Indiana legislative war chests: Purse or puppet strings?

Some political observers see influential strings attached to those dollars, providing party leaders a means of reigning in their respective lawmakers in the legislative chambers.

Others claim these substantial party campaign funds instead serve as a financial conduit to candidates who may be good lawmakers but not fundraisers — or level the playing field for candidates running in districts heavily controlled by the opposing party.

Standing above all legislative political campaign funds is the massive House Republican Campaign Committee, a system of pooling and funneling money to Indiana House GOP candidates.

A Times investigation of the state's largest campaign funds revealed that the House Republican war chest took in nearly $9 million from 2011 to 2014, siphoning that cash to Indiana House political races throughout the state.

In Lake, Porter and LaPorte county Statehouse races alone, the House GOP fund provided nearly half a million dollars for seven local Republicans between 2011 and 2014, accounting for as much as 70 percent of one candidate's war chest and helping unseat at least two Democratic incumbents.

The House GOP fund dwarfs the equivalent Indiana House Democratic Caucus Committee fund, which raised $3.5 million in contributions during the same time period, or a little more than a third of the GOP fund, The Times' probe found.

Unlike the significant funding enjoyed by Northwest Indiana House Republicans from their caucus fund, only two region Democrats received money from the House Democratic Caucus Committee fund between 2011 and 2014.

That money went to 2012 Democratic House candidate Tom O'Donnell, of Dyer, and former House Rep. Shelli VanDenburgh, D-Crown Point. The money totaled $52,368 between the two candidates, or 13.7 percent of their collective war chests.

Both Democratic candidates lost their respective races.

Similar disparities exist on the Senate side of the Statehouse, where the GOP's Indiana Senate Majority Campaign Fund raised $4.3 million — more than double the Indiana Senate Democrat Committee's $2 million raised from 2011 to 2014.

Political observers chalk the monetary differences up to the Hoosier state's legislative political scales, which tip heavily toward a Republican majority.

But how much influence do these political purse strings actually have over legislators who form our laws?

It all depends on who one asks.

Financial playing field

Indiana House Rep. Michael Aylesworth, R-Hebron, said he knows the importance of the immense House Republican Campaign Committee to the fortunes of rookie legislative candidates who haven't established lines of political fundraising.

Aylesworth was elected to the Statehouse for the first time in 2014, riding on an $89,604.90 wave provided to his campaign war chest by the House Republican Campaign Committee.

The money accounted for more than 70 percent of Aylesworth's $126,834.76 war chest.

"This type of money is very important to a first-time candidate," Aylesworth said. "It's especially important when you're not an incumbent. It can be very difficult to raise the funds needed otherwise."

Aylesworth said the House GOP committee funding helps level the playing field against Northwest Indiana Democrats who enjoy strong union support in one of the state's only Democratic strongholds.

Indiana House Rep. Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, for instance, received tens of thousands of dollars from labor unions, including $14,200 from International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers funds, between 2011 and 2014.

Rep. Hal Slager, R-Schererville, agreed with Aylesworth.

The House GOP campaign fund funneled $147,607.13 — largely in in-kind donations such as providing polling services — to Slager's campaign between 2011 and 2014.

The money accounted for 46 percent of Slager's overall $320,979.23 in campaign contributions, and was the largest single amount provided by the House GOP fund to any region candidate.

Slager acknowledges the aid helped him secure political victories in two election cycles, including his first House win in 2012.

"The gap has to be filled somehow, or we just get blown out up here from people on the other (Democratic Party) side," Slager said. "The fund creates a more even-handed way to raise money."

Slager's two Democratic political opponents during the four-year period — Schererville attorney Jim Wieser in 2014 and former Lake County Councilman Tom O'Donnell in 2012 — collectively raised $167,179.25 in their runs against Slager, state records show.

Nearly 20 percent of those Democrats' campaign dollars came from labor unions.

The GOP legislative campaign committee money appears to have mattered in recent election cycles.

Region Democrats received far less support from their party's legislative campaign funds — the Indiana House Democratic Caucus Committee fund and the Senate Democrat Committee — during the past four years.

Rep. William Fine, R-Munster, enjoyed a $76,495.68 infusion from the House GOP campaign fund, helping him to defeat incumbent Democratic Rep. Mara Candelaria Reardon in 2014. State campaign finance records show Reardon received no money from the Indiana House Democratic Caucus Committee within the same time period.

In the same election cycle, incumbent Rep. Shelli VanDenburgh, D-Crown Point, fell to GOP challenger Julie Olthoff, R-Crown Point.

VanDenburgh received $36,742.86, or 12.3 percent of her entire campaign war chest over four years, from the House Democratic Caucus. But it couldn't keep pace with the $82,452.47 Olthoff received from the House GOP fund, accounting for nearly 63 percent of Olthoff's overall funding.

Purse or puppet strings?

Some state political observers and analysts see more to the power of these legislative campaign funds than producing success at the polls.

Indiana University Northwest political science Professor Marie Eisenstein said the money can hold strong influence over the voting choices of Statehouse lawmakers.

"Out of all the influence out there, money from the caucus has a lot more influence over how the members behave," Eisenstein said, noting political party-based funds can hold more direct influence over elected officials' actions than contributions from private individuals and political action committees. "People who want to move up the party ladder are more likely to be influenced by this money," she said.

Indiana political analyst Brian Howey, of Howey Politics Indiana, said a strong argument can be made that money from the legislative Republican caucus funds helped sway votes on controversial legislation, including the GOP-backed 2015 passage of the controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, and the 2014 failed legislative attempt to ban gay marriage on constitutional grounds. Many critics believed RFRA opened the door for businesses to discriminate against gays.

Both RFRA and the attempted gay marriage amendment met with strong social opposition, erupting throughout the national political debate on gay rights and equality.

Regarding the amendment that would have banned gay marriage in the state, Howey said, "We kept hearing from Republicans around the state who said, 'We wish it would just go away.' But it was kind of like they were whispering. A lot of them went with the program on that one."

Howey noted figures from The Times investigation, showing nearly half a million dollars from the House Republican Campaign Committee collectively fueled the political war chests of seven region Republican House candidates between 2011 and 2014.

"That's a lot of money flowing from leadership," said Howey, adding that beyond influencing the votes of members, the cash infusions helped Republicans build and insulate their supermajority in the Indiana General Assembly.

"It's allowing them to forge the supermajorities that you're seeing now, and that of course paves the way for things like the RFRA thing that happened."

Howey said all that money can create a feeling of separation between the leaders of a political majority and the voters.

"They're insulated," Howey said. "They're not really feeling the wrath — or the nuances — of voters."

Michigan City Democrat Pelath, who also is the Indiana House minority leader, said the heavy cash infusions from party leaders to Republican delegates' campaigns explains the strong support enjoyed by even the most controversial measures.

"There is no other explanation than this for the Republicans' virtual unanimity on things like RFRA," Pelath said. "I think we're seeing a great deal of heavy-handedness on issues like this."

Pelath also acknowledged the wide chasm between his legislative caucus's fundraising efforts and those of Republicans.

"The Indiana GOP is highly centralized," Pelath said. "We're not. Many of our incumbents must raise their own funds. Our playing field is a lot more spread out, and we have a smaller amount of money spread out over broader areas."

Money following ideas

Region Republican House delegates acknowledge their electoral success was paved, in part, by financial infusions from the House Republican Campaign Committee.

But several of them said there are no real strings attached to the money.

"It makes a nice narrative to say there are strings, but the fact is nobody has ever asked me to vote a certain way," Rep. Slager said. "Nobody ever came to me and said, 'Hal, this (RFRA) is something we need to do as a party.' "

Slager voted in favor of the controversial religious freedoms act, as did other Northwest Indiana House Republicans including Fine, Olthoff, Aylesworth, Ed Soliday, of Valpariaso, and Tom Dermody, of LaPorte.

Fine also said he was never instructed to vote a certain way by House leadership.

"I'm happy to say they've never come to me and said, 'This is the way you have to vote on an issue,' " Fine said.

Slager and Fine also pointed out they voted against a repeal of the state's common construction wage, even though the measure was strenuously backed by other Republicans. All the other Lake, Porter and LaPorte county Republican House members also voted against the measure, which nonetheless passed and became law.

Slager and Fine both said the pro-labor nature of their constituencies prompted their opposition to the repeal, which took away local government's ability to set prevailing wages for public construction contracts. Both men said region Republicans voted against the matter because of the makeup of their districts, regardless of the stance of party leaders who significantly aid their campaigns.

It's a matter of political support being paid from party funds to help predominantly like-minded candidates and their ideas, rather than money creating strings of influence, Slager said.

Subtle influence

But the influence attached to hefty campaign infusions from party leaders can be more subtle than directing votes in the Statehouse chambers, one national political analyst said.

In fact, that influence often is exerted long before legislation is written or debated on the Statehouse floor, said Pete Quist, research director for the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

"One of the key links between money in politics and policy outcomes, and one that is very hard sometimes to illustrate, is the setting of the Legislature's agenda," Quist said. "This can start long before a legislature even convenes — before official legislative committee meetings."

Party caucuses tend to provide greater support to the candidates most likely to back their agendas before a vote is even taken, he said.

"The early setting of overall priorities on major policies is an enormous power, and leadership funds like the HRCC would certainly be promoting a schedule of priorities and supporting candidates it thinks will implement them," Quist said.

"Leadership organizations like these caucus committees, leadership PACs, party executive committees ... can play a powerful role in agenda setting in a state."