FOLLOWING THE MONEY TRAIL: FUNDING THE ANTI-CONSERVATION MOVEMENT

The quality of Wisconsin's natural environment depends upon many factors. One important factor is governmental protections and regulations which help promote individual and corporate responsibility toward the environment. On the state governmental level, Wisconsin has a tradition of clean government and a clean environment. It is no coincidence that the two traditions are related. Wisconsin's clean water and air rely upon a clean Wisconsin government; one which is free from undue influence of big monied interests who profit monetarily from unsound environmental practices, i.e. pollution, wetland destruction, species extinction and sprawl. Unfortunately, Wisconsin's clean government tradition is under attack. Clean government is threatened by well-financed special interests which contribute large sums of money to state political campaigns and, in turn, receive special legislative favors by the contributions' recipients. These large campaign contributions have become a threat to a truly representative Wisconsin government and, consequently, a threat to Wisconsin's environmental integrity. In the mid-1990's, state elections have become a spending extravaganza by candidates. Total spending on statewide and legislative campaigns has increased from $9.3 million in the 1986 election cycle to over $18.4 million in 1994, almost double in less than 10 years. As revealed in the following chart, in 1984 only four state senate campaigns spent over $50,000; in 1994 that number had grown to 39 legislative campaigns - 21 state senate campaigns and 18 assembly campaigns. In 1984 the maximum spent on a legislative campaign was $104,000; in the 1994 election cycle the maximum amount had grown to over $300,000 for a single state senate campaign, a 300% increase. In addition to a rise of total spending, the sources of campaign contributions have changed drastically in recent years. Of the $4.6 million raised by members of the Wisconsin Legislature during the 1992 election cycle, $2,908,253 (63%) came from Political Action Committees (PACs), organized interest groups or wealthy contributors. Only $1,084,537 (24%) came from individuals as small direct donations of less than $100. The remaining 14% were miscellaneous campaign contributions, e.g., personal spending by candidates. These contributions threaten to corrode the integrity of Wisconsin government, and consequently, the integrity of Wisconsin's environment. Against this background, Wisconsin's Environmental Decade and the Sierra Club examined campaign contributions in Wisconsin to determine whether a relationship existed between large PAC campaign contributions (a corrosion of governmental integrity) and anti-environmental public policy (a corrosion of environmental integrity).

STUDY METHODOLOGY

Wisconsin's Environmental Decade (The Decade) regularly works with the Wisconsin legislature regarding legislation that can benefit or damage Wisconsin's natural environment and human health. At the conclusion of each legislative session (every two years) the Decade analyzes the voting records of each Wisconsin legislator to determine his/her level of support for sound environmental legislation proposed during the previous session. The Decade ranks all state legislators according to their voting record on key pieces of environmental legislation. This ranking measures only the actual votes and does not attempt to analyze the reasons for the votes. In this study the Decade analyzes the campaign financial support received by Wisconsin legislators with the lowest environmental rankings. The study identifies large PAC contributions to those legislators who most consistently oppose sound environmental legislation. The study then contrasts the specific PAC contributions to those legislators who most consistently support sound environmental legislation. The study examines 1994/1995 campaign contributions to the seventeen Wisconsin legislators with the worst environmental voting records from the 1993-1994 Legislative Session. These seventeen legislators were selected by Wisconsin's Environmental Decade after extensive research into the Wisconsin Legislature's Environmental Voting Record for the 1993-1994 Legislative Session. The study then examines contributions by the same sources to the sixteen Wisconsin legislators who most consistently support sound conservation and environmental legislation.

The study's authors simply totaled campaign spending during 1994 and the first period of 1995 for the above-specified legislators by specific corporations and trade groups who are known to be active participants in policy debates regarding Wisconsin's environment. The exception to the simple totaling method is explained in Note #1. The study's scope does not require statistically valid control groups against which to compare the chosen groups' campaign spending. However, the study's authors recommend and encourage a study of expanded scope which utilizes statistically valid measurements to analyze campaign spending by various groups with a policy interest in Wisconsin's environmental legislation.

Although not all of the study's interest groups sponsor both a PAC and a Conduit, for the purposes of this study all contributions by an interest group's PAC and its Conduit were combined as a single contribution. If the sponsoring organization of the PAC and Conduit are the same organization, the PAC's and Conduit's contributions are combined into a single contribution. Overall totals and interest-by-interest totals are included in the following charts, "1994-5 Wisconsin PAC/Conduit Campaign Contributions" and ""PAC/Conduit Contributions to Selected Wisconsin Legislators".

The study's authors obtained all pertinent campaign financial information from public campaign records located at The State of Wisconsin Elections Board, 132 E. Wilson St., Madison, Wisconsin. Such information includes registered expenditures from Political Action Committees (PACs) and Conduits. Findings

The study finds:

The examined PACs and Conduits contributed to anti-conservation legislators at a rate nearly twenty (20) times greater than they contributed to pro-conservation legislators in the 1994-1995 reporting period covered by the Decade's study.
The Wisconsin Realtors Association contributed the greatest amount to anti-conservation legislators' campaigns during the study period. This group is likely perceived by the public as environmentally benign in its Wisconsin legislative activities. However, no group contributed more campaign funds to anti-conservation candidates during the 1994-1995 period than the Wisconsin Realtors Association.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) contributed the smallest amount to anti-conservation legislators during the study period. Unlike the Wisconsin Realtors Association, the NRA is likely viewed by the public as highly political, highly partisan and therefore likely to contribute large sums of money to anti-conservation candidates. This study found no such connection.
Waste Management contributed the greatest amount to pro-conservation legislators. However, its contributions to anti-conservation candidates outpaced contribution to pro-conservation legislators by 3:1.
Groups whose members profit economically from environmental degradation in Wisconsin contributed to anti-conservation legislators' campaigns at a much greater rate than groups more ideologically-based on a single issue.
Of the seventeen anti-environmental legislators examined in the study, Senator Alan Lasee received the largest amount of campaign money from the PAC's/Conduits. Representative David Brandemuehl received the smallest amount of campaign money from the PACs/Conduits.
Of the sixteen pro-conservation legislators examined in the study, Representative David Travis received the largest amount of campaign money from PACs/Conduits. Senators Charles Chvala, Fred Risser and Representative Rebecca Young received the smallest amount of campaign money from the PACs/Conduits. Representative Spencer Black, a consistent leader on conservation and environmental issues in the Wisconsin Legislature makes it a practice never to accept PAC or conduit money.
The pro-environmental legislator receiving the largest amount from PACs (David Travis) received only $150 more than the anti-environmental legislator (David Brandemuehl) receiving the smallest amount from PACs/Conduits.

**Table 1**
1994-95 Wisconsin PAC/Conduit Campaign Contributions
Source of PAC and/or Conduit Campaign Contributions	Contributions to Anti-Conservation Legislators	Contributions to Pro-Conservation Legislators
WI Realtors Association	$40,638.91	$2,595.00
WI Farm Bureau	$39,876.43	$0.00
Construction Organizations (TOTAL) (Assoc. of Builders & Contractors) (WI Builders Assoc.) (WI Manufactered Housing Council) (WI Assoc. of General Contractors)	$32,399.79 $1,750.00 $24,779.79 $2,720.00 $3,275.00	$900.00 $0.00 $750.00 $150.00 $0.00
Business Organizations (TOTAL) (WI Manufacturers &Commerce) (Independent Business Action)	$20,028.86 $16,753.86 $3,275.00	$50.00 $0.00 $50.00
Electric Utilities (TOTAL) (WI Electric & Power Co.) (WI Power & Light) (WI Public Service)	$12,032.00 $8,332.00 $3,250.00 $450.00	$1,070.00 $720.00 $350.00
WI Right to Life*	$11,211.66	$0.00
Banking Organizations (TOTAL) (WI Bankers Association) (Independent Bankers Assoc. of WI)	$10,355.00 $10,155.00 $200.00	$700.00 $700.00 $0.00
Fort Howard Paper	$4,550.00	$300.00
Waste Management	$4,200.00	$2,800.00
Transportation Organizations (TOTAL) (WI Motor Carriers) (WI AMOCO) (WI Roadbuilders Assoc.)	$3,900.00 $1,900.00 $1,700.00 $300.00	$650.00 $0.00 $650.00 $0.00
Miller Brewing	$650.00	$0.00
National Rifle Association	$300.00	$0.00
TOTAL*	$180,142.65	$9,065.00

*see note 1

**Table 2**
1994-95 PAC/conduit Contributions to Selected Legislators
Anti-Conservation Legislator	PAC/Conduit Contribution	Pro-Conservation Legislator	PAC/Conduit Contribution
Sen. A. Lasee Sen. G. Petak Sen. D. Schultz Sen. D. Zien Rep. R. Skindrud Sen. J. Huelsman Sen. B. Lorman Rep. J. Klusman Rep. R. Zukowski Sen. M. Ellis Sen. G. Drzewiecki Sen. M. Farrow Rep. S. Albers Sen. M. Panzer Rep. D. Brandemuehl TOTAL*	$41,680.56 $31,657.83 $23,621.47 $13,901.12 $10,941.20 $6,964.19 $6,476.70 $6,380.00 $6,145.32 $5,355.00 $4,746.00 $4,505.00 $2,831.00 $2,325.00 $1,450.00 $168,980.39	Rep. D. Travis Rep. J. Rutkowski Rep. S. Krug Rep. A. Riley Rep. J. Morris-Tatum Rep. P. Bock Sen. B. Burke Sen. G. George Rep. T. Carpenter Rep. D. Cullen Rep. J. Robson Rep. F. Boyle Rep. T. Baldwin Sen. C. Chvala Sen. F. Risser Rep. R. Young TOTAL*	$1,600.00 $1,450.00 $1,060.00 $810.00 $800.00 $700.00 $595.00 $550.00 $525.00 $350.00 $250.00 $150.00 $75.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $9,065.00

*see note 1

Note #1.

Readers may note an apparent discrepancy in the TOTALS figure for the PAC/Conduit Contributions by organizations ($180,142.65) and TOTALS figure for the PAC/Conduit Contributions to the legislators ($168,980.39). In an ideal statistical and political world these two figures would be identical. Our world is neither. The figures reflect two unique qualities of this study.

The first unique situation regards the Wisconsin Right To Life PAC (WRTL). Contributions by WRTL are listed on the "1994-5 Wisconsin PAC/Conduit Campaign Contributions" page as a campaign contribution by an organization but are not reflected on the "PAC/Conduit Contributions to Selected Legislators" page because the legislators never actually received this money. WRTL purchased media advertising for their slate of endorsed legislative candidates. Therefore the $11,211.66 spent by WRTL is not reflected in the total contributions accepted by the legislators.

WRTL did spend $63,533 in media support for legislative candidates during the study period. This amount cannot be ignored. In order to accurately assess the impact of these contributions, the authors averaged the amount WRTL spent per candidate and multiplied this figure ($63,533 / 34 candidates = $1868.61 per candidate) times the number of the specific pro and anti-conservation candidates WRTL supported. WRTL supported six (6) anti-environmental legislators and no (0) pro-environmental legislators. WRTL opposed two (2) anti-environmental candidates but opposed two (2) pro-environmental candidates. The authors, therefore, assessed WRTL's opposition activities as essentially canceling each other regarding the contribution's impact on environmental legislation. WRTL's contribution of $11,211.66 reflects the $1868.61 per supported legislator. (Six times $1868.61 = $11.211.66)

The second unique situation regards the Campaign for a Working Wisconsin PAC (CWW). Most of the examined groups, including WRTL, either contributed directly to the legislator's campaign or purchased media support openly for the legislative candidates. Three of the examined groups, however, contributed in an indirect manner. These three groups (Wisconsin Builders Association, Wisconsin Farm Bureau and Wisconsin Realtors Association) formed a PAC on October 5, 1994 named "Coalition for a Working Wisconsin" (CWW). CWW was funded by these three groups in the following manner: WI Builders Association - $15,000; Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation - $30,000; WI Realtor's Association - $30,000. CWW purchased television and radio campaign support for four senators (Petak, Lasee, Rosenzweig and Schultz), three of whom are listed in the study as anti-environmental senators (Petak, Lasee, and Schultz). CWW terminated its organization on January 1, 1995 soon after the November, 1994 election. The authors did not ignore these relatively large indirect contributions. Indirect campaign contributions to anti-environmental legislators produce the same resulting environmental damage as direct campaign contributions to anti-environmental legislators. This study measures direct and indirect contributions equally.

Like WRTL, CWW purchased media advertising for the campaigns of the four aforementioned senators. Unlike WRTL, which purchased advertising for a slate of candidates, CWW purchased specific advertising for specific candidates. Therefore, the study was able to quantify per-candidate totals for expenditures by CWW.