Funding HIRC Campaigns

Almost 2600 political action committees gave campaign contributions to members of the HIRC during the 109th Congress (2005-2006), according to a comprehensive analysis of Federal Elections Commission records conducted by the Building Democracy Initiative.24 Many of the campaign dollars came from corporations and business associations that make wide-ranging contributions to both parties and are not necessarily associated with hostile positions towards immigrants.

For example, AT&T Inc. Federal Political Action Committee, made 234 different contributions to HIRC members for a total of $421,000. The American Medical Association PAC gave 203 times for a total of $496,000, but that amount was only 15% of the total dollars it gave to all politicians. In regard to campaign contributions of this type, the Caucus showed no special characteristics different from other congressional groupings. Conclusions from an analysis of campaign contributions must be carefully drawn. Consider the Home Depot Inc. PAC, which gave $130,500 in campaign contributions to HIRC politicians, more than 17% of its total donations. Yet, because of its non-hostile attitude toward day-laborers, Home Depot has been under repeated attack by anti-immigrant organizations.25

Of the identifiably conservative PACs donating to Caucus members, the Club for Growth gave the largest total amount, $381,286. The Club for Growth, which supports free trade and tax cuts, gave almost half of its total contributions during this period to HIRC candidates. The National Rifle Association America Political Victory Fund gave a total of $372,855. Since the NRA's Victory Fund PAC gives such large sums to politicians, over $2.6 million, the percentage of their total donations was much smaller at 14%.26 Similarly, the National Right to Life PAC has given over $2.6 million to politicians, thus the $280,692 that it gave to HIRC members was only 11% of its total contributions during the period under consideration.

Five different PACs with explicitly nativist agendas also gave money to HIRC members. Two of these are associated with different Minuteman factions. The Minuteman PAC Inc. gave $60,080 to HIRC members, almost 24% of its total $253,558 in campaign contributions. The Declaration Alliance PAC, affiliated with Chris Simcox' Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, donated just $1,500, one-third of the $4,600 it gave for electioneering. Americans for Legal Immigration PAC also gave a small sum of money, $500 out of the $1,500 it donated. Team America PAC, started by Tom Tancredo with Bay Buchanan at the helm, contributed just $25,997 to congressional campaigns, and only $4,000 of that went to HIRC members.

While the relative size of the contributions by the Minuteman PACs stands out, the surprise in the data belongs to the U.S. Immigration Reform PAC, most closely associated with the Federation for American Immigration Reform. FAIR recently signed a lease for a 10,000 square foot office space on Massachusetts Avenue in Washington, D.C. and operates on an annual budget in excess of four million dollars. The donors to its PAC reside in 24 states and include Cordelia May Scaife, a major donor to far right causes of all kinds. Over the years she has become the U.S. Immigration Reform PAC's largest donor, giving $36,500. Dr. and Mrs. John Tanton, who have been FAIR's guiding lights since its founding, have given $23,500. The contributors also include Harry Weyher, chief executive at the Pioneer Fund, which is best known for funding and promoting eugenics and scientific racism. Weyher gave $500. Despite this multitude of riches, the total amount of campaign contributions given by the U.S. Immigration Reform PAC to HIRC members was relatively small: $9,000 out of a total of $34,202 during the period under review. During the years between 1994 and 2000 the PAC only gave $7,000 in contributions to Brian Bilbray the congressman, while FAIR paid significantly more to Bilbray while he worked as its lobbyist.

Despite giving less money to HIRC members than AT&T, FAIR remains the one lobby with the most influence within the Caucus. Now that FAIR is explicitly promoting measures aimed at undercutting the Fourteenth Amendment, such legislation should be expected to rise to the top of the agenda for HIRC members as well. FAIR spokesman Bob Dane recently told the Sacramento Bee: "To deal with this tidal wave of human beings coming across the border, repealing the 14th Amendment would be an effective tool." He also said, that such a move "would not harm those coming here legally. The only beneficiaries of the 14th Amendment appear to be illegals."27

Mr. Dane's statement is contradicted by both history and the Constitution. Written immediately after the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees all Americans equality before the law. Section 1 reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Fourteenth Amendment has been under attack ever since it was first passed, and significant sections of it were laid in abeyance during the long years of Jim Crow segregation. It was brought back into active service by the 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown vs. Board of Education. In the recent past, legislation aimed at overturning this part of the constitution and ending birthright citizenship has been introduced with little support. The most recent iteration, however, has generated a good deal of support. Entitled the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007, H.R. 1940, is sponsored by Rep. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.). As this report was being compiled, 90 members of the House of Representatives had signed on as co-sponsors to this bill, and 70 of those are members of the House Immigration Reform Caucus.

Conclusion

What we have found in this background report tells us much regarding the shape that "immigration politics" and public policy is likely to take in the foreseeable future. The Caucus's extreme ideological agenda, long-standing ties to anti-immigrant groups, and cohesion in a fractured House of Representatives makes it a noxious ingredient in the melting pot of America. It has drawn even well-intentioned immigration reform proposals down into an abyss of nativism and xenophobia. And if its proposals to overturn the Fourteenth Amendment gather enough cosponsors to be taken seriously, it may wind up provoking a constitutional crisis of the most serious kind.