Private-Prison Industry Gives $3.3 Million To 2002-3 Campaigns
Companies involved in building, financing and operating private prisons, as well as their lobbyists, gave $3.3 million to candidates in 44 states in the 2002 and 2004 election cycles, favoring states with some of the toughest sentencing laws and concentrating their giving on legislative candidates, a new study shows.
Much of their money went to legislative incumbents and to lawmakers who were in key leadership positions or served on committees that consider issues related to corrections and sentencing, according to the report by the Institute on Money in State Politics.
The prison companies themselves gave nearly $1.6 million, while lobbyists–many of whom work for a number of clients–gave $1.1 million. The remaining $600,000 came from company officials, members of the companies boards of directors, or firms that do business with private prisons, such as construction firms or food-service and healthcare companies, the Institute found.
Corrections Corporation of America, headquartered in Tennessee, topped all private-prison interests, with the company and its executives, directors and lobbyists giving $1.1 million during the study period.
Florida candidates and political party committees received the largest amount of private-prison funds, at $647,600. Texas and New Jersey followed, at $518,900 and $322,700, respectively.
The Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that collects and analyzes campaign contributions to state-level candidates, political party committees and ballot measure committees. Its database of contributions is available and searchable online at www.followthemoney.org.
The report, “Policy Lock-Down: Prison Interests Court Political Players,” found that nearly two-thirds of the industry’s campaign contributions were given in the 22 states that have enacted so-called “three strikes” laws that require longer prison sentences for felons convicted for a third time. Candidates and party committees in those states received $2.1 million. The remaining $1.2 million was given in 22 states that do not have such laws. The Institute also found that the industry:
— favored incumbents, whether they were seeking re-election or just raising money for future campaigns. Incumbents received $1.6 million of the $2.2 million given to candidates. Meanwhile, those candidates challenging incumbents received about one-tenth of that amount — $167,250.
— backed winners, giving 65% of the candidate contributions to winning candidates.
— gave about half of its candidate contributions to legislative candidates, who are in a position to act on state budgets and sentencing laws if elected.
— channeled more of its money to Republicans than to Democrats, giving 645 of the contributions to Republican candidates or Republican Party committees.
The report looks specifically at 10 states where industry giving was high and the states had either enacted tough sentencing laws, turned to private prisons to help ease prison overcrowding in recent years, or considered significant changes to corrections policies.
In addition, the report looks at recent legislative action on corrections, and where industry interests put their campaign funds in those states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas.
For example, in Florida, the Institute found that private-prison vendors successfully lobbied for the elimination of the commission that oversaw the bidding process for private prisons. In the six-month period leading up the 2004 legislative session that abolished the commission, prison interests gave $56,450 to state party committees and to candidates.
“At a time when states are being forced to make hard decisions about spending taxpayer money, this study finds that prison companies are working to keep their beds filled and their profit margins up,” noted Edwin Bender, executive director of the Institute.
The report, which is available on the Institute’s Web site, was supported by a grant from the Open Society Institute.
