Congressional earmarking is in full swing as the 2010 appropriations bills make their way to conference, and ultimately, to President Obama's desk.
There's pork aplenty in the Agriculture-Rural Development-Food and Drug Administration appropriations bill - 481 congressional requests totaling $370.4 million, according to the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. A "Swine and Other Animal Waste Management" project in North Carolina will receive $349,000. (Isn't that a by-product of pork?) Other, more cryptic earmarking includes a "wool research" project in Montana, Texas and Wyoming ($206,000) and $4.8 million for "wood utilization" - requested by 28 members. (See the group's earmarks database here)
West Virginia Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd has been busy delivering the bacon to his constituents in West Virginia. In the 2010 Homeland Security appropriations bill, he has earmarked $39.7 million for an "advanced training center" and another $3.6 million for an "operations systems center." And scores of small towns - undoubtedly the epicenter of possible future terrorist attacks - received handouts. They include Shelter Island, NY ($200,000), Winthrop, Mass. ($500,000) and Pelham, NY ($563,000).
While presidents invariably rail against unauthorized appropriations, they too get their finger in the pie. Obama alone earmarked four projects totaling $21 million in the Homeland Security bill. His requests in the Agriculture appropriations measure were more numerous - 14 earmarks totaling $101.4 million.
Members often join the president in requesting earmarks that land in their states or districts. The practice provides some political cover, as presidential requests tend to be less parochial than money steered by a lawmaker alone, said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Republican insiders are hosting a luncheon fundraiser on Capitol Hill for Colorado Senate candidate Jane Norton next Monday, Sunlight Foundation's Political Party Time reports.
Among those hosting include lobbyist Judy Black, wife of Charles Black (and Norton's brother in law), who was a top advisor to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. in his presidential bid; former Rep. Susan Molinari, R-N.Y.; and Maria Cino, who helped organize the 2008 Republican convention.
Norton, a former Colorado lieutenant governor, is running for the Senate seat currently held by Democrat Michael Bennet.
Read Political Party Time's full post.
Campaign contributions are skewing the amount of federal money spent to repair the nation's deteriorating bridges, according to a new report by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.
The group looked at earmarks in the final 2008 federal transportation appropriations bill and found that only 74 of 704 unauthorized expenditures went to repairing brides, tunnels or overpasses. It says one in ten of the projects, and about ten percent of the funding, focused on fixing the nation's crumbling infrastructure. The majority of the $570 million went for new highways and other new construction.
U.S. PIRG puts the blame squarely on campaign donations from special interests. "We believe that transportation spending is skewed toward road-widening and new highway projects favored by developers, road builders and the other interests who make those contributions," said the report's co-author, Lisa Gilbert, in a statement.
It's worth noting that Congress spent a total of $9.7 billion in the 2008 transportation bill. Lawmakers put $1.7 billion into the Capital Investment Program which uses a formula to grant money to states for road and bridge maintenance. Another $4.3 billion went to transportation grants to urbanized areas.
John Aravosis and Joe Sudbay, editors of the liberal outlet AMERICAblog, have launched a "Don't Ask, Don't Give" campaign urging a "pause" on donations to major Democratic groups until lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender issues are addressed at the federal level.
The campaign demands the enactment of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the end of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. AMERICAblog reports co-sponsorship by Daily Kos along with several other liberal and gay media outlets.
The effort's supporters hope that by pausing donations to blue groups, including the Democratic National Committee, Organizing for America, and the Obama campaign, then Washington might quicken its pace on gay-rights priorities.
On some level, holding back donations is one of few avenues of recourse for LGBT rights advocates unsatisfied with the federal attention to their issues. And AMERICAblog is a hefty Democratic donor: It says it raised $50,000 for then presidential-candidate Barack Obama. But the effectiveness of donation pauses remains in question. For such a strategy to succeed, the campaign would need "a whole bunch of people committed to not donating," says Jason Snyder, an assistant professor at the University of California, Los Angeles Anderson School of Management.
Donation boycotts hinge on high support levels, especially when it comes to impacting large groups, like the Democrats, who have many donation sources, Snyder added. In politics, where you have "a large number of very diffuse people who are low-stakes donors," withholding cash to exert pressure is far less effective."
A new business coalition that's led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and includes 10 other K Street powerhouses has launched a multimillion dollar national cable and local advertising drive in 19 states and 46 media markets that's aimed at blocking passage of the House health care reform bill which is slated to be voted on this weekend.
The coalition, Employers for a Healthy Economy which also includes such big groups as the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors and the National Retail Federation, intends to have the ads air through Sunday but might extend the buy if the vote on the House bill is delayed past this weekend.
National Journal is hearing that the initial ad buy will cost about $10 million but the exact numbers aren't public.
The ads argue that the House bill could lead to "millions of new lost jobs" and would mean tax increases and new mandates on business that would worsen the overall economy. The business community is especially worried about two parts of the House bill: its robust public option and a new "pay to play" mandate that would require companies to either provide insurance to employees or pay a penalty of 8 percent of their total payroll.
If Democrats lose some seats in the House in 2010, it won't be because of Ben Barnes.
A look at the latest Federal Election Commission records tracking the "bundling" of campaign contributions -- to federal candidates, party committees and political action committees set up by congressional leaders -- shows that the Texas lobbyist pulled together the most political donations, by far. The data show Barnes getting credit for contributions worth a whopping $630,450 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee through October of this year.
That's more than twice as much as the next biggest bundler, former Rep. Bill Paxon, R-NY, now a senior adviser at Akin Gump, who packaged $244,000 in contributions to the Republican National Committee. And it dwarfs the sums put together by other well-known Democratic lobbyists-bundlers, such as Tony Podesta, who has bundled $101,200, but divided it between three incumbents' campaigns.
Barnes "biggest bundler" title comes at the same time the Center for Responsive Politics labeled Barnes and his wife Melanie the No. 1 individual political donors for the 2010 election cycle thus far, with contributions of $230,600 -- all of it to Democrats. That includes $52,000 to the DCCC, another $30,400 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, $30,000 to the DNC Services Corp and $10,000 apiece to the Connecticut and Indiana Democratic party committees.
The Ben Barnes Group has earned $2.8 million this year, with roughly two dozen clients -- the largest of which is global oil and gas exploration company Weatherford International. His reign as lobbyist-donor-bundler extraordinaire is just the latest chapter in a headline-grabbing career. He was elected Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives at 26, became lieutenant Gov. of Texas at the age of 31, was felled by political scandal and then endured bankruptcy in the 1980s. After rebuilding his fortune, Barnes made headlines during then-President George W. Bush's 2004 reelection campaign with a disputed account of having helped Bush avoid military service during the Vietnam War with an appointment to the Texas Air National Guard.
Washington experienced an $849 million lobbypalooza in the third quarter of 2009, according to an analysis by OpenSecrets.org.
The watchdog group says that's the largest quarterly expenditure tabulated since organizations began filing every three months in 2008. As of the end of September, companies, trade associations, unions and other special interest groups had spent a total of $2.5 billion on federal lobby activities.
The biggest spenders for the first nine months of the year, not surprisingly, were healthcare ($396M), energy and environment ($300M), and the financial industry ($334M).
Bruce Springsteen will be in DC next Monday playing at the Verizon Center, and at least four lawmakers are using the event for some fundraising, the Sunlight Foundation's Political Party Time reports.
The four are: Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, Rep. John Barrow, D-Ga., Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and Rep. John Hall, D-N.Y.
Sunlight notes that: "Last time, ordinary people had a tough time getting tickets, while the lobbyists attending the fundraisers got easy entre, if for a price higher than face value."
(Photo courtesy of Creative Commons)
Given the number of times President Obama has talked about leveling the playing field between monied interests and public interests in Washington, this story in the Washington Times today raises some big questions.
Matthew Mosk, a well-known investigative reporter who recently joined the Washington Times, reports:
During his first nine months in office, President Obama has quietly rewarded scores of top Democratic donors with VIP access to the White House, private briefings with administration advisers and invitations to important speeches and town-hall meetings.High-dollar fundraisers have been promised access to senior White House officials in exchange for pledges to donate $30,400 personally or to bundle $300,000 in contributions ahead of the 2010 midterm elections, according to internal Democratic National Committee documents obtained by The Washington Times.
If this story is correct, it doesn't sound much like a level playing field to me. I plan to ask Norm Eisen, Obama's special adviser on ethics and government reform, about it.
Stay tuned.
Earlier this year, some lobbyists who do alot of fundraising had told me it was harder to round up campaign donations from fellow lobbyists because many were worried about how the recession might impact their jobs. Others said they had "campaign fatigue" from the presidential election and weren't going to give money for awhile.
Whatever the reason, donations have fallen from the lobbying community this year. Numbers published in a report by the Center for Responsive Politics,showed that donations have dropped by 27 percent between the first quarter of 2007 and the first quarter of 2009, according to its analysis of lobbying reports. During that same time period, the number of unique donors to members of Congress from across all industries rose by 1 percent.
Does money buy access in the health care debate? Check out this story from the Associated Press today.
The National Republican Congressional Committee has raised $1.3 million since June by targeting doctors and asking them to join in fighting "any proposal that creates a government-run health care system in America," the AP said.
In exchange for a $5,000 check, the doctors get face time with "key decisionmakers" in Washington, and "media training" on how they can enlist others to join the campaign, according to a brochure obtained by the AP. Contributors were promised "special closed door briefings" or recognition on a Web site.
Though President Obama has limited the access of lobbyists at Democratic fundraisers where he is speaking and congressional Democrats have railed against the power of 'special interests' and lobbyists, the profession is still giving heavily to lawmakers. (Lobbyists in fact cannot attend or give money at fundraising events where Obama is the keynote speaker)
K Street lobbyists gave 70 percent of their campaign donations to congressional Democrats in the first six months of the 2010 election cycle, the Wall Street Journal reported.
The story says corporate political action committees gave 60 percent of their donations to congressional Democrats also. The party in power tends the reap more of the campaign donations, notes the Journal.
Tonight's U2 concert at FedEx Field has attracted at least four congressional fundraisers -- three of them for Republicans, reports Sunlight Foundation's Party Time blog.
This story caught my eye today because it is an example of how campaign money can be used to get around ethics regulations. Though ethics rules have banned lobbyists from funding meals, travel and entertainment for lawmakers and staff, they can still do so indirectly through campaign leadership political action committees.
See my summary of this story below:
Lawmakers' leadership PACs are becoming "slush funds," funded by lobbyists and special interests, to be used for member entertainment, meals and travel, the Washington Post and Pro Publica report.
Lobbyists and special interests poured $355 million into leadership PACs in the last three election cycles, making them the second-largest source for donations for members of Congress, the two publications said. Leadership PACs are supposed to be used to fund other members' campaigns, but about half of the $112 million spent by leadership PACs in the two year election cycle that led to the 2008 election, was spent on entertainment, administrative costs, fundraising and other categories.
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America continues to pour millions of dollars into ads backing parts of the Obama administration's health care reform effort and the work of Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont.
In mid-September, PhRMA launched another round of ads which are slated to run for about four weeks in 14 to 17 states and cost some $9.4 million, say industry insiders. Many of the commercials are running in states of Democratic and Republican moderates who are still considered in play in the Senate as it edges closer to voting on health care reform legislation.
For all those paying attention to the connection between the timing of a fundraiser and votes, Sunlight Foundation's Party Time blog has a round up of health care related fundraisers in September. At least 17 fundraisers are listed.
Also note to readers, on the right hand side of our blog you can see a rolling list of fundraisers collected by Party Time.
(Updated at 5:09 PM to reflect DGA fundraising amount for first half of 2009)
The Democratic Governors Association is spurning federal lobbyists and their campaign donations at its $5,000-a-plate October 1 fundraiser in Washington, the latest Democratic political group to do so in exchange for getting President Obama to speak at their event.
In keeping with his 2008 campaign rule, when Obama refused to take donations from federal lobbyists and political action committees, the president has continued to tell groups that he won't speak at their fund raising events unless lobbyist and PAC money is banned. The restriction, however, doesn't cover state lobbyists.
State lobbyists will be able to give money and attend the DGA event, which is expected to raise about $500,000. The group has raised more than $8 million $11.6 million in the 2010 election cycle, according to the DGA.
"For Obama, clearly the distinction between influence by federal lobbyists and state lobbyists is significant to his agenda," said one ethics lawyer.
The DGA gets plenty of money from organizations that employ lobbyists including Eli Lilly, Novartis, Motorola and U.S. Cellular. Click here to see the donor list on Center for Responsive Politics.
"I don't know what the difference is between a state and federal lobbyist," said one K Street Democrat who has expressed ongoing frustration at being barred from attending events hosted by organizations he has given money to, but " I guess we are radioactive."
August fundraising numbers for the parties' campaign committees were released over the weekend, and the Republican National Committee bested the Democratic National Committee by $1 million for the month.
The RNC raised $7.9 million to the DNC's $6.9 million in August, and for the first eight months of 2009, the RNC raised $59.9 million to the DNC's $53.6 million, The Hill reports.
The average daily contributor count for the RNC in August was 9,306 donations, averaging $41 each, Politico reports.
Roll Call breaks down contributions to each party's congressional and senatorial campaign committees through August, noting that the four committees combined have raised $118.7 million.
Talk about a full court press! The health care industry is spending about $1.4 million per day to sway Congress as it mulls reform. That translates to about six lobbyists for every lawmaker, according to the group Common Cause.
The health care industry has also given members of Congress nearly $24 million in campaign contributions this year, on top of the nearly $170 million they donated last election, said the group.
"The public can be forgiven for feeling left out of this debate when the drug, insurance and other health-related companies are financing thousands of lobbyists and multi-million dollar ad campaigns and making generous campaign contributions to get what they want out of health care reform," said Common Cause President Bob Edgar in a statement.
Top recipients of the mega bucks, include (not surprisingly) the Gang of Six -- Senators Max Bauchus, D-Mont., Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, Kent Conrad, D-N.D., Michael Enzi, R-Wyo., Bill Nelson, R-Fla., and Olympia Snowe, R-Me. Total haul so far in 2009: $6,036,626.
The analysis is based on numbers supplied by the Center for Responsive Politics.
A watchdog group released its annual list of the 15 most corrupt members of Congress this week, including some members who are known to be under investigation for ethical breaches and some who are not.
The list, compiled by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, includes seven Republicans and eight Democrats. One member of congressional leadership, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is on the list, which also includes: Sens. Roland Burris (D-Ill.) and John Ensign, (R-Nev.); and Reps. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.), Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), Nathan Deal (R-Ga.), Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-Ill.), Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.), John Murtha (D-Pa.), Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), Laura Richardson (D-Calif.), Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.), Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and Don Young (R-Alaska).
The most common charge lobbed by CREW against lawmakers on the list is channeling funds to friends and family via earmarks.
Under the Influence reported last month on CREW's list of lawmakers known to be under investigation at that time. Six members on the new "Most Corrupt" list -- Buchanan, Calvert, Deal, Ensign, McConnell and Waters -- were not on that list, though CREW now reports that Buchanan, Calvert and Ensign are under investigation.
The new report also checked up on those who made the list between 2005 and 2008. Of those 48 lawmakers, 27 are no longer in office.
Few lawmakers disclose that they are receiving campaign donations via events hosted by specific lobbyists because the Federal Election Commission rules on fundraising have so many loopholes, the Associated Press reported.
Lobbyists were identified as hosts on 195 fundraising invitations, but have yet to be disclosed as fundraisers by the lawmakers, the AP said.
So are lawmakers eager to receive campaign donations via lobbyist-hosted soirees but afraid to publicly disclose it? It appears so. This fits with something I was told about a month ago by a lobbyist who has raised a lot of money for lawmakers. The source said that a few lawmakers have asked that the lobbyist only raise $15,000 for the member, because anything more triggers the FEC requirement that the lawmaker disclose the lobbyist as a fundraiser for them.
Readers, any thoughts? Feel free to email me here.
As Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., introduces his committee's health care bill today, the Associated Press takes a look at the political contributions from the industry flowing to Baucus' campaign war chest. See story here.
Lobbyists in the health care industry are hosting lots of fundraisers as Congress continues to struggle with health care reform legislation.
The Sunlight Foundation's Political Party Time blog notes that industry lobbyists have hosted or are hosting at least six fundraisers this week. The pharmaceutical industry is hosting or has hosted 16 fundraisers this month.
Click here to see the full post.
Also, Under the Influence readers can see Political Party Time's daily list of fundraisers on the right-hand side of this blog. Take a look.
(From Eliza Newlin Carney's weekly "Rules of The Game" column)
At a time when partisan rifts threaten to paralyze Capitol Hill, it's a shame that more people don't follow the example of Republican Trevor Potter and Democrat Marc Elias.
The two prominent election lawyers have set aside past disagreements to rally behind a shared cause: modernizing the nation's outdated voter registration system. Together, they have set up a Committee to Modernize Voter Registration that could give pending congressional legislation a shot in the arm.
Senate Rules and Administration Chairman Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., has said he is drafting a voter registration bill, but the issue has been a flash point for partisan differences. Democrats tend to assail obstacles that block voters from registering, while Republicans fixate on safeguards that would prevent voter fraud.
Potter and Elias have set out to convince lawmakers on both sides of the aisle that an automatic voter registration system would solve both problems.
Continue reading Election Lawyers Put Aside Partisan Differences.
New Republic's Jason Zengerle has a cover story in the magazine's latest issue, exploring the paradoxes of Rep. John Murtha's D-Pa., one-man "industrial policy" for his hometown of Johnstown, Pa. Zengerle adds rare context to the tales of pork and shady associates that have swirled around Murtha, showing how the former Marine used his chairmanship of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Defense to reinvent the economic base of a flood ravaged and depressed former steel town. But Zengerle also makes clear that the federal largesse comes with its own risks -- not only to the federal Treasury and ethical government, but to Johnstown itself. "All major corporations have succession plans, and, if you want to think about this as a business model, if Jack is the CEO of the area, what is our succession plan here?" former Johnstown mayor Donato Zucco tells Zengerle. "I don't think we have one, and I don't know that people are even thinking about it."
In a sign that Obama-style online fundraising is here to stay, political donation site ActBlue outspent any other PAC during the first six months of 2009, according to a report released last week by the Center for Responsive Politics. The left-leaning group sent nearly $8.5 million to Democratic candidates during that period, $3 million more than EMILY's List, the next-highest spender.
Unlike other PACs, which focus on particular issues or agendas, ActBlue is a fundraising tool people can use to send money to whichever Democratic candidates or causes move them to open their wallets. Its quick climb to the top of the list -- the site launched in 2004 -- represents less the rise of any specific issue than it does candidates' growing reliance on online fundraising methods.
And, as quickly as it sends the money out, more keeps coming in. The group announced today that it had hit the $100 million mark in cash raised since its founding, with a reported median donation of $50. And a fundraising drive begun last week to support legislators who favor a public health care option is still bringing in cash and recently surpassed $400,000.
Ten companies have accounted for more than a quarter of health-sector lobbying -- $70 million -- this year, according to our analysis of lobbyist data from the Center for Responsive Politics.
Not all spending was necessarily related to the health care legislation, and some insurers -- notably, America's Health Insurance Plans and Blue Cross/Blue Shield -- did not figure into the analysis because they fell outside CRP's five health-related industries: pharmaceuticals/health products, hospitals/nursing homes, health professionals, health services/HMOs and miscellaneous health.
Here's what the analysis shows:One of the companies that hadn't lobbied before 2008 was the Ambulatory Surgery Center Association, an group advocating for facilities that provide surgical services to patients who don't require hospitalization. The ASCA -- which was fourth-highest in spending this year among companies that hadn't lobbied in the decade prior to 2008 -- spent $420,000 in the first half of this year.
One of the group's goals is to lobby the government to move more procedures to Ambulatory Surgery Centers rather than hospitals, a spokeswoman said, noting that it would save the government money: "ASCs right now get paid 59 percent of what hospital outpatient departments get paid to perform the same procedures."
One of the companies that started lobbying this year is Dossia, a new nonprofit that securely collects health records for the employees (and other qualifying individuals) of its funders. The information is available to the employees for life regardless of whether they switch insurers, doctors or employers. Dossia, the fifth-largest first-timer this year, is funded by a group of large companies including AT&T, Applied Materials, BP America, Intel Corporation, Pitney Bowes and Wal-Mart, to name a few.
The Center for Responsive Politics has added a new feature to its website that allows people to sort through the names of lobbyists, the industry they represent and which member of Congress they most recently worked for.
For example, take a look at the list of lobbyists working in the pharmaceutical and health product industries.
This tool could help citizens and the media better monitor the influence of various interests on public policy. I have often thought that personal lobbying is even more influential than campaign donations to lawmakers, so readers, let us know if you find something interesting with this new tool.
• "Lobbyists and special interests spent more than a million dollars during the first six months of 2009 honoring a man who is no fan of K Street: President Barack Obama," The Hill reports. "Corporate sponsorship paid for Inaugural festivities as well as events after Obama took office. For example, Ford Motor Co. spent $105,000 to help sponsor the NAACP's annual convention last month, at which Obama spoke."
• "Health care reform has 'the potential to become the mother of all advocacy ad wars,' says Evan Tracey, founder of the Campaign Media Analysis Group," Politico
reports. "Thus far, more than $51 million has been spent on television
ads since" Obama "was elected last fall, he said. And interest groups
of all stripes are promising major campaigns through the August recess."
• A "note from the private National Health Council, sent to House
leaders drafting health overhaul legislation" purporting to represent
"'the more than 133 million Americans living with chronic diseases and
disabilities and their family caregivers' ... did not mention that
nearly $1.2 million of the council's $2.3 million budget in 2007 came
from the pharmaceutical industry's chief trade group and 16 companies
that sell or are developing the brand-name biotech drugs," AP reports.
The Center for Responsive Politics has released a preliminary analysis of second quarter campaign finance reports filed earlier this month. All of the nation's congressional candidates raised a total of $168.5 million and spent $73.6 million of that money.
Some interesting findings: On average, Democratic candidates raked in roughly 37 percent more than Republican candidates, $146,858 compared to $106,793. Out of the total amount raised, 77 percent went to currently seated lawmakers.
Legendary rainmaker Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., raised the most with $3.5 million, he is up for re-election next year. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is a close second having raised $3.3 million.
Stay tuned for the Center's upcoming analysis on what the campaign finance data indicates, including how much the health care industry and finance sectors gave to lawmakers.
The 10th annual Camp Baucus -- a three-day fundraiser in Montana for Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus' leadership political action committee has it all -- or does it?
Starting today at the posh Big Sky Resort there's fly-fishing in three nearby rivers, golfing on an Arnold Palmer-designed course, horseback riding and hiking, family fun and gorgeous scenery. Indeed, all that will be missing is the senator himself. Baucus will be staying in Washington, an aide confirms, to tend to faltering bipartisan negotiations over health care reform legislation.
By staying away, Baucus will also miss the protest awaiting fundraiser attendees -- who are forking out $2,500 per individual and $5,000 per PAC. Gene Fenderson of Helena, a retired labor leader and co-founder of Montanans for Single Payer told the Great Falls Tribune that protesters will line the road to resort holding signs with slogans that read "Buy Back Baucus" as well as large scale faux checks that read "Max -- A seat at the table. What does it cost? $4 million. Buy Back Our Senator!" The figure is an apparent reference to $3 million Baucus' PAC and campaign committee already collected from the health and insurance sectors from 2003 to 2008, and which has kept flooding in this year according to The Washington Post.
Less than 10 percent of the money came from Montana. Fenderson argues that it's inappropriate for Baucus to hold an upscale fundraiser with lobbyists from the health care sector while the committee is drafting a bill.
Baucus aides told The Washington Post that he adopted an internal office policy of refusing contributions from health care PACs that would continue until after Congress passes a reform bill. But the paper found in a later look at Federal Election Commission files that the policy didn't appear to exclude contributions from individual lobbyists or executives with health care connections.
Want to know the what and where on the latest fundraiser for your lawmaker? Well, Under the Influence has added a new feature to help you keep track. We have added a box linking to the Sunlight Foundation's Party Time blog (www.politicalpartytime.org), which has a rolling list of fundraisers. You can find that box by scrolling down the right-hand side of the blog. You can see updates throughout the day.
The fundraiser list is put together by a team of people managed by Nancy Watzman (her photo is to the right), who works from Denver for Washington, DC-based Sunlight, a nonpartisan nonprofit foundation devoted to increasing transparency in the political process. Sunlight's funding comes from a variety of sources. (The major funder is the Omidyar Network, the philanthropy of Ebay founder Pierre Omidyar and his wife, Pamela.You can see all of Sunlight Foundation's funders here: http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/funding/)
Watzman, who has been at the foundation for just over a year, has a background in following money and politics, having worked at such groups as Public Campaign, the Center for Responsive Politics, and the Center for Public Integrity. She has also written for numerous publications, including Harper's,The New Republic, and The Washington Monthly. She is the co-author of "Is That a Politician in Your Pocket?: Washington on $2 Million a Day" (Wiley Books, 2004).
Under The Influence's Bara Vaida interviewed Watzman to introduce her and Party Time to our readers.
Under the Influence: How did you come up with the idea for Political Party Time?
Watzman: My colleague Bill Allison kept a stash of fundraising invitations that a lobbyist source had been giving him for years. They were in a pile in his office. Anybody who covers money and politics in Washington, DC knows that these invitations are ubiquitous. They come in by the hundreds over e-mail and fax machines to lobbyists around town all the time. They are an essential piece of how Washington works, but are largely unknown outside the Beltway. With the technical whizzes at the Sunlight Foundation, we saw a way to create something that to our knowledge had never been done before: gather all these invitations on a website and create a searchable database based on the information they contain.
How much time does it take to create your database?
It's a pretty labor intensive affair. We collect our invitations from a number of anonymous sources. We process them so we can provide electronic images of the invitations on the website. Interns then spend many hours doing the data entry. It's a lot of work to keep up with the flood of invitations.
Where does your information on the fundraisers come from?
Over the years we've developed lobbyist sources who are willing to give us the invitations. Many lobbyists are sick of getting so many of them and are happy to provide them to us, as long as their names are not attached. We also ask the public to send us any they come across through our website: http://politicalpartytime.org/upload/. Anybody who is reading this, please send us your invitations! We know we only get a portion of the events that are happening, which is frustrating. However, in just the year we've been in operation, we've collected more than 5,500. Still, we'd love to get more.
In reading about all these fundraisers, is there anything that has struck you?
The relentless nature of the fundraising that goes on. Lawmakers are constantly at it. And as you look at many of these over time, you see the same names showing up again and again as hosts for various events. It's a very inside game.
Beer: it's not just for diffusing racial tensions, writes Nancy Watzman, editor of Sunlight Foundation's Political Party Time blog.
It's also for political fundraising. As are wine, bourbon, cocktails, margaritas, and mojitos-all used as attractions for recent fundraisers by members of Congress, according to Party Time's database.
Click here to learn more about the latest alcohol related congressional fundraisers
Veteran Republican fundraiser and former lobbyist Peter Terpeluk was officially appointed as chairman of the Republican National Committee's Finance Committee, pending approval of the RNC's full membership.
The Washington Times reported that many in the GOP are relieved that a heavy weight fundraiser like Terpeluck has taken the job. Terpeluck takes over as the RNC's fundraising has outpaced Democrats this year. The RNC raised $45.7 million in the 2010 election cycle so far, while the Democratic National Committee has raised $37.4 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Terpeluk was a lobbyist with American Continental Group until mid-2008, when he de-registered, according to lobbying disclosure documents. Prior to lobbying, Terpeluk was co-chairman of President George H.W. Bush's 1992 re-election campaign. In the 2008 election cycle, he was a finance committee member for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Republican presidential nomination effort and then was a major fundraiser for GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. Terpuluk was named an ambassador to Luxumbourg in 2002 by President George W. Bush.
Everyone expects the ground war among grassroots groups supporting and opposing the Democrats health care plans to intensify during the August recess, so I found interesting the comments of Evan Tracey, COO of the Campaign Media Analysis Group.
Tracey was on the NewsHour Friday evening where he told host Ray Suarez that spending on health care reform advertising is already approaching $2 million a day. So far $45 million has been spent, with most of the ads targeted at certain senators. The ads are likely to increase and expand in scope to target House members as well during August. (In 1993 and 1994, the health insurance industry spent about $35 million on health care ads, including the iconic "Harry and Louise" ads which helped to define the public opposition to President Clinton's health care reform plan.)
Click here for a link to the video of the segment and here for a transcript.
The House Blue Dogs, the fiscally conservative group of 51 House Democrats, have raised more than $1.1 million for their political action committee this election cycle, putting it on track to break all previous fundraising records, according to a new report by the Center for Public Integrity.
"Whether the subject is health care reform, climate change or pay-as-you-go budgeting rules, almost everyone, it seems, suddenly wants to talk wtih the Blue Dogs," the Center said. "As their clout has expanded, fundraising has grown too."
The study also found that nearly 54 percent of the Blue Dog PAC's contributions this year have come from three sectors: health care PACs, energy PACs, and financial services PACs.
The Sunlight Foundation's Political Party Time blog has a fun post about the number of lawmakers who like to raise money while skeet shooting or dove or pheasant hunting.
The post is timed to the Senate's vote Wednesday to narrowly reject a provision that would have allowed people to carry concealed weapons from state to state. Political Party Time asks: Is there a correlation between fundraising-while-shooting and how senators voted?
Click to see the post here and their list of fundraisers.
The Center for Political Accountability announced today that four more companies, three of them indexed in the S&P100, have agreed to adopt disclosure and board oversight of political spending with corporate funds. CPA, a nonprofit organization, is leading a shareholder effort to urge companies to make corporate political expenditures public.
"We have found that political spending can pose risks and disclosure can help mitigate those risks," said Bruce F. Freed, executive director of the group. Compliance with CPA's disclosure requirements means companies must list, on their website, soft money contributions and payments to trade associations and other tax-exempt organizations like (501(c)(4)s).
Freed pointed to the American Conservative Union's recent attempt to shake Fed-Ex for $2 million in exchange for political support, as a perfect example of why disclosure is so important. See the Politico story about this here. The American Conservative Union denied some of the assertions in the story. See their release.ACU statement.pdf
The four new companies adopting political disclosure, bringing CPA's total to 65, are Entergy, Heinz, Williams Companies and Hartford.
To see a complete list of the companies that have agreed to political disclosure, see here
INITIAL PREVIEW: Second Quarter Lobbying Reports:
Hold the phone, lobbying disclosure reports for the second quarter of 2009 are due today and National Journal has taken a preliminary look at the data filed as of this morning to identify the top ten spenders (by individual filing) this quarter. These numbers will change as the week goes on and the Senate and House process the thousands of disclosure reports.
Chevron takes first place, reporting that it spent a little over $6 million on lobbying and the oil giant is closely followed by seniors group AARP, who reported spending $5.3 million on lobbying. Among the issues AARP pushed in Congress during the quarter is a bill to demystify government-speak: The Plain Language Act of 2009. The legislation calls for all executive agencies to use plain language in any document issued to the public (other than regulation).
Financially troubled General Motors ranks sixth on the list with $2.8 million spent on lobbying this quarter. Other transportation-related groups who made the top ten includes Lockheed Martin, the American Electric Power Company and the Association of American Railroads. Here is the complete list*:
1. Chevron - $6 million
2. AARP - $5.3 million
3. National Association of Realtors - $3.8 million
4. Lockheed Martin - $3.3 million
5. American Electric Power Company - $2.9 million
6. General Motors - $2.8 million
7. Association of American Railroads - $2.7 million
8. Wal-Mart Stores - $2.6 million
9. Koch Companies Public Sector - $2.5 million
10. GlaxoSmithKline - $2.3 million
*Information comes from the Senate Office of Public Records.
This list will be updated this week, as traditional big spenders, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have yet to be processed by the congressional document offices. We will keep you updated.
A K Streeter sent me a copy of an invitation to a July 21 dinner and fundraiser for Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., chair of the House Ways & Means health subcommittee.
The fundraiser's lead sponsor is the American Occupational Therapy political action committee, and the event is co-sponsored by the American Podiatric Medical Association PAC, the American Dietetic Association PAC, and the American Speech - Language-Hearing Association PAC. These are all groups that have a stake in health care reform.
"Probably not the best timing for this," the person noted in reference to the fact that the House Ways & Means Committee is to begin marking up the House Democrat's massive health care reform overhaul legislation later this week.See the invitation here: Stark fundraiser.pdf
Stark's press secretary couldn't reached for comment.As the Senate considers the defense authorization bill this week, Common Cause is spotlighting Boeing and Lockheed Martin's lobbying and campaign finance efforts in 2009. For the first three months of the year, Lockheed and Boeing have devoted $6.5 million and $2.4 million, respectively, on lobbying, according to Common Cause's analysis of congressional lobbying records.
The companies have also been active with political donations. Fifty senators have received contributions from the companies' political action committees, employees, and their immediate family members, for the 2010 election cycle, a Common Cause analysis of campaign finance records found. Boeing has contributed $593,550 so far and Lockheed has doled out $780,483. Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-HI, received the most from the two companies ($86,800), followed by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. ($82,975), and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. ($79,000).
The analysis was issued as Senators debate funding for F-22 raptor fighter jets, which the companies manufacture and Defense Secretary Robert Gates says are not needed. Common Cause opposes the purchases, as does President Obama, who has threatened to veto the bill. McCain has also said he opposes the purchases.
GOP senators are seeking "majority makers" like former Bush Pioneer John Nau at their retreat at the Four Seasons for the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee in Jackson Hole, Wyoming August 14 - 16, writes Nancy Watzman for the Sunlight Foundation's Political Party Time blog.
"Majority Makers" may sound like a hopeful term these days for the GOP now that the Senate is 60-40 in Democratic hands; in fact, it is the NRSC's donor club for those individuals who contribute the maximum possible of $30,400.
There has been a lot of talk this week that House Blug Dogs may prove to be spoilers in the health care debate because of their concern that the legislation will cause the deficit to balloon. But Nate Silver, author of the blog FiveThirtyEight, thinks many Blue Dogs might be more receptive to health care reform than many would think.
The reason is that the uninsured rate in the majority of Blue Dog districts is above the national median uninsured rate of 14.6 percent. Silver looked at Gallup poll data in the 48 congressional districts that Republican presidential candidate John McCain won in 2008, but which also elected a Blue Dog Democrat as their congressman or woman. He found that 31 of those districts reported uninsured rates above the median. Constituents in the district that elected Rep. Dan Boren, D-Okla. had the highest uninsured rate of the group, with 25.8 percent saying they don't have health insurance.
Click here for the chart and story.
Silver suggested that if those Democratic members representing districts with higher uninsured rates choose to vote against the Democrats' health care bill, the public should look into how heavily the members were lobbied and "then check to see if they're still in office four years hence."
Ever since retail giant Wal-Mart announced on June 30 that it is embracing an employer mandate as part of health care reform, the company has been criticized by some congressional Republicans, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and fellow retailers.
And Republicans are probably even more unhappy with the direction of the company's political donations this election cycle.
Like many others in the business community, the company's campaign contributions have moved with the power shift in Washington to Democrats from Republicans. Wal-Mart's political action committee has doled out $108,500 to federal candidates and parties in the 2010 election cycle, with 69 percent to Democrats and 31 percent to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. See here.
That is a switch from the 2008 cycle, when Wal-Mart gave out $1.24 million, of which 46 percent went to Democrats and 53 percent to Republicans. The change is even more pronounced when looking at the 2006 cycle, when the company's PAC contributed $1.29 million to federal candidates, of which 32 percent went to Democrats and 68 percent to Republicans.
Only one industry, the oil and gas sector, out of the top 50 industries that contribute money to federal candidates have given more money to Republicans then Democrats in the 2010 election cycle. The food and beverage and the chemical industries have given money equally to candidates of both parties, while every other sector has given more to Democrats than GOP candidates, according to CRP. See the chart here.
What's driving this for Wal-Mart are employer costs, say political observers. Wal-Mart has taken steps to ensure that a majority of its employees have health benefits and for competitive reasons would like to see other companies bear those costs as well. Others in the business community are concerned an employer mandate would cost too much and lead them to eliminate jobs.
Fifteen years ago, costs led some businesses, particularly those with big union health care plans, split off from the wider business community and supported President Clinton's efforts to reform health care.
The Associated Press on July 9 took an interesting look at the splits in the business community that are developing during this year's debate that will make it difficult for opponents to derail the Democrats efforts. See story.
Lawmakers on committees with jurisdiction on health care reform legislation who oppose the creation of a publicly-funded health insurance option to compete with private insurers, received more money, on average, from the health care sector than members who support it, according to a new study of campaign money conducted by the Center for Responsive Politics. Members who have said 'no' to a public plan option received an average of $1.3 million over their career (as far back as 1989 when the Center began collecting data) versus $900,000 for those who said 'yes,' the study says.
Over the past three weeks, the Center's staff called lawmakers on all five of the congressional committees working on health care legislation to get their stance on the public plan option and they analyzed their campaign donations. In total, the Center's staff looked at 187 members. No information was available regarding 50 of the lawmakers contacted that were included in the report.
And improtant caveat to the study was that not everyone responded 'yes' or no 'when' asked about whether or not they supported a public plan option. Among the undecided was Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., Chairman of the Finance Committee, who has received $3.8 million from the health care sector. Baucus ranked third in the study, behind Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and John McCain, R-Ariz., who have raked in a total of $8.3 million and $9 million, respectively, from the health care sector.
For those looking for a bright spot in the Republican party, the Republican Governors Association said it outraised the Democratic Governors Association in the first half of 2009.
In the first six months of the year, the RGA raised $12.2 million and has $20.4 million cash on hand. The DGA raised $11.6 million during the same period and $12.5 million cash on hand.
RGA communications director Mike Schrimpf touted the sum, calling the states the last place left where Republicans can flex some muscle, without the White House and control of Congress.
The positive note comes as hopes for a state-centric Republican renaissance have been complicated by recent developments about two of the party's former star governors, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford. Palin is stepping down at the end of July and Sanford last month admitted to having an extramarital affair.
"Governorships are the one area where Republicans can implement effective policy that can rebuild the party," said Schrimpf, whose organization recently underwent a leadership shakeup when Mississippi GOP Governor Haley Barbour took over after Sanford stepped down.
DGA communications director Emily DeRose emphasized that the amount raised by Democrats was an association record.
Of all the puzzling things about the Supreme Court's recent move to rethink corporate political spending limits, the strangest is the timing, writes Eliza Newlin Carney in her weekly column "Rules of the Game."
It's odd enough that the high court should postpone a narrow ruling on the case at hand, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and instead set the stage to broadly re-examine whether corporate campaign expenditures may be restricted at all.
The conservative group Citizens United had asked the court to reject restrictions in the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that would have forced it to disclose who paid for its 2008 movie critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. But the court appears poised to go much further.
Having heard oral arguments on March 24, the court has now ordered a second argument for Sept. 9 and has asked for new briefs on whether it should overturn a landmark 1990 ruling that upheld a decades-old ban on independent corporate campaign expenditures, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. The BCRA ad disclosure rules will also be on the table.
"They're being very activist in laying down this rehearing and suggesting they might overturn the traditional ban on corporate expenditures," said Trevor Potter, a former FEC chairman and president of the Campaign Legal Center. "It's a very aggressive action."
For more of the column, click here.
Karen Ignagni, CEO of America's Health Insurance Plans, the advocacy group for the majority of U.S. health insurers, has given $48,550 in campaign donations since the 1996 election cycle, according to a profile of her giving detailed by the Center for Responsive Politics today.
Though prior to AHIP Ignagni worked for Democrats and the AFL-CIO, the health association executive's giving leaned slightly more Republican. The Center says 55 percent of her donations went to GOP candidates and parties since the 1996 election cycle.
See the Center for Responsive Politics profile here.
See also my profile of Ignagni in National Journal's June 13 isse. Click here. (subscription)
(Photo courtesy of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee)
In a new report released today, the government watchdog group Common Cause found that major health care interests have spent upwards of $1.4 million a day to lobby Capitol Hill so far this year.
According to the report, entitled 'legislating under the influence,' political spending by the health industries has increased 73 percent since 2000. Health interests contributed $94 million to candidates in Congress during the 2008 election cycle, a $40 million jump from the 2000 election cycle figure.
The top recipients of health industry campaign contributions from 2000 to 2008 are new Democrat Sen. Arlen Specter, Pa., and Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., at $7.3 million and $6.3 million respectively. All of the campaign finance data used in the report came from the Center for Responsive Politics.
With the health industry's tremendous financial clout in Washington, Common Cause is concerned that chances for meaningful reform will be stymied. The report concludes that members of Congress face a disheartening conflict of interest: side with their large campaign donors or back reform measures that have support from the public, like the public plan option which would create a publicly-funded health insurance entity to compete with private insurers.
In an attempt to stanch the flow of special interest money to Capitol Hill, Change Congress, a government reform group, is calling for a donor strike to politicians who are not supporting the Fair Elections Act. The legislation would reform campaign finance to create matching payments for qualified small-dollar contributions, among other things.
In a press release, Change Congress announced today that the 'on strike' campaign has withdrawn $1.6 million from lawmakers who haven't supported the Fair Election Act. Individuals who join the strike are pledging not to donate to anyone this cycle who doesn't sign on to the campaign finance reform bill. The amount withdrawn is determined by how much the member of the strike gave in the last election cycle. Change Congress is tracking how much each politician is 'losing' (see here), so far the biggest loser is Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., at over $380,000
Change Congress primarily advocates for campaign finance reform. Lawrence Lessig, a professor at Stanford Law School, and Joe Trippi, the pioneer of new media in presidential politics, co-founded the organization.
What will be the impact of the health insurance industry's campaign donations and lobbying on members of the Senate? Plenty, according to an analysis by the blog FiveThirtyEight.com.
Directors of corporate political action committees usually say they give money to lawmakers and candidates who have voted in a way that supports their company's economic interests. And sometimes the PACs donate money to candidates because they share political ideology. But does a lawmaker actually vote for a bill that a particular company backs just because they received a PAC check?
Yes, says Nate Silver, who writes FiveThirtyEight.com. He analyzed the campaign donations of health insurers and health maintenance organizations to Senators and has projected how those lawmakers will vote when it comes to the public plan option under consideration in the health care reform debate. The controversial measure would call on the government to create a new public insurance plan to compete against private insurers.Private insurers are strongly opposed to a public option and progressive groups are pushing hard for it.
"The insurance industry's influence appears to swing about 9 votes against the public option," projects Silver.
Silver says the vote by Sen. Mark Warner D-Va., is the most likely to be influenced by the health insurance lobby. Warner has raised $69,000 in campaign donations from health insurers, though he has only been in office for six months.
Click here to take a look at the analysis.
(Photo of Warner courtesy of Creative Commons)
White House
Press Secretary Robert Gibbs
dodged questions today about why the administration won't pressure the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial
Campaign Committee to stop taking donations from
lobbyists.
Obama is
headlining a DCCC, DSCC fundraising dinner this evening, but lobbyists aren't
permitted to attend or to have donated money for the dinner, though they are permitted to attend an "issues conference" being held on Friday. Obama didn't
take lobbyist or political action committee donations during his campaign. When
he won the Democratic primary, he banned the Democratic National Committee from
taking lobbyist and PAC campaign money as well.
But as
president, it appears the administration isn't willing to push the same
policy.
Here's the
Q&A from the White House briefing today:
Q The President is going to go to a fundraiser in the DCCC and the DSCC, this one night only. They won't take lobbyists' money and all this stuff --
MR. GIBBS: Well, the President won't be involved in a fundraiser that does that.Q But as the titular head of the Democratic Party, why doesn't he have any influence to change the rules of the two major national committees?
MR. GIBBS: I think people know where the President stands. I think -- we're the head of the DNC, and they don't take lobbyists' money, and the President is not going to be involved in fundraisers where that happens.
Q But it's the Democratic Party -- I mean, you're head of the Democratic Party, why can't you have this influence on the DSCC or the DCCC?
MR. GIBBS: Call Bob Menendez. (Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J. is chair of the DSCC)
The different treatment of lobbyists has some Democrats bristling.
"There's no reason to villify good people that are trying to help your Administration and treat them as if they have the plague. They want it both ways. And for the DSCC and DCCC to cave on the [issues conference] makes this event particularly demeaning to attend - 'you're welcome here, and we'll take your money, but not here,'" said one lobbyist who didn't want to be named.
The numbers tell the story why the congressional parties are reluctant to ban lobbyist donations. In the 2008 election cycle, lobbyists gave $34.4 million in campaign
contributions to federal candidates and parties, with 57 percent going
to Democrats and 43 percent to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Sam Brunelli of the Whitaker Health Freedom Foundation, the political arm of Freedom of Health Foundation, which advocates for alternative medicine practices, is planning a June 24 breakfast fundraiser for Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, Sunlight Foundation's Political Party Time reports.
The Whitaker Health Freedom Foundation was founded by Dr. Julian Whitaker of nutrition supplement fame.
Brunelli was executive director of the conservative state-focused group American Legislative Exchange Council, but in 1995 was ousted over charges of financial mismanagement, National Journal reported. (subscription)
Grassley has earned a strong reputation as a crusader for drug safety -- but he also has a record of supporting the alternative health industry, which some consumer critics say is inadequately regulated.
See the invitiation and more of the story here.
The Supreme Court's landmark Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. ruling has prompted sweeping predictions on both sides of the debate over judges and campaign money.
Some see the high court's June 8 ruling as a signal that states should reconsider the system of installing judges through election campaigns, which have become increasingly costly and hard-fought. Thirty-nine states elect at least some judges.
"I hope this decision will spur states to focus on whether our 19th-century method of selecting judges works well in the 21st century," said Thomas Phillips, the former chief justice of Texas and a partner at Baker Botts, in a recent interview with Legal Times. Phillips co-authored a brief in the Caperton v. Massey case on behalf of the Conference of Chief Justices.
On the flip side, critics of the 5-4 ruling -- including Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the dissenting opinion -- predict that it will unleash a wave of litigation and actually undermine the credibility of the courts. Roberts' dissent warns that the ruling creates an ambiguous standard that states will find difficult to enforce.
In fact, both scenarios miss the mark. The ruling's more likely outcome is that state supreme courts will establish and enforce clearer recusal rules for judges who may face conflicts of interest, guidelines that are long overdue.
To read more of Eliza Newlin Carney's column "Rules of The Game" click here.
From Sunlight Foundation's Political Party Time blog:
Whoops. Is the National Republican Campaign Committee (NRCC) interested in getting Rep. Gary Peters, D-Mich. reelected? It would seem so from a list of fundraising events the party committee sent out yesterday featuring a fundraiser for the Michigan congressman on June 11, featuring "special guest" Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich
In the spirit of the Age of Transparency, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., announced that members of the House are now required to disclose expenditures online, the Sunlight Foundation announced today. Sunlight, a government reform organization, has been advocating for this measure since March 2008.
The expenditure statements reveal how members spend their "representational allowances" - federal funds allocated to pay staff salaries, official travel, administrative supplies, and other expenses. Until now, the House has been disclosing this information in bound paper volumes known as the "Quarterly Statement of Expenditures."
Sunlight lauded Pelosi's decision in a blog post affirming it as a step toward increasing transparency and accountability.
Perhaps the decision will help the U.S. lawmakers avoid the kind of scandal engulfing the British Parliament over the abuse of taxpayer money by members. The misuse of funds recently caused Hazel Blears, the nation's secretary of state for communities and local government, to resign the New York Times reports.
-- Eliza Krigman
The earmark scandals involving Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., and the now-defunct defense lobbying firm PMA Group, as well as other developments, are keeping the spotlight on reform efforts. Democrats and Republicans alike are pushing bills, resolutions, and investigations aimed at curbing abuses.
Eliza Newlin Carney has the full story on earmark reform efforts. Read all about it in her column "Rules of the Game." Go here.
UPDATE: May 29 10:30 a.m.
We received the following e-mail response from Ryan Rudominer, national press secretary for the DCCC: "You don't need to contribute to win the contest. We are not accepting money from lobbyists for this fundraiser."
(Click on the invitation below to see the contest he refers to.)
The Democratic lobbyist who received the invitation/solicitation and told us about it had this to say: "They know damn well that this is Hillary's old mailing list, which includes every DEM lobbyist in the entire freakin' world who gave her money."
________________________________________________
Here is the original post:
Oops! Someone at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee forgot to scrub a very important, and sensitive, e-mail/donor list.
You see, at least one lobbyist (who contacted us) -- and no doubt many others -- received an invitation from the DCCC and James Carville to make a contribution to the committee for a June 18 fundraising dinner in Washington that will include President Obama.
See invitation here:
Dinner with President Obama.pdfThe president has instructed the DCCC (and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee) they are not to solicit contributions from lobbyists and political action committees for these types of events.
But the Carville-DCCC invitation was sent to members of HillaryClinton.com's online community. Hillary Clinton had no prohibition on taking K Street-connected money when she was running against Obama for the Democratic nomination.
Health care reform is being teed up on Capitol Hill, so the Sunlight Foundation's Party Time blog has started keeping track of fundraisers for lawmakers hosted by health care lobbyists. Among the events they found were fundraisers with lobbyists representing companies such as Eli Lilly and Johnson & Johnson as well as such trade associations as the American Hospital Association.
Party Time has identified at least 124 fundraising events in 2009 for members of the House Ways and Means Committee, which will be considering options to pay for health care reform.
Most invitations do not contain information about hosts or who might be attending. However, those that do, provide an interesting glimpse of what the guest lists are like at these private events.
See Party Time's blog post here.
Even as Congress and the Obama administration mull a new round of campaign finance regulations, a series of legal challenges threatens to dismantle the existing rules, election law experts warn, according to "Rules Of The Game."
Emboldened by the court's tilt to the right under Chief Justice John Roberts, conservatives who champion the First Amendment have mounted more than 20 challenges to election laws in both federal and state court recently, according to a recent analysis by the Campaign Legal Center.
At least one of these, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, is already before the Supreme Court and will be decided by the end of June. Other cases, most notably Republican National Committee v. FEC and SpeechNow.org v. FEC, are working their way through the lower courts and appear inevitably headed to the high court.
What worries lawyers defending the existing regulations is not that the Roberts court will overturn the campaign finance rules wholesale. Rather, they foresee the Supreme Court continuing its pattern over the past two years of chipping away at the building blocks of the current campaign finance regime. These include contribution limits, disclosure requirements and the ban on direct corporate and labor expenditures, which some warn are now under siege.
"Slowly but surely, the move is toward deregulation," said Richard L. Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, at a May 8 conference on money in politics at the National Press Club. The event was sponsored by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.
"There is no doubt in my mind that the substance of the campaign finance debate has reached the turning point," says Michael Malbin, executive director of the Campaign Finance Institute. He was one of several panel members at a money-in-politics conference convened last week by the Brennan Center for Justice. Freshman Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, who gave the opening remarks, noted her state has been lauded for establishing an effective public financing system. But, she said, running for federal office was a demoralizing "dialing for dollars" exercise: "I learned firsthand that to fund-raise you must set up a telemarketing operation. This doesn't seem to me like any way to run a democracy."
Other attendees included Norm Eisen, special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform, and the Rev. Lennox Yearwood Jr., president of the Hip Hop Caucus. Yearwood explicitly promoted the Fair Elections Act, legislation that would reform campaign finance to create matching payments for qualified small-dollar contributions, among other things.
-- Eliza Krigman
The Campaign Legal Center is up in arms over President Obama's nomination of John Sullivan for a seat on the Federal Election Commission. Jabbing at Obama's campaign slogan, the organization released a statement last Friday calling Sullivan "not the change we need."
"Mr. Sullivan has bashed important elements of McCain-Feingold and repeatedly taken radical deregulatory positions," said center Executive Director J. Gerald Hebert, in a press release.
Sullivan is a veteran labor lawyer. Most recently he served as the associate general counsel for the Service Employees International Union. Citing various instances where Sullivan supported the deregulation of campaign finance laws, the center says it has deep concerns over whether he will effectively support the agency's mission of enforcing money-in-politics restrictions.
-- Eliza Krigman
When it comes to fundraising, what a difference a seat on the House Financial Services Committee makes, writes Nancy Watzman for the Sunlight Foundation's Political Party Time blog.
"Take Rep. Leonard Lance of New Jersey, a rarity in this new Congress: a GOP freshman," she writes. "When Lance ran his campaign for this open seat, he collected just $34,500 from the financial sector. With his seat on the influential committee secured, invitations went out for a March 17 'financial services industry' dinner at the Matchbox restaurant in Chinatown."
Watzman then dug into first-quarter finance reports at the Federal Election Commission and found $46,000 in donations from financial services political action committees. "More in three months than Lance had collected for his entire 2008 campaign."
Click here to see the invitation and read more of the story.
The Center for Responsive Politics has analyzed first quarter, in-house lobbying expenditures and found that spending was about even in the first quarter of 2009, compared with the same period in 2008.
Spending by unions, organizations and companies totaled $799.3 million compared with $795.9 million, a less than 1 percent increase. (The Center said the figure is actually down from the fourth quarter of 2008, when lobby spending was $818 million.)
"That might seem like a small increase compared to the billions spent each year on this activity, but in a time of economic turmoil, that's a hefty revenue stream for a single industry," wrote the Center's Lindsay Renick Mayer on the organization's website.
Drug companies were the biggest spenders among industries at $66.8 million, while the oil and gas biz posted a 48 percent increase in spending, the largest percentage increase.
It's worth noting companies that received money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program spent less on lobbying than they had in any quarter of 2008. TARP recipients spent $13.9 million on lobbying so far this year, compared to $20.2 million in January through March of last year and $17.8 million in the last three months of 2008.
In tomorrow's National Journal, I have a story that found K Street's hired guns had a tough quarter with 10 of the 15 top lobbying firms reporting a decline in lobbying revenues.
--Bara Vaida
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee should ban donations from lobbyists and political action committees permanently, not just for a June 18 dinner hosted by President Obama, a coalition of 50 campaign finance advocates and progressive bloggers said in a letter to the Democratic organizations.
The coalition also launched a website to garner public support for their cause, called "StopFakeReform."
"We read that you have chosen to accept President Obama's ban on fundraising from PACs and lobbyists, but only for June 18 - the day he headlines a fundraiser for you," the letter says. "This isn't just hypocritical - it defies common sense that you'd think the public would believe this was a principled stand against special-interest influence."
Organizing the effort is Change Congress, a group urging donors to boycott giving money to federal candidates until lawmakers enact comprehensive campaign finance reform. The outfit says that it has been able to get pledges from donors to withhold $1.28 million in funds to candidates.
Jennifer Crider, spokeswoman for the DCCC said it isn't correct to say that her group and the DSCC are foregoing lobbyist and PAC money for "one day," rather they agreed not to raise money from lobbyists and PACs for one event, at the request of Obama.
"Democrats enacted the strongest ethics and lobbying reform in history. Our fundraising is fully transparent," said Crider, noting that Rep. Christopher Van Hollen, D-Md., who is chair of the DCCC, was author of legislation in 2008 in the House that resulted in the enactment of strict reporting rules on money bundlers.
Other signers of the letter to the parties include Public Campaign, Public Citizen and progressive bloggers from key states like California, New Jersey, Nevada and North Carolina. See the letter and list here.
--Bara Vaida
As the season for appropriations and earmarks approaches on Capitol Hill, the Sunlight Foundation's Party Time site is tracking fundraisers related to appropriations.
The non-profit organization has collected at least 170 fundraising invitations for 2009 events either benefiting lawmakers sitting on the House or Senate Appropriations Committees or featuring one of these members of Congress at the event as a draw to contributors. Some of the parties are being hosted by lobbyists.
In the 2008 budget and appropriation process, "earmarks and other government expenditures" was the most lobbied topic for which the Senate Office of Public Records says it received 18,740 lobbying registrations. The number two topic was taxation and the IRS, for which there were 8,662 lobbying registrations.
See Party Time's story and the invitations here.
--Bara Vaida
The corporations, unions and trade associations that represented the top 20 PAC contributors to federal candidates from both major parties last year poured a combined $22 million into lobbying efforts from January through March -- an increase of nearly 20 percent over the same period in 2008.
High-stakes legislation intended to calm the roiling American economy and a proposed change to labor laws prompted the nation's most generous political contributors to redouble efforts to lobby the lawmakers whose elections they helped to finance, a CongressDaily analysis of first-quarter lobbying disclosure filings shows. (To see chart, click here to access story on NJ.com)
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the list of top 20 PAC donors to House and Senate candidates in 2007 and 2008 includes the political arms of the National Association of Realtors, technology giant Honeywell International, the Service Employees International Union, and the National Beer Wholesalers Association.
The Realtors, whose PAC was the biggest donor to federal candidates in the last cycle, spent a whopping $5.7 million in its lobbying efforts over the first three months of 2009.
That figure, an 82 percent increase over the amount spent over same period last year, tops the $4 million that the Realtors' PAC shelled out to candidates in 2007 and 2008.
When President Obama headlines a fundraiser in Nevada for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., next month, lobbyist and political action committee donations will be barred.
"There will be no lobbyist or PAC money" permitted at the fundraiser, said a Reid spokesman.
The president has agreed to attend a May 26 fundraiser in Las Vegas on behalf of Reid, who may have a tough re-election fight in 2010. The trip reflects the close ties the president and the Senate leader have developed, the New York Times reported.
The Reid campaign decision not to accept lobbyist or PAC donations at the Obama fundraiser follows the decision of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee this week to forgo lobbyist and PAC money at their annual dinner in June, which Obama will also host.
The Democratic National Committee last year stopped taking lobbyist and PAC donations after Obama became the party's nominee.
In the 2008 election cycle, lobbyists gave $34.4 million in campaign contributions to federal candidates and parties, with 57 percent going to Democrats and 43 percent to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
--Bara Vaida
It's a bear economy, but that hasn't stopped lavish spending on lobbying for some of the nation's biggest industries and associations. In fact, first quarter lobbying reports reveal that the top ten spenders of 2009 outdid the top ten from the same period in 2008 -- $67.8 million verses $54.1 million. Taking first place in Q1 was the U.S. Chamber of Commerce at just shy of $10 million. The chamber's Institute for Legal Reform came in at No. 9 at $5.5 million. Oil companies and pharmaceuticals poured millions into lobbying as well.
Below are the Top Ten in Q1, according to data available on the Senate website today.
Chamber of Commerce of the U.S.A. - $9.9 million
Exxon Mobil - $9.3 million
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America - $6.9 million
Chevron U.S.A. - $ 6.8 million
Lockheed Martin - $6.4 million
Pfizer - $6.1
ConocoPhillips - $6 million
National Association of Realtors - $5.7 million
U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform - $5.5 million
AT&T Services Inc and Affiliates - $5.1 million
-- Eliza Krigman
A Washington Post story today is likely to generate more questions from lawmakers about whether companies receiving federal bailout funds are using that money to oppose efforts to impose more rules on their companies.
Top recipients of federal bailouts spent more than $10 million on political lobbying in the first three months of this year, including aggressive efforts aimed at blocking executive pay limits and tougher financial regulations, the Post says.
Back in January, Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.,and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, reintroduced legislation (S.133) that would block firms receiving money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) from using those funds to lobby. Not much has been heard on the topic since. These numbers might renew interest in Feinstein and Snowe's bill, though lawyers say such legislation could be unconstitutional.
--Bara Vaida
Roll Call reports today that House Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., is seeking $23 million in earmarks for homeland security projects at the small Mississippi college that he attended, although the school, Tougaloo College, could not explain what the earmarks are for and does not yet appear to have the capacity to provide the services that Thompson wants to fund.
To read Paul Singer's entire story go here: http://www.rollcall.com/issues/54_117/news/34121-1.html
When Andrew Noyes and I worked on this week's National Journal story about the lobbying battle between the music industry and radio broadcasters over royalty fees, first quarter 2009 lobbying figures weren't available yet. Under the Lobbying Disclosure Act, neither side was required to make their lobbying numbers public until the April 20 filing deadline.
Now we have those numbers so we can shed some light on one of the arguments in the battle: Both sides accuse the other of trying to win by outspending their opponent.
SoundExchange, the non-profit group that is funding the music industry's lobbying battle, reported that it spent $540,000, double the $200,000 it reported spending in the first quarter of 2008. The Recording Industry Association of America, which is a member of SoundExchange, reported spending $1.8 million in the first three months of 2009, up from the $1.54 million the organization spent during the same period a year ago.
The National Association of Broadcasters, which is battling the music industry on behalf of radio broadcasters, reported spending $2.6 million, up from $2.49 million they spent in the first quarter of 2008.
Both sides are racking up big lobbying fees in roughly equal measure.
--Bara Vaida
The Center for Responsive Politics takes a look at the Club for Growth and where the organization has directed its campaign donations.
The conservative economic group is looking for a new leader and apparently is focusing its search on former Rep. Chris Chocola, R-Ind., who received Club for Growth donations, the Center says. Chocola would replace former Rep. Pat Toomey, R-Pa. who is stepping down to run for Senate in Pennsylvania.
--Bara Vaida
Congress Daily's Andrew Noyes reports at TechDailyDose that campaign finance clearinghouse OpenSecrets.org, which is run by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, is going "open data" next week, according to an e-mail circulated by the center on Thursday. For the first time in CRP's 26-year history the money-in-politics watchdog is making its most popular data archives fully available to the public for download for free.
Officials hope that OpenSecrets.org, a four-time Webby winner for best politics site, will remain the go-to independent source for most people interested in "following the money" but now the skilled data-diver can explore the information that's already aggregated on the site to its full depth. CRP is expecting all sorts of data mash-ups, maps and other cool projects to result from the new capability.
Transparency group the Sunlight Foundation helped fund OpenSecrets.org's OpenData initiative to make millions of records available under a Creative Commons "Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike" license. CRP will continue to offer its data to commercial users for a fee.
Many lobbyists have grumbled to me about the number of fundraising solicitations they get from lawmakers, and a few of them are putting their money where their mouth is.
Congressmen-turned-lobbyists Butler Derrick, D-S.C., Toby Moffett, D-Conn., and Marty Russo, D-Ill., along with Cassidy & Associates founder Gerry Cassidy and Ed Gabriel, president of the Gabriel Co., are joining with campaign reform advocates like Common Cause and Public Citizen to support public financing of campaigns. The aim is to reduce the amount of money that lawmakers rely on from "special interest" donors.
Lawmakers are "only dealing with the edges when they say a lobbyist can't pay for a dinner, or can't give gifts," said Russo, who is now CEO and vice chairman of Cassidy & Associates. "That is all a distraction from the big issue, which is money. Money is the problem."
The five are supporting the Fair Elections Now Act, which is scheduled to be introduced in the next week. The measure, co-sponsored in the Senate by Sens. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and in the House by Reps. John Larson, D-Conn., and Walter Jones, R-N.C., would combine private funding from small donors with public matching grants up to a fixed amount as a way to boost the power of small donors in congressional races and reduce lawmakers' reliance on campaign bundlers, political action committees and lobbyists.
Fundraising is such a huge part of this city, and lawmakers are constantly bombarding lobbyists with fundraising invitations. So why are so many of them reluctant to talk about the fundraisers held in their honor? Are they embarassed?
Take a look at this video produced by the American News Project, a public interest news gathering site that sent reporter Harry Hanbury out to film a day at Washington D.C.'s fundraisers. While almost everyone either declined to talk to Hanbury or tried to shoo him off the premises, at least one lawmaker, Rep. Lynne Woolsey, D-Calif. was willing to have her staff talk to Hanbury with honesty. Kudos to Woolsey.
(Hat tip to Sunlight Foundation's Party Time)Tell me readers, what do you think? Send me an email.
--Bara Vaida
Is the Senate finally ready to start filing campaign finance reports electronically?
Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., hopes so. Often a pioneer of government accountability initiatives, Feingold has re-introduced the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act to require senatorial candidates to file their campaign finance reports electronically with the Secretary of the Senate. After unsuccessful attempts to pass this legislation in the past three sessions of Congress, Feingold and primary co-sponsors Sens. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., hope to push the Senate into modern technological practices.
"This commonsense bill to make our electoral system more transparent is long overdue," Feingold said in a statement after re-introducing the bill. "The Senate should catch up with the House, the President, and the many Senators who already voluntarily file electronically by passing this reform which has broad bipartisan support." Introduced on Feb. 26, the bill already has 31 co-sponsors.
Under the current system of paper filing, the final disclosure reports of senatorial candidates are not available to the public until after the election due to the time it takes the Federal Election Commission to process the paperwork. Filing on paper not only delays making the information available to the public, but it's also costly. The FEC told Michael Malbin, executive director of the Campaign Finance Institute, that $250,000 goes out to vendors to keystroke the information into a computer. That figure doesn't include the paper cost of printing out hundreds of reports to be transported to the FEC.
During the last session of Congress, Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., killed the e-filing legislation by insisting on an unrelated and controversial amendment to require groups that file ethics complaints to disclose their donors. The Center for Responsive Politics reported that Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., might float the same amendment to stymie the bill once again.
"I think the amendment [if introduced by Roberts] is a non sequitur," said Malbin. "If it is adopted, the purpose would be to bring down the Senate electronic filing requirement."
(Photo by Liz Lynch)
--Eliza Krigman
As members of Congress beat up on AIG and other financial firms, many lawmakers on the financial services and banking committees are happy to keep taking campaign contributions from the sector.
The Sunlight Foundation's Party Time blog today listed four high-dollar fundraisers for lawmakers on the Senate Banking and House Financial Services Committees this month.
Financial services, insurance and real estate political action committees donated a total of $62.6 million to federal candidates in the 2008 election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
--Bara Vaida
Over the past decade, lobbyists have reported to Congress that they collected more than a half billion in fees, but appeared to have done no actual lobbying for that money, according to a new report by the Center for Responsive Politics, criticizing firms' lack of disclosure.
The non-partisan Center found 19,000 reports filed under the Lobbying Disclosure Act where firms reported receiving $565 million in fees, but listed no lobbyist name, no issue and no government contact information. The forms were essentially blank, except for the name of the registrant and the fees they collected. For more on what the Center calls "stealth" lobbying, read the report.
--Bara Vaida
Update @3:30 PM: here's a comment from a campaign finance lawyer, who is also a reader:
"Lawyers who lobby are still bound by the rules of legal ethics, which, among other things, prevent a lawyer from representing two different clients on opposing sides of the same issue.
So if Lawyer A was hired by Company 1 to lobby in favor of H.R. 100, Lawyer A would be ethically precluded from lobbying against H.R. 100 if Company 2 approached Lawyer A to do so.
Sometimes lobbyists - especially very well connected lobbyists - get hired just so no one else can hire them to work on the same issue. "
It's almost the end of the first quarter of 2009 and lobbyists are complaining to me about the stepped-up pressure they are getting from fundraisers working for lawmakers and the political parties. Though the 2010 election is a long way off, fundraising numbers are seen as an early sign of a candidate's re-electability and no lawmaker wants to look weak.
The Sunlight Foundation's Party Time blog has a calendar of the dizzying number of fundraising events this month.
Meanwhile, I thought our readers would be amused by one complaint a lobbyist sent me with regard to an invitation to a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee fundraiser co-hosted by DCCC vice-chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., and Frontline co-chair Chris Murphy, D-Ct., to be held in Wasserman's conference room at the Democratic National Committee headquarters on March 24.
Here's the invite:
--Bara Vaida
There have been a number of excellent stories about PMA Group campaign donations and connections to lawmakers this week, which we thought worth noting given the controversy over earmarks has once again reared its head in Washington.
--Bara Vaida
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., in his fifth term in the Senate, has established a new leadership political action committee called, appropriately enough, the Mountaineer PAC. In January, Rockefeller became chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. PACs and individuals associated with industries overseen by that committee--telecommunications, media and technology, among others--traditionally have been generous donors to the panel's leaders.
The Mountaineer PAC is based out of the law offices of Perkins Coie, home of Robert Bauer, the heavyweight Democratic lawyer and the chief legal advisor to Barack Obama during the presidential campaign. A few days ago, Rockefeller filed papers with the Federal Election Commission establishing his new PAC.
--Edward T. Pound
So, we were wondering whether BGR Group Chairman Ed Rogers had contacted his old buddy, Mississippi GOP Gov. Haley Barbour before Rogers and the BGR firm--which Barbour helped found--decided to host a fundraiser for Virginia Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Terry McAuliffe. (See item directly below.)
Rogers cheerfully got back to us. "I didn't know that Terry was a Democrat," Rogers initially joked. He continued, "I did not check with Haley, but I think I can speak for Haley: He will be against Terry [in this year's race], but if Terry gets elected, he will be Haley's favorite Democratic governor."
Rogers, an Alabamian and Republican strategist, said that he and McAuliffe have long been friends who used to spend time together in cable TV "green rooms" before joint interviews. "But that friendship will be suspended if Terry ever runs for governor of Alabama or president of the United States," added Rogers playfully. (Both Rogers and McAuliffe currently reside in McLean, Virginia.)
"Terry is good, he remembers my kids' birthdays," noted Rogers. Indeed, McAuliffe's personal "touch" made him a legendary fund raiser for the Democratic Party, and especially for Bill and Hillary Clinton.
On a more mundane note, Rogers said that his lobby shop does not prowl the halls of the state capitol in Richmond. "There is not a business interest that I am aware of in the governor of Virginia," he said. And yes, the firm has already held a fundraiser for Bob McDonnell, the prospective Republican nominee for governor in the Old Dominion. But no, Rogers' own name was not attached to that event.
-- James A. Barnes
Bipartisanship has reached a new level in Washington, and this time it's coming from one of the most prominent lobby shops in town with a long GOP pedigree.
On Thursday, March 24, the BGR Group plans to host a fundraiser for Virginia Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Terry McAuliffe. That "B" in BGR, by the way, stands for Barbour, as in Haley, the Republican governor of Mississippi who also happens to be the vice chairman of the Republican Governors Association, which is aiming to take back the statehouse in the Old Dominion this year. The "R" in BGR stands for Bush 41 White House aide Ed Rogers, who is listed as one of several co-chairs of the
McAuliffe fundraiser.pdf. Recommended minimum contribution for the event is $1,000.Sure, BGR now includes Democrats, and Barbour is no longer with the firm. And, yes, BGR bills itself as a "premier bipartisan" shop. Still, we've put in a call to Rogers seeking comment. We're curious if he checked with Barbour before signing on for the fundraiser.
-- James A. Barnes
Longtime Democratic-leaning Time Warner bet big with its campaign money when it gave $544,601 to the Obama campaign in the 2008 election cycle, compared with only $29,676 to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. And now, the media conglomerate has at least five people with ties to the company in key administration positions, not counting former Time Warner CEO Richard Parsons, who served as an economic adviser for the transition, Winter Casey reports in today's Congress Daily. See story. (Subscription required)
Financial lobbyists spent more than $5 billion over the past decade to push Washington toward deregulative policies, says a new study by two consumer advocacy groups. Those policies, they argue, brought about the current economic collapse.
The nearly 250-page report, called "Sold Out: How Wall Street and Washington Betrayed America," was conducted by Essential Information, Ralph Nader's citizen activist group, and the Consumer Education Foundation, a nonprofit run by California lawyer Harvey Rosenfield.
Of that $5 billion-plus spent from 1998 to 2008, $1.7 billion went to campaign contributions and the rest -- some $3.4 billion -- went to lobbying. The study finds that in 2007 alone, there were nearly 3,000 registered federal lobbyists working in the financial sector.
The report also criticizes the industry's "revolving door" and singles out former Treasury secretaries Robert Rubin and Henry Paulson Jr., both of whom served as chair of Goldman Sachs before going to Washington. Focusing on 20 top financial firms (excluding the insurance and real estate industries), the study finds that 142 lobbyists during the 10-year period had been employed as covered officials, including high-level appointees, members of Congress and congressional staff.
-- Amy Harder
Times are tough all around. But that didn't stop the Democratic and Republican Senate campaign committees from holding their winter retreats in Florida this past weekend to thank dozens of longtime K Street donors.
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's getaway in Naples drew some 50 donors and about eight senators, among them DSCC Chair Robert Menendez of New Jersey. The bash, according to one attendee, gave lobbyists a "chance to get acquainted" with senators and talk about the political and electoral landscape for 2010. Individuals and PACs that had donated at least $15,000 to the DSCC in the 2008 cycle got invites.
Meanwhile, several dozen GOP K Street donors flew to Palm Beach for a weekend at The Breakers, a ritzy hotel where the National Republican Senatorial Committee and its chairman, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, were holding their event. Lobbyists and PACS that each gave $5,000 to the NRSC in the past cycle were welcome to attend and schmooze with a small group of senators about their hopes for improving the party's fortunes in 2010.
-- Peter H. Stone
From this week's National Journal: (subscription required)
The Campaign Finance Institute estimates that soft money spending by outside organizations, such as "527" political groups and nonprofit 501(c) advocacy organizations, declined slightly to $400 million in the 2008 election cycle. In comparison, those groups spent around $486 million in the 2004 election cycle, the institute said.
The vast majority of the nearly 100 lawmakers who received campaign donations from the embattled lobbying firm PMA Group have opted to hang on to the cash -- at least for now, reports Megan Scully in National Journal's CongressDaily.
Four lawmakers announced this week they would return money after reports that federal investigators are looking into campaign contributions made by people identified as working for PMA but who might not actually have been employed with the firm. But those lawmakers, among them House Ethics Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., and Rep. Peter Visclosky, D-Ind., appear to be the exceptions. Spokesmen for several others who received generous donations from the firm, which was raided by the FBI in November, said they have not decided on what to do with the contributions. Details of the government investigation are unknown, but it appears to be tied to fraudulent donations.
The Campaign for Jobs and Economic Recovery, a coalition of liberal groups formed to lobby for passage of the stimulus bill, today released 21 new radio ads targeting Republican lawmakers in both chambers who voted against the legislation. The group also released a general pro-stimulus TV ad in D.C. and on national cable. That brings the total number of spots the group has run to 40 since mid-January, for a cost approaching $800,000.
But judging from the list of 21 targeted Republicans, the group could have saved its money for the next legislative battle; even if every representative and senator targeted by the Campaign again votes against the bill, the legislation will still pass both chambers. Further, two of those targeted aren't even running next year: Ohio Sen. George Voinovich has announced he won't seek another term in 2010, and Nevada Sen. John Ensign isn't up for re-election until 2012.
"We feel that it's important that it's not just passed but that it gets a broad support base, and we really think that in some of these districts, it's really important they have this package," explained Lauren Weiner, a spokeswoman for Americans United for Change, one of the groups funding the campaign. "Our campaigns aren't strictly political, election-oriented."
MoveOn.org this afternoon expanded the ad onslaught with a radio spot attacking Texas Sen. John Cornyn that it plans to run the rest of the week. The buy has some symbolic resonance because of Cornyn's position as head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, but -- like Voinovich and Ensign -- Cornyn voted against the stimulus bill on Tuesday, he is likely to do so again, and he won't face re-election next year.
Updated at 5:08 p.m. on Feb. 11.
Under the the 2007 Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, corporations and their lobbyists are now required to report donations they make to lawmaker-supported charities and charities with a large number of lawmakers on their board.
We are now seeing the benefit of that disclosure. In a good story today, Roll Call details the names of corporate donors to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. The story is important because there is no limit on contributions to these charities and such donations could be used to garner corporate access to lawmakers.
Here's the story. (subscription required)
Two other interesting lobbying-related stories from the Associated Press:
Congress Risks Criticism Over Luxury Retreat Trips
GOP Seeking to End Ban On Some Donation Limits
--Bara Vaida
From this week's National Journal: (subscription required)
Beneficiaries of the government's $700 billion Toubled Asset Relief Program spent $77 million on lobbying and $37 million on political contributions in the 2008 election cycle. Those same firms received $295.2 billion in TARP money, according to a Center for Responsive Politics analysis of lobbying disclosure reports.
"Even in the best economic times, you won't find an investment with a greater payoff than what these companies have been getting," said Sheila Krumholz, the center's executive director. "Some of the companies and industries that have received payments may now consider their contributions and lobbying to be the smartest investments they've made in years."
-- Bara Vaida
With legal fees mounting for Republican Norm Coleman in his ongoing recount battle with Democrat Al Franken for the Minnesota Senate seat, the National Republican Senatorial Committee is hosting a fundraiser for Coleman on February 11 aimed at business PACs and members' leadership PACs.
Billed as a "Team Coleman" fundraiser, donors can give up to $10,000: PACs and individuals are allowed to give $5,000 to the Coleman recount and another $5,000 to a special fund of the Minnesota GOP. "We'll do everything we possibly can to ensure that Sen. Coleman has all the resources he needs to carry this fight to its conclusion," said Dirk Van Dongen, president of the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors.
Lobbying sources say that overall (on February 11 and in other events) Coleman is looking to raise an additional $1 million to sustain his legal challenge to a recent state-certified recount this gave Franken a 225 vote edge in the race. A three-judge panel in Minnesota this week heard legal arguments from lawyers on both sides about whether additional absentee ballots should be counted.
-- Peter H. Stone
Here are K Street-related stories from this week's National Journal. Subscription is required.
With all the musical entertainment coming into town for President-elect Obama's inauguration, some members of Congress have decided to take advantage of the moment for a little partying of their own. Dozens of top Democratic fundraisers and donors from K Street as well as outside the Beltway have been invited to pre-inauguration lunches on January 19 -- one with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and another with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. At Pelosi's event, live performances by musical superstars Sheryl Crow, Jon Bon Jovi, and Lyle Lovett are expected, Peter Stone reports.
Although the slumping economy has many people forgoing vacations, the U.S. Travel Association hopes to change that. The group is doubling its spending on advocacy efforts in Washington to $6 million in 2009, President and CEO Roger Dow says. The association is also more than doubling its government relations staff to 15 people, Bara Vaida reports.
Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and a leading conservative activist, is unhappy with President-elect Obama's tax-cut proposals but hopeful about a Republican comeback. He offered his thoughts on the path ahead for conservatives and who might lead the GOP out of the wilderness, John Maggs reports.
To get Norquist's take on lobbying, watch this video from his recent sit-down interview with NJ.
Believe it or not, the Senate is dragging its feet into the modern era of information-sharing and is still using a hard copy system for filing campaign finance reports. With paper filing, final disclosure reports of senatorial candidates are not available to the public until after the election due to the time it takes the Federal Election Commission to process the paperwork.
What's stopping senators from e-filing when campaigns have all the information available electronically? That's exactly the question Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., has been asking. He is the author of the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act, which would require reports filed with the Secretary of the Senate to be filed electronically and forwarded to the FEC within 24 hours. In the past, Feingold has signed up 47 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle; his bill failed to pass in the last Congress but his office tells National Journal the senator plans to re-introduce the legislation in the 111th Congress.
In testimony to the Senate Rules Committee almost two years ago, Feingold said filing on paper "involves a completely wasteful expenditure by the FEC of hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to re-enter information into databases" and that, "[T]here is no excuse for keeping our own campaign finance information inaccessible to the public when the information filed by House and presidential candidates, PACs, parties, and even 527 organizations is readily available almost immediately."
But Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., effectively put the kibosh on the e-filing legislation by insisting on an unrelated and controversial amendment to require groups that file ethics complaints to disclose their donors. Contrary to his past legislative position, Ensign went on the record this past October saying that he is "100 percent for electronic filing."
Maybe the Senate is finally ready to enter the digital age.
--Eliza Krigman
Politicians will be happy to know that at least some Wall Street bigs still have dough.
Though President-elect Obama banned donations from lobbyists and corporate political action committees to the the presidential inaugural committee, wealthy individuals have been allowed to pony up $50,000 themselves and bundle as much as $300,000.
And pony up Wall Street has. In an analysis,
Public Citizen says that nearly 80 percent of the $35.3 million in
donations received so far come from 211 individuals. Of the 5,632
donations the inaugural committee received, just 113 were from "small"
donors, or those that gave $200 or less.
Among the prominent Wall Street executives who bundled money for the inauguration: Kobi Brinson, with Wachovia ($35,000); Mark Gilbert, with the now-extinct Lehman Brothers ($185,000); Bruce Heyman, with Goldman Sachs ($50,000) Louis Susman, with Citigroup ($300,000) and Robert Wolf, chairman and CEO of UBS Americas ($100,000)
UPDATE @ 3:00PM Jan. 15. The Center for Responsive Politics has a report and analysis of inagural donors as well. Click here.
Just when it seemed the embattled Federal Election Commission couldn't get any less popular, the agency has come under renewed attack for a string of controversial stalemates and rulings, National Journal's Eliza Newlin Carney writes in her column "Rules of the Game."
Carney looks at problems with the FEC's political make up and how a recent agency action may invite fresh abuse by 527 groups. Critics are also unhappy with the agency's mid-December interpretation of lobbyist bundler rules.
The rules require lawmakers' campaigns to report the names of lobbyists who round up, or bundle, contributions on their behalf, but only when it has a formal tracking system for doing so, which critics say could allow campaigns to evade bundling rules. Further, the FEC rules allow campaigns to count individual lobbyist contributions at an event they are co-hosting with other lobbyists, rather than making them responsible for the entire amount raised.
TO CONTINUE, CLICK BELOW
For lobbyists with the winter blahs, two senators who hale from states with beaches and sunny weather may have a solution for you. Over the Martin Luther King holiday - Inauguration Day extended weekend, Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., is hosting a getaway and fundraiser for his political action committee, Freedom and Democracy Fund, at Disney's Grand Floridian Spa and Resort in Orlando. To attend the Jan. 18-21 bash, PACs have to pony up $3,000 and individuals $2,000. Next month over President's Day weekend, Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, is throwing his "First Annual Weekend of Aloha" at Honolulu's Hilton Hawaiian Village Beach Resort and Spa. To enjoy the Feb. 14-16 activities, attendees have to raise or donate a total of $5,000 for the senator's "Dan10" reelection committee.
-- Peter H. Stone
