spacer image spacer image spacer image
spacer image Banner spacer image
spacer image spacer image spacer image
spacer image spacer image spacer image
spacer image spacer image spacer image
spacer image Home Our Mission Tell the Press Tell a Friend Subscribe Donate subbannerbuttons spacer image
spacer image spacer image spacer image
spacer image spacer image spacer image
spacer image spacer image spacer image
spacer image spacer image
Printable Pamphlet (pdf)
See the highlights (pdf)

Who Really Represents Arizona?

Return to U.S. map

     Jump to the Details:

Arizona’s “Clean Elections, Clean Money” system shows that, for the state’s legislature, the public funding of elections works. In the meantime, Arizona’s federally elected officials remain dependent on campaign contributions from lobbyists, out-of-state donors and PACs.

Securing public funding for state elections was not an easy fight. Rep. Jeff Flake helped form a group – No Taxpayer Money for Politicians – that tried to put an initiative on the ballot in 2004 to ban the use of public money for political campaigns. The push for a ban ended when the state’s Supreme Court yanked the question from the ballot on constitutional grounds.

There is hope for change. Rep. Raul M. Grijalva of Arizona is a sponsor of a key new bill, H.R. 3099, the Clean Money, Clean Elections Act, which would provide full public funding for House candidates.

This report unearths the following facts about Arizona’s congressional delegation:

  • No member of Arizona’s congressional delegation received less than 58 percent of the vote in the last election.

  • Sen. John McCain, a national figure, received more than 85 percent of his contributions from out-of-state individuals, compared to only 27.4 percent for his Senate colleague, John Kyl. (Note: this calculation excludes contributions from PACs and contributions of less than $200 from individuals.)

  • McCain received a significantly greater percentage of his contributions from small donors (those giving $200 or less) than Kyl, 27.7 percent to 17.7 percent. (Note: this calculation includes only contributions from individuals.)

  • McCain received the lowest share of contributions from PACs in the delegation: 8.6 percent.

  • Rep. J. D. Hayworth tops Arizona’s House delegation in contributions from PACs, averaging more than $542,000 per election cycle.

  • Rep. Jim Kolbe, the longest serving member of Arizona’s House delegation and the lone member of the delegation not seeking reelection, received the highest average contributions from lobbyists since the 2000 election cycle: $57,872 per cycle.

  • Half of Arizona’s delegation reported $10,000 or less in privately funded travel from January 2000 to June 2005.

Certain categories of data were adjusted, as indicated, to account for the periods of time members served and overall increases in contributions since the 2000 election cycle. Some of the findings highlighted above reflect these adjusted figures.

Meet Your Member

Arizona's Senators and Representatives
Member
District
Party
Term
Next Election
% of Vote Received
in Last General Election*
Overall Rank
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
N/A
R
2nd
2006
79.32 %
41
N/A
R
4th
2010
76.74 %
31
6
R
3rd
2006
79.38 %
318
2
R
2nd
2006
59.17 %
404
7
D
2nd
2006
62.06 %
392
5
R
6th
2006
59.50 %
118
8
R
11th
60.36 %
69
4
D
8th
2006
70.12 %
59
1
R
2nd
2006
58.54 %
79
3
R
6th
2006
80.10 %
252

[print friendlyprint friendly]


Don't know who your representative is? Refer to the House Web site.

* Source: Federal Election Commission. Some members listed as receiving 100% were uncontested.


K Street Cash

Contributions from Lobbyists

Lobbyists are paid big bucks to convince members of Congress to vote a certain way. They do this through meetings in which they lay out their point of view. They also sometimes provide members of Congress with expensive meals, golf trips and campaign contributions to ensure access.

In addition to the direct contributions detailed below, the “bundling” of contributions from individuals by lobbyists substantially enabled the rapid increase in political expenditures in recent years, which are not reflected in the chart. This chart is only the tip of the iceberg in documenting lobbyists’ influence through fundraising.

[print friendlyprint friendly]

Member
Total Contributions
from Lobbyists, 2000-2005
Contributions from Lobbyists
Per Cycle (adjusted)*
Ranking
$ 214,000
$ 70,539
43
$ 257,589
$ 45,452
60
$ 172,287
$ 57,872
36
$ 185,245
$ 48,904
48
$ 94,928
$ 25,858
110
$ 57,838
$ 23,231
128
$ 50,662
$ 12,845
232
$ 25,600
$ 10,230
280
$ 15,500
$ 6,829
343
$ 13,100
$ 3,789
401

Source: The Center for Responsive Politics. Figures are drawn from information for the period from January 1, 1999 through December 31, 2005.
* See Methodology for explanation of adjustment method.


Teeing Off

Acceptance of Privately Funded Travel and Related Expenses

Being a member of Congress is supposed to be a job, not a vacation. Yet lawmakers accept free trips all over the world. While some of the trips are legitimate fact-finding missions, others include golf outings and spa visits. Often traveling with Members are representatives of the special interests that funded the travel. Sometimes these companions are lobbyists, who can use charter flights and breaks between holes on the golf course to lobby members of Congress.

[print friendlyprint friendly]

Member
Total Privately
Funded Travel*
Yrs of Service†
Privately Funded Travel
(with years-of-service multiplier)‡
$ 40,001 to $ 50,000
5.5
$ 40,001 to $ 50,000
$ 1 to $ 10,000
5.5
$ 1 to $ 10,000
$ 140,001 to $ 150,000
5.5
$ 140,001 to $ 150,000
$ 80,001 to $ 90,000
5.5
$ 80,001 to $ 90,000
$ 20,001 to $ 30,000
4.5
$ 30,001 to $ 40,000
$ 1 to $ 10,000
2.5
$ 10,001 to $ 20,000
$ 1 to $ 10,000
5.5
$ 1 to $ 10,000
$ 1 to $ 10,000
5.5
$ 1 to $ 10,000
$ 0 to $ 0
2.5
$ 0 to $ 0
$ 0 to $ 0
2.5
$ 0 to $ 0

Source: The Center for Public Integrity.
* As reported by members of Congress. Due to the imprecise reporting of privately funded travel, increments of $10,000 are used.
† The range of the available data is from January 1, 2000 to June 30, 2005.
‡ The figure incorporates the years of service factor and extrapolates each member’s travel as if he or she had served all 5.5 years.


On Tour

Contributions from Individuals Who Live Out of State

Members of Congress are elected to represent constituents, yet many candidates for office receive contributions from people who do not live in their states or districts. Large amounts of out-of-state contributors may indicate that candidates are gearing up for a national election, that they are beholden to special interests located outside their state or district, or both.

[print friendlyprint friendly]

Member
Total Contributions from Out-of-State
2000 Cycle to Present*
% of Contributions
from Out-of-State
Contributions from
Out-of-State Per Cycle (adjusted) †
Ranking
$ 6,234,823
86.20 %
$ 2,076,941
6
$ 2,655,685
27.40 %
$ 443,285
60
$ 725,747
44.90 %
$ 222,800
57
$ 606,411
34.80 %
$ 202,861
72
$ 635,038
27.70 %
$ 162,855
93
$ 482,665
43.00 %
$ 122,164
122
$ 283,315
20.20 %
$ 71,108
208
$ 198,232
20.20 %
$ 47,751
289
$ 111,351
19.60 %
$ 36,054
340
$ 89,775
15.60 %
$ 29,258
361

Source: The Center for Responsive Politics. Figures are drawn from information for the period from January 1, 1999 through June 30, 2006 and are based on data released electronically by the FEC on August 7, 2006.
* Contributions represent only those from individuals who gave more than $200.
† See Methodology for explanation of adjustment method.


Fat Cats or Passing the Hat?

Contributions of $200 or less

When candidates are collecting dollars, it is easier to go to a relatively small number of wealthy donors who can write $2,000 checks than to gather many, many more small contributions from a large number of people. Candidates with many small donations likely reached out to a more economically and socially diverse group of citizens.

Federal election law does not require itemized reporting of donations of $200 or less. Members of Congress who receive more money from small donors, especially in proportion to their overall contributions, probably are turning more to their whole constituencies to raise money instead of to a few well-heeled supporters.

[print friendlyprint friendly]

Member
Contributions from Small Donors
Contributions from Small Donors Per Cycle (adjusted)*
% of Contributions from Small Donors†
Ranking
$ 2,094,240
$ 336,126
17.70 %
15
$ 2,776,309
$ 806,923
27.70 %
38
$ 626,814
$ 141,450
30.90 %
112
$ 528,040
$ 123,744
32.00 %
132
$ 1,032,417
$ 307,787
39.00 %
238
$ 1,115,809
$ 353,690
39.00 %
238
$ 680,245
$ 163,525
40.90 %
274
$ 1,905,476
$ 460,466
45.40 %
339
$ 477,466
$ 142,663
45.70 %
342
$ 584,949
$ 182,516
50.50 %
391

Source: The Center for Responsive Politics. Figures are drawn from information for the period from January 1, 1999 through June 30, 2006 and are based on data released electronically by the FEC on August 7, 2006.
* See Methodology for explanation of adjustment method.
† Percentage represents contributions from individuals of $200 or less divided by all contributions from individuals.


PAC-Men and PAC-Women

Contributions from Political Action Committees (PACs)

Members of Congress are elected to represent constituents, but often receive contributions from special interest organizations known as political action committees (PACs). PACs may give up to $5,000 per candidate per election and typically target elections in which their donations will have the biggest impact.

Some members included in our overall charts have stated publicly in news reports or other sources that they do not accept any PAC money whatsoever. PACs, which are the source for the data below, do not always report returned donations. The following members have indicated that they take no money from PACs: Senators Maria Cantwell (D.-Wash.), Herb Kohl (D.-Wisc.) and Mark Dayton (D.-Minn); as well as Rep.’s Hostettler (D-Mass.), Inglis (R-S.C.), Meehan (D-Mass.), Leach (R-Iowa), Osborne (R-Neb.) and Platts (R-Pa.).

[print friendlyprint friendly]

Member
Contributions from PACs, 2000 Cycle to Present
% of Total Contributions from PACs
Contributions from Business PACs Per Cycle (adjusted)*
Contributions from Labor PACs Per Cycle (adjusted)
Contributions from PACs Per Cycle (adjusted)
Ranking
$ 3,454,915
21.70 %
$ 546,122
$ 1,808
$ 576,890
51
$ 1,307,805
8.6 %
$ 372,963
$ 22,625
$ 417,041
72
$ 450,823
21.30 %
$ 107,437
$ 0
$ 114,868
418
$ 426,649
26.70 %
$ 115,976
$ 290
$ 128,672
412
$ 1,575,453
51.50 %
$ 390,597
$ 656
$ 395,406
165
$ 2,135,832
31.50 %
$ 515,801
$ 8,272
$ 542,446
68
$ 1,320,777
33.00 %
$ 392,281
$ 17,135
$ 448,925
116
$ 1,719,062
33.40 %
$ 483,950
$ 24,193
$ 541,464
69
$ 698,045
41.20 %
$ 60,268
$ 142,866
$ 226,987
345
$ 1,777,719
53.20 %
$ 242,266
$ 199,068
$ 449,160
115

Source: The Center for Responsive Politics. Figures are drawn from information for the period from January 1, 1999 through June 30, 2006 and are based on data released electronically by the FEC on August 7, 2006.
* See Methodology for explanation of adjustment method.


Return to U.S. map
spacer image
spacer image spacer image spacer image
spacer image
About Us | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | ©2013 Public Citizen
spacer image
spacer image spacer image spacer image