ILNews

Supporting politicians: Legal industry among biggest contributors to campaigns

Rebecca Berfanger
January 1, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


 Attorneys' total contributions nationally to 2008 presidential candidates*: If you've been getting calls since the primaries or even earlier, asking you to donate to political party A or candidate B, or to help to spread the word about issue C, you're not alone.

It's no secret that attorneys - whether as individuals or as a combined effort of attorneys in a firm - contribute to campaigns.

In federal campaigns in 2004 and so far this year, Indiana lawyers are listed as second in terms of contributions after retirees, according to OpenSecrets.org, the Web presence of the Center for Responsive Politics, which compiles information from the Federal Election Commission and other sources about campaign giving in presidential and congressional races.

"I really do believe as a profession we have a greater understanding of our civic responsibility than others," said Kipper Tew of Krieg DeVault. Tew has worked in the government affairs field since 1989 and is also currently serving as the senior advisor with Barack Obama for President Indiana.

What may be less known is why attorneys give, how much they care about appearing partisan or non-partisan, and what they ultimately use to make a decision to write a check - or not. One reason attorneys give is simple: they are asked.

"Many law firms interact with government and elected officials so they're known to the campaigns already," said Daniel Seitz, managing principal of Bose Public Affairs Group, which is affiliated with Bose McKinney & Evans in Indianapolis. Seitz has worked in the Indiana legislature and with Indiana regulatory agencies since the early 1970s.

"In particular, if you're talking about Indianapolis, you're talking about one set of circumstances. But if you're talking about a county seat in a rural county, those lawyers are among the community's leaders in those small communities," Seitz said.

Some attorneys may be more proactive than others, he said, but most "know they're going to be asked but won't necessarily seek the opportunity."

John P. Bushemi, a lawyer who served in the Indiana Senate from 1976 to 1990 and recently joined Hoeppner Wagner & Evans in Valparaiso to lead the state government affairs team, added another reason attorneys are sought out.

"Attorneys ... have the financial ability to make contributions," Bushemi said. "I believe this is generally known to the community."

Sheila Suess Kennedy, professor of law and public policy at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis School of Public & Environmental Affairs, said when it comes to campaigns for judges and attorneys general, her impression is that attorneys are a more "significant source of contributions" than the general public.

"Lawyers, after all, have a stake in who serves that is different from citizens' interest in the quality of the judiciary," Kennedy wrote via e-mail from a conference in Montana. "Lawyers who practice in the courts are also (arguably) more informed since they not only see judges perform on a day-to-day basis, but are much more likely to have the information and specialized background to make considered, professional judgments."

But when it comes to candidates in general, she said, "the picture changes; lawyers are not a particularly significant source of funding, and the choice made by an individual lawyer is based on the same considerations that motivate other voters."

There's a fine line when it comes to firms that may not want to appear to their clients as being partisan - especially clients who are on the other side of the aisle.

This may be why firms encourage attorneys to participate in the political process but don't necessarily tell them which side to take. When it comes to which candidate to donate to, Tew and other attorneys who practice at firms interviewed for this story said it's ultimately up to the attorney, not the firm.

"Lots of folks in our firm give to folks they believe in regardless of party, and some only give to candidates of the party they favor," Tew said.

Attorney Bob Grand, who serves as an advisor to many Indiana Republican candidate committees and is the managing partner of the Indianapolis office of Barnes & Thornburg, said, "I would think most firms would have people giving to both sides, but I'm not aware of the firm encouraging giving to one side or the other."

Whether a firm wants to appear partisan mainly depends on the size of the firm and how involved they are in local politics and political issues, Seitz said.

"The large Indianapolis firms are all in one way or another politically involved," Seitz said. "So they are going to seek a balance. I know there are partners and members of those firms who are Republicans, and other partners and members who are Democrats."

However, smaller firms may be more "politically distinct," he said, which is "probably driven by history of founding member or members who were politically active and part of the culture of the firm was political involvement."

Bushemi added some candidates may try to avoid a label as one party or the other "because firms have members who are both Democrat and Republican, and most important, we serve clients who are both Democrat and Republican."

At the end of the day, Seitz said attorneys are like any other person when it comes to which candidate gets a check.

"Certainly the individual contributors tend to have an affinity for one party or another. ... How they give is an individual decision," Seitz said. "Some give to both party candidates. Not necessarily for the same office, but from experience I know they do, and why not? There are a lot of independents out there."

The only real difference between how attorneys give compared to the rest of the population may depend on how one candidate may handle an issue that's important to their clients. For instance, if an attorney represents businesses, they may be interested in how a candidate's proposed policies may affect those businesses, Grand said.

While firms and attorneys may not expect to have any perks simply for giving to a campaign, many firms and attorneys are already involved in the political process in one way or another, and participating in a campaign is another way to network, Grand said.

Tew and Seitz added that working with a campaign also may help get access to people in politics when they want to reach them about a particular issue that is of interest to attorneys or their clients.

"There is no doubt that politicians of every stripe tend to remember those who support them if all other things are equal," Tew said.

"But politicians and attorneys make big errors if they overdo it or don't keep the taxpayer or the client in mind when awarding or performing under contracts," he added. "Most politicians have figured out that it is important to spread the work around."

Because it's not a requirement to declare one's occupation or employer when giving to a campaign, it's difficult to know exactly how much lawyers give in terms of volunteer hours and donations.

However, sources interviewed for this story said if one attorney or firm changed donation patterns, it wouldn't make much difference, but as a whole, the legal community does have a significant impact on the process.

"I am not sure the legal community is completely aware of how much we contribute," Tew said. "The fact is that we should be very proud as a profession." •

 
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

  2. A high ranking bureaucrat with Ind sup court is heading up an organization celebrating the formal N word!!! She must resign and denounce! http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

  3. ND2019, don't try to confuse the Left with facts. Their ideologies trump facts, trump due process, trump court rules, even trump federal statutes. I hold the proof if interested. Facts matter only to those who are not on an agenda-first mission.

  4. OK so I'll make this as short as I can. I got a call that my daughter was smoking in the bathroom only her and one other girl was questioned mind you four others left before them anyways they proceeded to interrogate my daughter about smoking and all this time I nor my parents got a phone call,they proceeded to go through her belongings and also pretty much striped searched my daughter including from what my mother said they looked at her Brest without my consent. I am furious also a couple months ago my son hurt his foot and I was never called and it got worse during the day but the way some of the teachers have been treating my kids they are not comfortable going to them because they feel like they are mean or don't care. This is unacceptable in my mind i should be able to send my kids to school without worry but now I worry how the adults there are treating them. I have a lot more but I wanted to know do I have any attempt at a lawsuit because like I said there is more that's just some of what my kids are going through. Please respond. Sincerely concerned single parent

  5. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13) Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety. The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350 The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483 Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates. The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483 These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30) The full report is available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8% The full report is available online at. http://www.google.com/url?sa= t&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_ Research_Branch%2FResearch_ documents%2FOutcome_ evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei= C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C. Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013 Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7% Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009. The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05% Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do. From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M. For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf. Attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth. Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country. I think the media or other organizations need to do a in depth investigation into the false assumptions and false data that has been used to further these laws and to research all the collateral damages being caused by these laws and the unconstitutional injustices that are occurring across the country. They should include these injustices in their report so the public can be better informed on what is truly happening in this country on this subject. Thank you for your time.

ADVERTISEMENT