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 Illinois?

Return to U.S. map

     Jump to the Details:

Unsettling details about scandals in Illinois continue to emerge.

Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert was the top recipient of campaign contributions from Abramoff and associates.(1) Further, Hastert did not report a June 2003 Abramoff-sponsored fundraiser to the Federal Election Commission until April 2005, when Business Week began inquiring about the event.(2) In January 2006, Hastert donated about $70,000 attributed to Abramoff and his associates to charity.(3)

Not all members of Illinois’ congressional delegation believe that lobbyist-sponsored fundraisers are a good idea. In January 2006, as the circles of scandal continued to expand, Rep. Ray LaHood sent a letter to 23 lobbyists alerting them that he would no longer avail himself of their fundraising services.“In the past, we have asked each of you to sponsor an event and commit to raise money on my behalf,” LaHood wrote. “I believe this could be perceived as a special relationship, and I am confident all of us want to avoid this perception.”(4)

There is hope for change. Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinios 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 Illinois’ congressional delegation: 

  • Hastert received an average of $162,151 from lobbyists per election cycle, more than any other member of Illinois’ congressional delegation, and more than four times as much as any other Illinois House member got from K Street.

  • Hastert received an average of $2.9 million from PACs per cycle. No other member of Illinois’ delegation received an average of as much as $1 million per cycle from PACs.

  • Sen. Barack Obama received $6 million in non-PAC contributions from out of state, nearly four times as much as his colleague, Sen. Dick Durbin.  But Obama raised a far higher percentage of contributions from small donors (47.7 percent) than did Durbin (18.9 percent).

  • Eight members of Illinois’ congressional delegation reported over $50,000 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

Illinois's Senators and Representatives
Member
District
Party
Term
Next Election
% of Vote Received
in Last General Election*
Overall Rank
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
N/A
D
2nd
2008
60.33 %
14
N/A
D
1st
2010
69.97 %
N/A
8
D
1st
2006
51.70 %
105
13
R
4th
2006
65.02 %
327
12
D
10th
2006
69.46 %
293
7
D
5th
2006
86.13 %
370
5
D
2nd
2006
76.18 %
40
17
D
12th
60.68 %
347
4
D
7th
2006
83.71 %
326
14
R
10th
2006
68.63 %
8
6
R
16th
55.83 %
216
2
D
6th
2006
88.49 %
165
15
R
3rd
2006
61.05 %
417
10
R
3rd
2006
64.14 %
74
18
R
6th
2006
70.24 %
176
3
D
1st
2006
72.64 %
412
16
R
7th
2006
69.08 %
185
1
D
7th
2006
84.86 %
343
9
D
4th
2006
75.74 %
396
19
R
5th
2006
69.36 %
233
11
R
6th
2006
58.67 %
24

[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.

**Some Senators were not included in the overall rankings because complete data on contributions from lobbyists were not available for them.


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
$ 346,300
$ 124,360
15
$ 35,600
$ 0
N/A
$ 632,184
$ 162,151
4
$ 157,502
$ 38,688
62
$ 33,500
$ 37,185
66
$ 136,804
$ 34,769
74
$ 96,751
$ 34,520
75
$ 91,550
$ 22,445
132
$ 43,870
$ 18,371
166
$ 55,439
$ 16,875
186
$ 53,734
$ 14,173
219
$ 49,589
$ 11,990
249
$ 44,250
$ 11,031
264
$ 27,657
$ 6,513
350
$ 19,745
$ 5,249
372
$ 16,750
$ 4,907
377
$ 18,526
$ 4,477
384
$ 11,350
$ 4,051
395
$ 13,600
$ 3,685
403
$ 1,500
$ 1,665
422
$ 6,550
$ 1,480
428

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.

**Some Senators were not included in the overall rankings because complete data on contributions from lobbyists were not available for them.


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)‡
$ 90,001 to $ 100,000
5.5
$ 90,001 to $ 100,000
$ 0 to $ 0
0.5
$ 0 to $ 0
$ 100,001 to $ 110,000
5.5
$ 100,001 to $ 110,000
$ 80,001 to $ 90,000
5.5
$ 80,001 to $ 90,000
$ 70,001 to $ 80,000
5.5
$ 70,001 to $ 80,000
$ 1 to $ 10,000
0.5
$ 70,001 to $ 80,000
$ 60,001 to $ 70,000
5.5
$ 60,001 to $ 70,000
$ 50,001 to $ 60,000
5.5
$ 50,001 to $ 60,000
$ 50,001 to $ 60,000
5.5
$ 50,001 to $ 60,000
$ 50,001 to $ 60,000
5.5
$ 50,001 to $ 60,000
$ 20,001 to $ 30,000
4.5
$ 30,001 to $ 40,000
$ 20,001 to $ 30,000
5.5
$ 20,001 to $ 30,000
$ 20,001 to $ 30,000
5.5
$ 20,001 to $ 30,000
$ 10,001 to $ 20,000
5.5
$ 10,001 to $ 20,000
$ 1 to $ 10,000
0.5
$ 10,001 to $ 20,000
$ 10,001 to $ 20,000
5.5
$ 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
$ 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

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
$ 6,037,451
38.60 %
$ 1,841,307
8
$ 1,539,141
24.30 %
$ 536,391
46
$ 3,650,698
40.80 %
$ 897,524
3
$ 2,334,569
50.00 %
$ 774,089
5
$ 596,407
32.70 %
$ 284,647
38
$ 597,763
58.20 %
$ 207,394
66
$ 810,196
27.20 %
$ 202,898
71
$ 450,254
8.1 %
$ 115,356
135
$ 433,258
24.60 %
$ 108,496
147
$ 280,954
15.50 %
$ 70,169
209
$ 278,412
18.60 %
$ 68,065
220
$ 228,337
20.50 %
$ 57,055
256
$ 186,156
11.50 %
$ 45,566
296
$ 165,150
26.00 %
$ 44,218
303
$ 129,155
22.70 %
$ 44,166
304
$ 114,545
5.9 %
$ 28,363
367
$ 106,900
16.90 %
$ 26,030
375
$ 102,711
19.60 %
$ 25,584
378
$ 77,095
8.0 %
$ 19,174
400
$ 62,750
8.0 %
$ 16,104
409
$ 13,400
6.2 %
$ 6,333
429

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
$ 1,473,550
$ 522,542
18.90 %
19
$ 13,648,953
$ 3,959,726
47.70 %
78
$ 1,515,582
$ 336,071
21.40 %
22
$ 1,277,585
$ 380,226
21.50 %
23
$ 932,943
$ 212,422
23.80 %
32
$ 204,759
$ 49,360
24.40 %
37
$ 3,538,760
$ 800,066
28.40 %
79
$ 419,829
$ 98,343
30.30 %
102
$ 824,751
$ 191,884
31.90 %
129
$ 300,965
$ 71,077
32.20 %
134
$ 790,840
$ 184,087
32.90 %
152
$ 122,196
$ 54,123
36.20 %
198
$ 917,331
$ 214,995
38.00 %
225
$ 371,129
$ 87,513
41.40 %
283
$ 1,404,938
$ 334,444
41.90 %
291
$ 1,371,068
$ 325,942
43.10 %
312
$ 1,005,197
$ 242,848
47.40 %
364
$ 710,380
$ 180,574
47.40 %
364
$ 1,872,554
$ 862,182
50.70 %
394
$ 1,031,816
$ 344,412
64.40 %
423
$ 2,339,194
$ 818,974
69.50 %
429

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
$ 2,079,333
18.80 %
$ 466,865
$ 202,788
$ 733,843
30
$ 1,170,609
5.8 %
$ 218,944
$ 83,222
$ 346,054
79
$ 11,680,461
50.90 %
$ 2,767,275
$ 105,204
$ 2,904,608
1
$ 3,167,081
46.00 %
$ 699,940
$ 83,229
$ 793,771
27
$ 2,506,250
52.50 %
$ 570,969
$ 57,235
$ 639,897
45
$ 1,681,877
45.40 %
$ 404,847
$ 4,256
$ 415,043
144
$ 1,676,697
21.40 %
$ 358,518
$ 19,855
$ 427,603
134
$ 1,469,917
33.50 %
$ 290,469
$ 72,661
$ 367,839
193
$ 1,446,437
43.70 %
$ 98,999
$ 333,735
$ 493,221
90
$ 1,345,983
19.90 %
$ 287,906
$ 130,121
$ 439,507
126
$ 1,205,545
35.90 %
$ 130,497
$ 166,890
$ 302,632
264
$ 1,138,450
48.40 %
$ 251,718
$ 15,498
$ 284,269
283
$ 1,075,062
56.10 %
$ 157,907
$ 105,404
$ 271,251
293
$ 1,054,116
21.90 %
$ 229,483
$ 199,827
$ 502,242
87
$ 888,417
28.00 %
$ 174,206
$ 41,928
$ 225,712
348
$ 885,222
23.40 %
$ 67,120
$ 131,799
$ 219,469
354
$ 869,784
27.90 %
$ 97,124
$ 103,329
$ 217,665
358
$ 822,033
51.10 %
$ 101,849
$ 97,729
$ 206,325
367
$ 745,388
18.70 %
$ 230,839
$ 13,167
$ 257,031
313
$ 689,928
44.30 %
$ 58,917
$ 109,240
$ 177,728
386
$ 166,922
36.00 %
$ 41,556
$ 37,380
$ 79,371
424

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) Center for Responsive Politics, “Jack Abramoff and his Clients: Campaign Contribution Recipients, Top 50 Recipients,” May 5, 2006.
(2) Eamon Javers, “Denny Hastert's Late Payment,” Business Week, April 15, 2005.
(3) “Hastert Donates Abramoff Money,” CNN, Jan. 3, 2006.
(4) Kate Ackley, “LaHood Tells 23 Lobbyists: No More Fundraisers, Please,” Roll Call, Jan. 25, 2006.

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