GalesburgPlanet.com

This article orig­i­nally appeared in ProP­ublica on September 23, 2011

Approved new Illinois congres­sional districts

By Olga Pierce, Jeff Larson and Lois Beckett — ProPublica

Their names suggest selfless dedi­cation to democracy. Fair Districts Mass. Protect Your Vote. The Center for a Better New Jersey. And their stated goals are unar­guable: In the partisan fight to redraw congres­sional districts, states should stick to the prin­ciple of one person, one vote.

But a ProP­ublica inves­ti­gation has found that these groups and others are being quietly bankrolled by corpo­ra­tions, unions and other special interests. Their main interest in the once-a-decade political fight over redis­tricting is not to help voters in the commu­nities they claim to represent but mainly to improve the prospects of their political allies or to harm their enemies.

The number of these purportedly inde­pendent redis­tricting groups is rising, but their ties remain murky. Contri­bu­tions to such groups are not limited by campaign finance laws, and most states allow them to take unlimited amounts of money without disclosing the source.

Today’s story is the first chapter in an in-depth exam­i­nation of how powerful players are turning to increas­ingly sophis­ti­cated tools and tech­niques to game the redis­tricting process, with voters ulti­mately losing.

For special interests, there’s a huge potential payoff from investing in such efforts.

“Reshaping a map is very powerful” for donors, said Spencer Kimball, a political consultant who is exec­utive director of Boston-based Fair Districts Mass. “It’s a big oppor­tunity to have influence at the state level and the congres­sional level not one race at a time but for 10 years.”

Skillful redis­tricting can, of course, help create Repub­lican or Demo­c­ratic districts, but it can also grace incum­bents with virtually guar­anteed re-election or leave them with nearly no chance at all. In the process, it can also create seats almost certain to be held by minorities or break those same groups apart, ensuring that they have almost no voice.

But it’s not cheap, and that’s where corpo­ra­tions and other outside interests come in. They can provide the cash for voter data, mapping consul­tants and lobbyists to influence state legis­lators, who are in charge of redis­tricting in most states. Outside interests can also fund the inevitable lawsuits that contest nearly every state’s redis­tricting plan after it is unveiled.

In Minnesota, for instance, the Repub­licans’ legal efforts to influence redis­tricting are being financed [1] through a group called Minnesotans for a Fair Redistricting.

Fair Redis­tricting describes itself as inde­pendent, but it has much of its lead­ership in common with the Freedom Foun­dation of Minnesota, a group with ties to the political empire of the Koch brothers, indus­tri­alists from Kansas who’ve spent millions funding conser­v­ative causes [2]. The head of the Freedom Foun­dation, Annette Meeks, told ProP­ublica she has “no involvement” with Fair Redis­tricting. But both orga­ni­za­tions’ tax filings list the same address: Meeks’ home address.

Fair Redis­tricting is regis­tered under the name of her husband, Jack Meeks, who is also on the board of the Freedom Foun­dation. He did not respond to requests for comment.

Who is actually paying for Fair Redistricting’s lawsuit and lawyers? And what district lines are they pushing for? The group doesn’t have to say and has so far kept its finances and plans under wraps. Annette Meeks did not respond to ques­tions about the group’s donors or its ties to the Koch brothers, but she said the group complies with all legal filing require­ments. But the group’s public tax filings contain no infor­mation on its contributors.

Fair Districts Mass, which says it’s advo­cating better repre­sen­tation of minorities in and around Boston, is another window into how money can move through the system. The group describes itself as “citizen-funded.” But it also sought permission from state election offi­cials for unlimited corporate funding. Dona­tions “can include corporate contri­bu­tions,” the group’s website announces. “Better yet,” the site notes, “we are not required to file reports regarding dona­tions or expenditures.”

The group says its proposed maps would lead to better repre­sen­tation of Latinos and African-Americans.

“Minorities are very under­rep­re­sented in Mass­a­chu­setts politics,” said Kimball, the group’s exec­utive director. “We’re here to change that.”

But minority groups say Fair Districts’ proposed maps would not likely help them. (See our inter­active feature showing the group’s maps and our analysis [3].)

“I don’t see a person of color getting elected in this district, if that’s the goal,” said Alejandra St. Guillen, exec­utive director of Oiste, looking at one of the maps Fair Districts has touted as helping Latinos and African-Americans. Oiste has been fighting for increased Latino repre­sen­tation and civic partic­i­pation in the state for more than a decade.

“Even though the numbers might look as if that might be favorable to commu­nities of color,” St. Guillen said, “if you look at voting patterns, it actually wouldn’t be.”

Others from Mass­a­chu­setts have said the proposals made by Fair Districts Mass wouldn’t help them at all. At a town hall meeting in Lynn, which would be cut out of its historic district along Boston’s North Shore by the proposal, labor unions, the city’s chamber of commerce and politi­cians from both parties converged on the town hall, urging that the board not adopt a plan that would carve out Lynn.

Next page

ProP­ublica

ProP­ublica is an inde­pendent, non-profit newsroom that produces inves­tigative jour­nalism in the public interest. Our work focuses exclu­sively on truly important stories, stories with “moral force.” We do this by producing jour­nalism that shines a light on exploitation of the weak by the strong and on the failures of those with power to vindicate the trust placed in them.

More Posts – Website – Twitter – Facebook