) and the National Republican

Congressional Committee (NRCC) and (4) the Democratic National

Committee (DNC) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign

Committee (DCCC).

Under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971, as amended,

contributions made in connection with a federal election are subject to

contribution limits and source prohibitions and must be reported to FEC.

Candidates are required to report the name and address of the source, the

date and amount of the contribution, and if the contributor is an individual,

his or her employer and occupation. Candidates are not required to report

this information for individuals if the aggregate contributions from the

individual to the candidate total less than $200 in a calendar year. FEC

issues periodic reports on contributions to candidates and national party

committees, but does not tabulate contribution data by industry.

To obtain information on campaign contributions from gambling interests,

we contracted with the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), an

independent research organization that categorizes, by industry or interest

group, contribution data that have been identified and reported to FEC.

Campaign contributions from the FEC database that were categorized by

 

1

 According to Federal Election Commission (FEC), a party’s national committee, House campaign

committee, and Senate campaign committee are defined as national party committees.
B-282479

Page 2 GAO/GGD-99-127 Campaign Finance

CRP as contributions from gambling interests included contributions from

(1) individuals who listed an employer or occupation connected with the

gambling industry, (2) political action committees (PACs) with a sponsor

associated with the gambling industry, and (3) corporations that derive

their primary source of revenue from the gambling industry.2

CRP’s findings are reported in terms of “hard money” and “soft money.”

“Hard money” refers to contributions made for the purpose of influencing

a federal election; these contributions are subject to the contribution

limitations and prohibitions of FECA. “Soft money” refers to contributions

raised outside of FECA’s limitations and prohibitions. Soft money

contributions must be maintained separately from hard money

contributions and may be used only for state and local campaign activity

or other party committee activities that do not influence federal elections.3

Data we obtained on contributions from the gambling industry to

candidates or parties are likely to be conservative, primarily because (1)

specific sources of contributions from individuals that total less than $200

in a year are not identified, (2) contributions from some corporations and

organizations that may be associated with the gambling industry may not

be included in CRP’S analysis if the primary source of their revenue is

related to another industry, (3) the industry or interest associated with

some contributions could not be identified, and (4) contributions from the

gambling industry to state and local party committees are not included.

According to CRP’s analysis, total contributions from gambling interests to

federal candidates and national party committees rose from $1.1 million in

1992, a presidential election year, to $5.7 million in 1998, a midterm

election year, an increase of about 400 percent.4

 During this same period,

overall election campaign receipts in hard money to congressional

candidates and in soft money to national party committees increased from

$617 million to $851 million, or about 40 percent, according to FEC data. In

a CRP analysis of 1998 election contributions by 92 industry and interest

 

2

 According to FEC, unless a contribution is made by a tribe’s PAC, only contributions from individuals

of an Indian tribe are entered into the FEC database. Contributions to national party committees from

tribal entities that fall outside of the limitations and prohibitions of FECA are disclosed to FEC by the

national party committees and entered into the FEC database.

3

 Because certain activities may have the combined purpose of benefiting both federal and nonfederal

elections (e.g., get-out-the-vote drives), FEC regulations require committees to allocate the costs of

such activities between hard (federal) and soft (nonfederal) accounts.

4

 Reported in current dollars. Adjusted for inflation (constant dollars), overall contributions rose by

about 340 percent during that period. Contributions in both current and constant dollars are reported

in tables 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

Results in Brief
B-282479

Page 3 GAO/GGD-99-127 Campaign Finance

groups, the contributions ranged from $56,000 to $59 million, and the

gambling industry was the 37th highest contributor.

According to CRP’s analysis of campaign contributions, hard money

contributions from PACs and individuals to federal candidates from

gambling interests rose from $735,000 in the 1992 election to $1.9 million in

the 1998 election, an increase of about 160 percent. Contributions from

PACs to federal candidates increased by about 320 percent, while

contributions from individuals increased by about 80 percent from 1992 to

1998. During the same period, the total number of federal candidates

receiving contributions from PACs and individuals representing gambling

interests rose from 146 to 269.

Soft money contributions from gambling interests to national political

party committees increased about 840 percent in the same period, from

$406,000 in the 1992 election to about $3.8 million in the 1998 election,

according to CRP’s analysis.

Combined contributions to the RNC and NRCC from gambling interests

totaled $177,000 in the 1992 election and about $1.4 million in the 1998

election. Combined DNC and DCCC contributions from gambling interests

totaled $290,000 in the 1992 election and $850,000 in the 1998 election.

Based on CRP’s analysis, soft money accounted for a major portion of the

total contributions from gambling interests to both parties’ national and

congressional campaign committees.

FECA, as amended, imposes limitations on the amounts and sources of

contributions that may be made to influence federal elections and requires

public disclosure of fund-raising and expenditures in connection with

federal elections.

FECA places limits on contributions by individuals or groups to

candidates, party committees, and PACs in connection with a federal

election.5

 These hard money contributions are anything of value given to

influence a federal election and include checks, cash, loans, donated items

or services, and purchases of fund-raising items or tickets. Table 1 shows a

summary of FECA contribution limits.

 5

 According to FEC, PAC is a popular term for a political committee that is neither a party committee

nor an authorized committee of a candidate. A party committee is a political committee that represents

a political party and is part of the official party structure at the national, state or local level.

Background
B-282479

Page 4 GAO/GGD-99-127 Campaign Finance

FECA maximum allowable contribution to

Type of

contributor

Candidate or

candidate

committee per

election

National party

committee per

calendar yeara

Any other

political

committee

(including

PACs) per

calendar yearb

Total per

calendar year

Individual $1,000 $20,000 $5,000 $25,000

Multicandidate

committeec

5,000 15,000 5,000 No limit

Other political

committee

(including PACs)

1,000 20,000 5,000 No limit

a

This limit applies separately to each party’s national committee, House campaign committee, and

Senate campaign committee.

b

Exception: If a contributor gives to a committee knowing that a substantial portion of the contribution

will be used to support a particular candidate, then the contribution counts against the contributor’s

limit for that candidate. See 11 CFR 110.1 (h).

c

A multicandidate committee is a political committee with more than 50 contributors that has been

registered for at least 6 months and, with the exception of state party committees, has made

contributions to 5 or more candidates for federal office. See 11 CFR 100.5(e)(3).

Source: FEC.

The limits on contributions to a candidate committee apply to each

election in which the candidate participates. Primaries, runoffs, and

general elections are considered separate elections, with separate

contribution limits for each. FECA also prohibits contributions from

specific sources, such as corporations and labor unions, if such

contributions are made to influence a federal election.

To obtain the information required to meet our objectives, we contracted

with CRP of Washington, D.C., to conduct an analysis of campaign

contributions from gambling interests for the 1992, 1994, 1996, and 1998

elections. CRP is a research organization that uses the data reported to

FEC to identify contributions by industry or interest group.6

Campaign contributions identified by CRP as contributions from gambling

interests included contributions from individuals who reported an

employer or occupation in the gambling industry, PACs with a sponsor

connected with the gambling industry, and contributions from

corporations that derive their primary source of revenue from the

gambling industry. In referring to gambling interests, CRP included

 6

 The FEC database does not categorize contributions by industry. Information disclosed to FEC can

help to identify the industry that might be associated with the contribution.

Table 1: Summary of FECA Contribution

Limits

Scope and

Methodology
B-282479

Page 5 GAO/GGD-99-127 Campaign Finance

businesses that participate in casinos, pari-mutuel betting, lotteries, and

their respective suppliers.

Our information on campaign contributions from gambling interests for

the 1992, 1994, 1996, and 1998 elections came from CRP’s analysis of FEC

data available as of March 1, 1999. Contributions reported by election year

cover a 2-year period. For example, the 1998 election year contributions

include data from January 1, 1997, to December 31, 1998.

FEC requires candidates to disclose total contributions but does not

require itemization of contributions of under $200. FEC does not enter

contributions of less than $200 into its database. Because the CRP analysis

is based on information in FEC’s database, it did not include gambling

interest contributions from individuals associated with the gambling

industry that did not reach the $200 threshold. According to an FEC

analysis of total receipts and itemized receipts for the 1998 congressional

elections, contributions from individuals of less than $200 represented

about 17 percent of total campaign receipts.

In addition, CRP was not able to categorize every contribution of over $200

from individuals. In some cases, the occupation and employer information

for the contributor was missing or incomplete. In other cases, the

occupation or employer was listed but was insufficient to identify the

industry or economic interest of a contributor. CRP said that, historically,

it has been able to identify approximately 65-70 percent of individual

contributions of over $200 and 99 percent of PAC contributions.

Because CRP categorizes contributions based on the primary source of

revenue of the contributor, contributions from some corporations and

organizations associated with the gambling industry may not be included

in CRP’s analysis if the organization’s primary source of revenue is related

to another industry.

In summary, our analysis is limited to the extent that individual

contributions of less than $200 are not counted, some contributions whose

source could not be identified may be from gambling interests, and

contributions from corporations or organizations associated with gambling

interests may not be counted if their primary source of revenue comes

from another industry.

We selected CRP because it is an independent, nonprofit research

organization that has conducted analyses of campaign contributions by

industry in the past and has analyzed and reported on campaign
B-282479

Page 6 GAO/GGD-99-127 Campaign Finance

contributions from the gambling industry for the 1992, 1994, 1996, and 1998

elections.

Because of possible amendments to disclosure reports submitted after

March 1999 and ongoing updates of the campaign contributions database

by FEC staff, data used by CRP in its analysis may not have included all

single campaign contributions of $200 or more for the 1998 election year.

To obtain information about FECA and the FEC disclosure reporting

system, we reviewed federal laws and regulations and interviewed officials

at FEC. To obtain information about CRP and CRP’s database, we

reviewed CRP documents and interviewed officials at CRP. Although we

did not do a comprehensive verification of the data in CRP’s database, we

did a limited test of the data to determine whether they accurately

reflected the data contained in disclosure reports filed with FEC for the

1996 and 1998 elections. All the data we traced from CRP’s database to the

disclosure report images in the FEC database were accurate. Appendix I

provides further details about the FEC disclosure database and the

methodology used by CRP to provide an analysis of campaign

contributions by industry.

To convert current dollar amounts for the 1992, 1994, and 1996 election

years to 1998 constant dollar amounts, we divided each year’s current

dollar amount by the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Price Index from the

Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis for those years,

using 1998 as a base.

We conducted our audit work from February 1999 to June 1999 in

Washington, D.C., in accordance with generally accepted government

auditing standards. We requested comments on a draft of this report from

FEC’s Chairman. On June 29, 1999, the FEC Chairman provided written

technical comments, which we incorporated in the report where

appropriate.

According to the CRP analysis of FEC data as of March 1, 1999, hard

money contributions by gambling interests from individuals and PACs to

federal candidates increased by about 160 percent in current dollars, from

$735,000 in the 1992 election to $1.9 million in the 1998 election. In

constant dollars, hard money contributions by gambling interests rose by

about 130 percent from 1992 to 1998. (See table 2.)

Contributions From

Gambling Interests to

Federal Candidates

Increased From 1992

to 1998
B-282479

Page 7 GAO/GGD-99-127 Campaign Finance

Dollars in thousands

Election year

Type of 1992 1994 1996 1998

contribution Current Constant Current Constant Current Constant Current Constant

Individual $508 $573 $849 $910 $1,404 $1,445 $940 $940

PAC 227 256 350 375 975 1,004 961 961

Total $735 $829 $1,199 $1,285 $2,379 $2,449 $1,901 $1,901

Note: Constant dollars are based on the GDP Price Index, Department of Commerce. Contribution

amounts are based on FEC data as of March 1, 1999. Individual contributions include one-time

contributions of $200 or more.

Source: April 1999 analysis by CRP.

Hard money contributions from individuals to federal candidates increased

in current dollars from $508,000 in 1992 to $940,000 in 1998, or about 80

percent. Hard money contributions from PACs increased by about 320

percent in current dollars during the same period, from $227,000 to

$961,000.

According to CRP’s analysis, overall individual and PAC hard money

contributions to federal candidates from gambling interests increased from

the 1992 presidential election to the 1996 presidential election, and from

the 1994 midterm election to the 1998 midterm election.

As shown in table 3, the total number of federal candidates reporting hard

money contributions from gambling and casino interests rose from 146 in

the 1992 election to 269 in the 1998 election, an increase of about 80

percent.

Election year

1992 1994 1996 1998

Total number of federal

candidates receiving

contributions from gambling

interests

146a 239a 378a 269

Note: Candidate totals are based on FEC data as of March 1, 1999.

a

Total number of federal candidates includes six presidential candidates in 1992, one presidential

candidate receiving contributions in 1994, and eight presidential candidates in 1996.

Source: April 1999 analysis by CRP.

Table 2: Individual and PAC Hard Money Contributions from Gambling Interests to Federal Candidates for 1992, 1994, 1996, and

1998 Elections

Number of Federal

Candidates Receiving

Contributions From

Gambling Interests

Increased From 1992

to 1998

Table 3: Total Number of Federal

Candidates Receiving Individual and

PAC Hard Money Contributions From

Gambling Interests in the 1992, 1994,

1996, and 1998 Elections
B-282479

Page 8 GAO/GGD-99-127 Campaign Finance

As shown in table 4, soft money contributions in current dollars from

gambling interests to national party committees, as identified by the CRP

analysis, rose from $406,000 in the 1992 election to $3.8 million in the 1998

elections, an increase of about 840 percent. Soft money contributions in

constant dollars rose by about 740 percent during this period.

Dollars in thousands

Election Year

1992 1994 1996 1998

Current Constant Current Constant Current Constant Current Constant

Total soft

money

contributions

from gambling

interests

$406 $458 $1,395 $1,496 $3,837 $3,948 $3,830 $3,830

Note: Constant dollars are based on the GDP Price Index, Department of Commerce. Contribution

totals are based on FEC data as of March 1, 1999. Amounts shown include each party’s national

committee, House campaign committee, and Senate campaign committee. Totals do not include

transfers between party committees or contributions from gambling interests to state party

committees.

Source: April 1999 analysis by CRP.

Soft money contributions from gambling interests totaled $406,000 in

current dollars in the 1992 presidential election year and about $3.8 million

in the 1996 presidential election year, an increase of about 840 percent.

Soft money contributions from gambling interests rose in current dollars

from $1.4 million in the 1994 midterm election cycle to about $3.8 million

in the 1998 midterm election cycle, or about 180 percent.

As shown in table 5, contributions to the RNC and NRCC from gambling

interests totaled $177,000 in current dollars in the 1992 election and about

$1.4 million in the 1998 election, an increase of 680 percent. Contributions

rose in constant dollars by about 590 percent during this period.

Contributions From

Gambling Interests to

National Party

Committees Increased

From 1992 to 1998

Table 4: Soft Money Contributions From Gambling Interests to National Party Committees in the 1992, 1994, 1996, and 1998

Elections

Total RNC/NRCC

Contributions From

Gambling Interests

Increased From 1992

to 1998
B-282479

Page 9 GAO/GGD-99-127 Campaign Finance

Dollars in thousands

Election year

1992 1994 1996 1998

Current Constant Current Constant Current Constant Current Constant

RNC

Soft moneya $151 $170 $785 $841 $1,085 $1,117 $1,178 $1,178

Hard money 9 11 2 2 36 37 6 6

Subtotal $160 $181 $787 $843 $1,121 $1,154 $1,184 $1,184

NRCC

Soft moneya $0 $0 $10 $11 $267 $274 $184 $184

Hard money 17 19 4 5 14 14 8 8

Subtotal $17 $19 $14 $16 $281 $288 $192 $192

Total $177 $200 $801 $859 $1,402 $1,442 $1,376 $1,376

Note: Constant dollars are based on the GDP Price Index, Department of Commerce. Contribution

amounts are based on FEC data as of March 1, 1999. Individual contributions include one-time

contributions of $200 or more. Amounts reported for soft money do not include transfers among party

committees or contributions from gambling interests to state party committees.

a

These soft money amounts are also included in the national party committee totals in table 4.

Source: April 1999 analysis by CRP.

According to CRP’s analysis, soft money accounted for a major portion of

the total contributions in current dollars from gambling interests to the

RNC and RNCC. Total contributions in current dollars to the RNC and

RNCC from gambling and casino interests for the 1998 election were lower

than the 1996 contribution totals but higher than the $801,000 gambling

contribution total for the previous midterm election in 1994.

As shown in table 6, overall contributions to the DNC and DCCC from

gambling and casino interests totaled $290,000 in current dollars in the

1992 election and $850,000 in the 1998 election, an increase of about 190

percent. Contributions rose in constant dollars by about 160 percent

during the same period.

Table 5: Hard and Soft Money Contributions From Gambling Interests to the RNC and NRCC in the 1992, 1994, 1996, and 1998

Elections

Total DNC/DCCC

Contributions From

Gambling Interests

Increased From 1992

to 1998
B-282479

Page 10 GAO/GGD-99-127 Campaign Finance

Dollars in thousands

Election year

1992 1994 1996 1998

Current Constant Current Constant Current Constant Current Constant

DNC

Soft moneya $204 $230 $570 $611 $1,438 $1,479 $398 $398

Hard money 21 23 1 1 143 147 15 15

Subtotal $225 $253 $571 $612 $1,581 $1,626 $413 $413

DCCC

Soft moneya $48 $54 $30 $32 $247 $254 $417 $417

Hard money 17 19 16 17 49 51 20 20

Subtotal $65 $73 $46 $49 $296 $305 $437 $437

Total $290 $326 $617 $661 $1,877 $1,931 $850 $850

Note: Constant dollars are based on the GDP Price Index, Department of Commerce. Contribution

amounts are based on FEC data as of March 1, 1999. Individual contributions include one-time

contributions of $200 or more. Amounts reported for soft money do not include transfers among party

committees or contributions from gambling interests to state party committees.

a

These soft money amounts are also included in the national party committee totals in table 4.

Source: April 1999 analysis by CRP.

According to CRP’s analysis, soft money accounted for a major portion of

the total contributions in current dollars from gambling interests to the

DNC and DCCC. Total contributions in current dollars to the DNC and

DCCC from gambling and casino interests for the 1998 election were lower

than the 1996 contribution totals but higher than the $617,000 gambling

contribution total for the previous midterm election in 1994.

As shown in table 7, according to CRP’s analysis, total combined

contributions from gambling interests to federal candidates and national

party committees increased from $1.1 million in current dollars in the 1992

election to $5.7 million in the 1998 election, an increase of about 400

percent. In constant dollars, total contributions from gambling interests

rose about 340 percent during this period. During this same period, overall

election campaign receipts in hard money to congressional candidates and

soft money to national party committees increased from $617 million to

$851 million, or about 40 percent, according to FEC. In a CRP analysis of

1998 election contributions by 92 industry and interest groups, the

contributions ranged from $56,000 to $59 million, and the gambling

industry group was the 37th highest contributor.

Total contributions in current dollars from gambling interests for the 1998

midterm election were lower than the 1996 contribution totals but higher

than total gambling contributions for the previous midterm election in

1994.

Table 6: Hard and Soft Money Contributions From Gambling Interests to the DNC and DCCC in the 1992, 1994, 1996, and 1998

Elections

Overall Contributions

From Gambling

Interests Increased

From 1992 to 1998
B-282479

Page 11 GAO/GGD-99-127 Campaign Finance

Dollars in thousands

Election year

1992 1994 1996 1998

Current Constant Current Constant Current Constant Current Constant

Hard money to

federal

candidates

(from table 2)

$735 $829 $1,199 $1,285 $2,379 $2,449 $1,901 $1,901

Soft money to

national party

committees

(from table 4)

406 458 1,395 1,496 3,837 3,948 3,830 3,830

Total $1,141 $1,287 $2,594 $2,781 $6,216 $6,397 $5,731 $5,731

Note: Constant dollars are based on the GDP Price Index, Department of Commerce. Contribution

amounts are based on FEC data as of March 1, 1999. Individual contributions include one-time

contributions of $200 or more. Amounts reported for soft money include each party’s national

committee, House campaign committee, and Senate campaign committee and do not include

transfers among party committees or contributions from gambling interests to state party committees.

Source: April 1999 analysis by CRP.

We are sending copies of this report to Senator Fred Thompson, Chairman,

and Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Ranking Minority Member, Senate

Committee on Governmental Affairs; and Representative Dan Burton,

Chairman, and Representative Henry A Waxman, Ranking Minority

Member, House Committee on Government Reform. We are also sending a

copy of this report to Scott E. Thomas, Chairman of FEC. Copies will be

made available to others upon request.

Major contributors to this report are acknowledged in appendix II. Please

contact me or John Baldwin on (202) 512-8387 if you have any questions

about this report.

Sincerely yours,

Bernard L. Ungar

Director, Government Business

Operations Issues

Table 7: Overall Contributions From Gambling Interests to Federal Candidates and National Party Committees for the 1992,

1994, 1996, and 1998 Elections
Page 12 GAO/GGD-99-127 Campaign Finance

Contents

1 Letter

Appendix I 14

Campaign

Contribution Data

Appendix II 17

GAO Contacts and

Staff

Acknowledgments

Table 1: Summary of FECA Contribution Limits 4

Table 2: Individual and PAC Hard Money Contributions

from Gambling Interests to Federal Candidates for

1992, 1994, 1996, and 1998 Elections

7

Table 3: Total Number of Federal Candidates Receiving

Individual and PAC Hard Money Contributions From

Gambling Interests in the 1992, 1994, 1996, and 1998

Elections

7

Table 4: Soft Money Contributions From Gambling

Interests to National Party Committees in the 1992,

1994, 1996, and 1998 Elections

8

Table 5: Hard and Soft Money Contributions From

Gambling Interests to the RNC and NRCC in the 1992,

1994, 1996, and 1998 Elections

9

Table 6: Hard and Soft Money Contributions From

Gambling Interests to the DNC and DCCC in the 1992,

1994, 1996, and 1998 Elections

10

Table 7: Overall Contributions From Gambling Interests

to Federal Candidates and National Party Committees

for the 1992, 1994, 1996, and 1998 Elections

11

Tables
Contents

Page 13 GAO/GGD-99-127 Campaign Finance

Abbreviations

CRP Center for Responsive Politics

DCCC Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee

DNC Democratic National Committee

FEC Federal Election Commission

FECA Federal Election Campaign Act

GDP gross domestic product

NRCC National Republican Congressional Committee

PAC political action committee

RNC Republican National Committee
Appendix I

Campaign Contribution Data

Page 14 GAO/GGD-99-127 Campaign Finance

The information in FEC’s disclosure database is derived from campaign

finance disclosure reports filed under FECA. House candidates file

disclosure reports with FEC. Senate candidates file disclosure reports with

the Secretary of the Senate and copies are later forwarded to FEC.

FECA requires candidate committees to file periodic disclosure reports of

campaign contributions and expenditures. During nonelection years, oddnumbered years in which there are no regularly scheduled federal

elections, two semiannual reports are required. During an election year,

quarterly reports must be filed by April 15, July 15, and October 15, and a

year-end report, which includes activity from the fourth quarter, must be

filed by January 31 of the following year.1

 For the 1998 election year, yearend disclosure reports were due on January 31, 1999. Data from the

nonelection year and the election year disclosure reports can be

aggregated to report results for the 2-year election cycle.

After receiving the campaign finance reports identifying contributions,

FEC scans House, PAC, and party committee reports into a computerized

imaging system. FEC staff initially enter totals from the summary page of

the disclosure report and later enter itemized contributions of $200 or

more from the disclosure reports into FEC’s database. Contributions from

individuals that do not meet the $200 threshold are not itemized in the FEC

database. According to FEC, to improve data entry accuracy, disclosure

report data that are entered into FEC’s database are keyed into the

database twice and the numbers are matched to reveal any data entry

errors.

According to FEC, once the numbers from the disclosure reports are

entered, FEC report analysts review the reports for accuracy and

compliance with the law. If a report contains errors or suggests violations

of the law, the analyst sends the reporting committee a request for

additional information. Committees can then file an amended report to

correct or add information. The review of disclosure reports by report

analysts also serves as an additional check of the accuracy of FEC data

entry procedures, according to FEC officials.

According to FEC, an update to the disclosure database is released at the

beginning of each month. The new data in the FEC database can then be

accessed by organizations or individuals seeking information on campaign

contributions.

 

1

 Schedule is for congressional candidates. Presidential candidates file reports according to a different

schedule.
Appendix I

Campaign Contribution Data

Page 15 GAO/GGD-99-127 Campaign Finance

According to CRP, data from FEC’s disclosure database are downloaded

into a CRP database a few days after the monthly FEC update. The date of

the last download of FEC data used for CRP’s analysis available for use in

this report was March 1, 1999.

CRP assigns contribution source codes by industry to contributions from

FEC’s disclosure database, based on the contributor’s occupation, specific

industry, or interest group. CRP attempts to assign a code to every

contribution of $200 or more; however, in some cases, the employer or

occupation field is left blank or the information gives no indication of the

contributor’s industry. Some examples of contributors that are hard to

identify by industry are (1) homemakers, students, and others who can not

be connected with a family income earner and (2) individuals who list

vague occupations on reports filed with FEC, such as “consultant” or “selfemployed,” that do not reveal the industry of the contributor.

CRP uses a variety of procedures to assign as many contributions to an

industry or interest group as possible. For example, contributions from

non-income-earning spouses are classified according to the economic

interest of the income earner within the family if CRP can identify the

industry of the income earner. In cases where the family has two incomeearning spouses, contributions are classified according to their particular

industry or economic interest by CRP. CRP also attempts to identify

multiple contributions from the same contributor. For example, an

analysis of previous contributions or addresses can help to determine

whether separate contributions from a “John Smith” and a “J. Smith” are

actually contributions from the same person.

Contributions from some corporations and organizations that may be

associated with the gambling industry may not be included in CRP’s

analysis. CRP assigns contributions from corporations to various

industries based on the corporation’s primary source of revenue.

According to CRP, staff will check corporate annual reports, Standard &

Poor’s, and other sources to determine the primary industry of a

corporation. The Hilton Hotels Corporation serves as an example of how

CRP assigns a contribution industry code when a corporation making the

contribution has revenues from two or more industries. According to CRP,

a 1997 Hilton Hotels Corporation Annual Report shows that Hilton

received 52 percent of its revenues from its hotel operations and 48

percent from its casino operations.2

 Thus, contributions from Hilton Hotels

 

2

 Hilton’s casino operations were spun off to a new company called Park Place Entertainment in late

1998.
Appendix I

Campaign Contribution Data

Page 16 GAO/GGD-99-127 Campaign Finance

Corporation are coded by CRP as a contribution from the hotel industry

because a majority of the firm’s revenue derives from its hotel operations.

According to CRP, contributions from Indian tribes are assigned to the

gambling and casino category if the tribe has a casino or other gambling

facility. CRP staff use the Tribal-State Compact list produced by the

Bureau of Indian Affairs and other information sources to determine

whether an Indian tribe has gambling facilities.

Various organizations, including CRP, report information on campaign

contributions from gambling interests that may differ from one another

and from the information in this report. There are a number of reasons for

this. First, different methods may be used for categorizing contributions

from corporations and organizations involved in more than one industry.

Second, total contributions from gambling interests in table 7 do not

include hard money contributions to national party committees.

According to CRP, hard money contributions from gambling interests to

national party committees, including the Senate campaign committee,

totaled about $99,000 for the 1998 election.3

 Third, our total for

contributions from the gambling industry does not include soft money

contributions that were reported by joint fund-raising dinner committees

and later distributed to national party committees. According to our

analysis of CRP data, soft money contributions from gambling interests to

joint fundraising committees in the 1998 election totaled about $139,000.

Fourth, our total contributions amount does not include hard money

contributions from gambling interests to state, local, and other party

committees that did not fall under the FEC’s definition of national party

committees. According to our analysis of CRP data, hard money

contributions from gambling interests to party committees that we did not

identify as national party committees in the 1998 election totaled about

$163,000.4

 Finally, soft money contributions from labor unions were not

included in the CRP data we are reporting.5

 Under FECA, labor

organizations are prohibited from making hard money contributions to

influence federal elections.

 

3

 Analysis of data on PAC hard money contributions from gambling interests to party committees was

not completed in time to be included in this report.

4

 State and local party committees that did not register with and report contributions to the FEC are

not included in this amount.

5

 Because contribution patterns differ, CRP does not assign contributions from labor unions to an

industry category. Union contributions are assigned to one of five broad categories: building trade

unions, industrial unions, transportation unions, public sector unions, and miscellaneous unions.
Appendix II

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

Page 17 GAO/GGD-99-127 Campaign Finance

Bernard L. Ungar, (202) 512-8387

John S. Baldwin, Sr., (202) 512-8387

In addition to those named above, Brad Dubbs, Lucy M. Hall,

Abraham L. Logan, Michelle Sager, and Alan N. Belkin made key

contributions to this report.

GAO Contacts

Acknowledgments
Page 18 GAO/GGD-99-127 Campaign Finance
Page 19 GAO/GGD-99-127 Campaign Finance
Page 20 GAO/GGD-99-127 Campaign Finance
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional

copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address,

accompanied by a check or money order made out to the

Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and

MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more

copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.

Order by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax

number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony.

To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past

30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touch-tone phone. A

recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these

lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100

(240341)