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 Connecticut?

Return to U.S. map

     Jump to the Details:

Scandals involving prominent state legislators such as former Gov. John Rowland, who was sent to federal prison after pleading guilty to accepting gifts from state contractors, have rocked the state and angered citizens.(1)

When the scandals occurred, Connecticut’s citizens jumped to address them. In December 2005, the state passed a law providing a public financing system for campaigns for state office and prohibiting candidates running for state offices from accepting contributions from lobbyists and state contractors.(2)

There is hope for change. Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut is a co-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 Connecticut’s congressional delegation:

  • Sen. Christopher Dodd ranks No. 1 in the state’s entire congressional delegation in contributions from lobbyists per election cycle ($148,410).

  • Rep. Nancy Johnson ranks No. 1 in contributions from PACs per cycle ($1.4 million). She tops Connecticut’s members in the House of Representatives in contributions from out-of-state donors per cycle. (Note: this calculation does not include PACs or contributions from individuals who gave less than $200.) She also received the smallest percentage among the state’s House delegation in contributions from small donors (individuals who gave less than $200 per cycle).

  • Of his contributions from individuals, Sen. Joe Lieberman received nearly 75 percent (73.9 percent) from people who live outside of Connecticut, barely eclipsing Dodd, who received 69.4 percent of his non-PAC contributions from out-of-state donors. (Note: Lieberman’s contributions exclude those received by his 2004 presidential committee, which would be expected to attract money from donors across the country. This calculation also excludes contributions from people who gave $200 or less.)

  • Rep. Chris Shays, in contrast, received out-of-state contributions of 9.9 percent.

  • Reps. Shays and John Larson accepted the smallest amount of contributions from lobbyists. They took in an average of $8,335 and $9,667 per election cycle, respectively, from K Street.

  • Johnson reported between $110,001 and $120,000 in privately funded travel from January 2000 to June 2005, more than anyone else in Connecticut’s delegation.

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

Connecticut's Senators and Representatives
Member
District
Party
Term
Next Election
% of Vote Received
in Last General Election*
Overall Rank
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
N/A
D
5th
2010
66.35 %
13
N/A
I
3rd
2006
63.21 %
24
3
D
8th
2006
72.44 %
61
5
R
12th
2006
59.79 %
11
1
D
4th
2006
72.98 %
304
4
R
10th
2006
52.43 %
229
2
R
3rd
2006
54.19 %
93

[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
$ 489,428
$ 148,410
8
$ 243,212
$ 46,472
59
$ 242,611
$ 62,943
30
$ 203,395
$ 48,031
49
$ 57,125
$ 17,881
171
$ 40,250
$ 9,667
296
$ 33,090
$ 7,574
331

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)‡
$ 50,001 to $ 60,000
5.5
$ 50,001 to $ 60,000
$ 10,001 to $ 20,000
5.5
$ 10,001 to $ 20,000
$ 110,001 to $ 120,000
5.5
$ 110,001 to $ 120,000
$ 50,001 to $ 60,000
5.5
$ 50,001 to $ 60,000
$ 30,001 to $ 40,000
4.5
$ 30,001 to $ 40,000
$ 10,001 to $ 20,000
5.5
$ 10,001 to $ 20,000
$ 0 to $ 0
5.5
$ 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
$ 7,983,947
73.90 %
$ 1,375,433
13
$ 3,625,688
69.40 %
$ 1,142,403
19
$ 1,683,317
42.50 %
$ 425,419
23
$ 838,892
29.50 %
$ 201,716
73
$ 609,691
39.50 %
$ 150,163
102
$ 436,436
9.9 %
$ 108,036
149
$ 119,659
10.60 %
$ 29,675
360

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
$ 1,437,266
$ 249,576
11.70 %
8
$ 3,263,206
$ 948,732
38.40 %
58
$ 1,302,607
$ 299,293
24.70 %
40
$ 538,560
$ 124,682
25.90 %
52
$ 2,141,438
$ 487,706
32.80 %
149
$ 633,210
$ 148,742
36.00 %
194
$ 1,760,520
$ 418,044
38.20 %
227

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
$ 2,520,347
16.10 %
$ 346,028
$ 54,353
$ 435,372
67
$ 3,032,126
33.20 %
$ 817,918
$ 108,340
$ 965,177
13
$ 1,192,097
18.00 %
$ 207,788
$ 51,509
$ 287,688
279
$ 2,300,225
30.40 %
$ 464,807
$ 40,862
$ 564,800
63
$ 1,320,849
41.10 %
$ 130,543
$ 169,047
$ 332,116
229
$ 1,265,214
44.70 %
$ 200,343
$ 112,212
$ 321,625
241
$ 5,375,559
51.60 %
$ 1,264,544
$ 39,889
$ 1,351,287
8

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.



(1) Christopher Keating, “Scandal Figures Fund Reform In a Twist, Rowland Money Backs New Law,” HartfordCourant, Dec. 10, 2005.
(2) Mark Pazniokas, “Campaign Finance Reform Becomes Law,” HartfordCourant, Dec. 8, 2005.

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