Capital Eye

Red, White and Green

2008-07-03T13:59:11Z

Tomorrow is Independence Day, the time to commemorate the United States's successful revolt against Britain, establishing our own self-reliant government. Well, sort of. While our politicians are no longer answering to the redcoats, they've become awfully beholden to the greenbacks. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, 36 current members of Congress have collected at least 20 percent of their contributions from a single industry, setting up a scheme of dependence and perhaps the expectation of a tit-for-tat.

Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) seems to be the most reliant on one industry's money, having received 42 percent of his money from all industries from health professionals during his congressional career--$1.6 million. But health professionals also rely on Price, a doctor who spent 20 years at an orthopedic clinic he founded and a staunch supporter of health care reform in Congress. Similarly, 22 percent of Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.)'s money during his career has come from the entertainment industry, or ($1.3 million). Berman, who represents a portion of Los Angeles, is the chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Internet and Intellectual Property, which shapes the copyright, trademark and patent legislation that affects many sectors, including the entertainment industry. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), the chair of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, has drawn much of his support from securities and investment companies. Nearly 21 percent of his total $27.8 million from industries has come from such companies during his career.

Other lawmakers' financial support is more diversified. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), for example, gets $1.3 million from lawyers and law firms, which rank as his top contributing industry. Yet the legal industry constitutes only six percent of the overall money he has collected from all industries. Others who don't rely heavily on their top contributing industry include Sen. Chris "Kit" Bond (R-Mo.), who collected $1 million of his $15.4 million from the legal industry, and Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio), who received $1 million of his total $13.6 million from retirees, who give him more money than any other group.

Some lawmakers also depend heavily on political action committees (including money coming from other members of Congress) rather than individual donors. Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah), for example, has collected 78 percent of his total $1 million from PACs during this election cycle. Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) collected 77 percent of his total $1 million from PACs during his current term. Although PACs don't play a large role in presidential elections (and Barack Obama has rejected their contributions anyhow), PAC money makes up 16 percent of John McCain's Senate haul this term and 8 percent of Obama's.

Fireworks in the Sky, on the Hill

2008-07-03T12:35:23Z

Considering how Americans celebrate their independence and patriotism with fireworks and sparklers, it's no surprise that our country's politicians often buy fireworks for events on the campaign trail. This is hardly a one-way street, however, as the fireworks industry invests in lawmakers through campaign contributions and lobbying efforts, as well.

Since 2000, federal candidates, parties and committees have spent almost $50,700 on fireworks for advertising and fundraising. During President Bush's first presidential campaign, Bush-Cheney 2000 spent nearly one-fourth of this total for an event in New Castle, Pa., the nation's fireworks capital. Meanwhile, Gore-Lieberman, their Democratic opponents, reported spending nothing. Similarly, in the 2004 election cycle, the Republican National Committee spent a blazing total of $13,000, while John Kerry for President only spent half of that. Conclusion: Set off fireworks; win the White House.

Among congressional candidates, the top spender has been Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha, whose congressional district is next door to New Castle's. Murtha spent $2,000 on fireworks last April, and has collected $3,000 from New Castle residents. During the current election cycle, the residents of New Castle, including the president of the professional fireworks company Pyrotecnico, Stephen Vitale, have donated around $42,700 to federal candidates, parties and committees. Vitale, along with the company's accountant, Lynn Ann Hamed, donated $5,000 total to Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.), the district's representative in Congress.

But money has flared up from the fireworks industry in other ways, as well. Since 2000, the American Pyrotechnics Association (APA), which is the premier trade association for the fireworks industry, reported spending $100,000 to lobby on Capitol Hill. In 2000, the association hired BKSH & Associates, headed by top lobbyist Charlie Black, who is now an adviser to John McCain's presidential campaign. More recently, in 2006 and 2007, the group hired the lobbying firm Public Strategies. According to APA Executive Director Julie Heckman, the association aims to educate members of Congress about federal issues related to fireworks. The group argues that fireworks are classified as more dangerous than they actually are and that the industry is unnecessarily burdened by forcing pyrotechnicians to undergo background checks over and over. In the industry's view, it should be a policy of "'one credential, one clearance, you're golden,'" she said. "Since Sept.11, we've been swept into a whole host of regulations," she said.

Lobbying Battle Brews Over Potential Beer Buyout

2008-07-02T15:28:59Z

When Anheuser-Busch rejected an unsolicited $46 billion buyout offer from InBev, a Belgian brewing company, reservations about the sale of an American icon to a foreign company quickly began brewing on Capitol Hill. While Anheuser-Busch put its lobbyists to work to keep its company locally owned, InBev�s chief executive, Carlos Brito, also came to Washington to meet with lawmakers, hoping to soften some of their staunch opposition to the takeover.

The St. Louis company could be a tough political opponent for the foreign company. Apparently Budweiser flows through Washington through more channels than the local tap. In the last presidential election, Anheuser-Busch contributed nearly $1.4 million to campaigns, claiming a spot on CRP�s Heavy Hitters list. The company will likely surpass that amount this cycle, having already contributed at least $1.2 million to campaigns this year. Of its top 20 congressional recipients, four were from the brewer�s home state of Missouri, with Rep. Sam Graves, a Republican, receiving the most of any House member this year, at $12,100. Fifty-seven percent of the 2008 contributions from Anheuser-Busch have gone to Democrats, the first time the company has given more to Democrats since 1996. Anheuser-Busch ranks second in campaign contributions in the beer, wine and liquor industry, behind the National Beer Wholesalers Association. The industry as a whole has contributed $8.3 million to candidates, parties and committees so far this cycle. The beer, wine and liquor industry currently ranks 36th in federal contributions for this cycle.

Anheuser-Busch is also a prominent K Street client. The company spent $3.4 million on lobbying last year, and $820,000 through March of this year. Several firms work on behalf of the beer company, including Akin, Gump and Van Scoyoc Associates, the lobbying firms ranked number one and two by income for 2008. The Gephardt Group, run by former Missouri congressman Richard Gephardt, is also on the company�s payroll.

Coming from Belgium, InBev has to play catch-up in Washington, and it has enlisted some influential lobbying firms to press the company�s point of view on the buyout. Among the firms the company hired are Glover Park Group, which is heavily staffed with former Clinton administration officials, and Breaux Lott Leadership Group, which is run by two former senators. Some of the other clients represented by InBev�s lobbying team include Pfizer, Microsoft, Fannie Mae, Lockheed Martin and AT&T.

In other beer industry news, Tuesday was the first day of business for MillerCoors, the company resulting from the merger of SABMiller and Molson Coors. By combining forces, SABMiller and Molson Coors hope to cut their costs by $500 million and give the new operation more power to compete with their top-ranked rival in St. Louis. So far this election cycle, SABMiller has given $137,500 to federal candidates, and Molson Coors has given $75,250. Both of the now-merged companies slightly favored Democrats, with SABMiller giving them 52 percent of their contributions, and Molson Coors giving 59 percent.

Florida Sweetens the Deal for Sugar

2008-07-02T13:45:22Z

The Sunshine State is planning to buy out the U.S. Sugar Corp. for the hefty price of $1.75 billion, and give the 187,000 acres of land currently inhabited by sugar cane back to the alligators and pelicans of the Florida Everglades. But this isn�t the first time that money has passed between the government and the sugar industry. Citing CRP data, Forbes noted that government subsidies have been keeping U.S. Sugar Corp. afloat for years, effectively punishing consumers with higher prices, but rewarding the industry for its generous campaign contributions and lobbying efforts over the years.

The sugar industry has so far contributed more than $2.6 million to federal parties, candidates and committees in the current election cycle, already 80 percent of what was given in the 2006 cycle. Nearly 70 percent of this cycle�s total has gone to Democrats. While most agricultural groups tend Republican, the sugar industry has traditionally leaned Democratic. Only three of the industry�s top 20 congressional recipients this cycle are Republican, including Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) and two senators, Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), on the Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee. Meanwhile, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) has received more than $210,300 during his career from the sugar industry, more than any other senator. His counterpart in the House, Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), has collected more than $204,200.

The U.S. Sugar Corp. PAC has also donated $1,000 to Chairman Harkin this cycle. The PAC has given a total $16,000 to federal candidates so far, putting it on track to giving more than the $30,000 donated in the 2006 cycle. Overall, sugar industry PACs have contributed $2.2 million since 2007. The rest has come from individuals working in the industry.

The industry has done little so far to sweeten the presidential race. Democratic presidential nominee-to-be Barack Obama has collected around $3,300. Presumptive Republican presidential candidate John McCain received $2,000.

U.S. Sugar spent $50,000 on lobbying efforts in the first quarter of this year, on par with last year�s spending. In the first three months of this year, the entire industry has spent $2.3 million on federal lobbying, already more than half of what was spent last year. Over the past decade, the industry has put $39.4 million into lobbying efforts.

NYT Columnist: Obama's Donors Mirror Democrats'

2008-07-01T18:23:02Z

It appears that being the candidate of change doesn't necessarily mean appealing to a new set of donors. New York Times columnist David Brooks used extensive data from the Center for Responsive Politics today to argue that Barack Obama's fundraising base looks a whole lot like those of Democrats past and present. The evidence includes the industries giving the most generously to Obama, as found on OpenSecrets.org:

So far this election cycle, lawyers are at the top of Obama's donor list, giving the Democrat nearly $18 million compared to $5.3 million to Republican opponent John McCain. In 2004, the industry gave nearly twice to Democrat John Kerry ($22.9 million) than to President Bush ($11.6 million). Lawyers and employees at law firms have given 76 percent of their overall contributions to Democratic candidates, parties and committees this cycle.
Securities and investment companies are also fueling Obama's campaign. In the last two election cycles, the industry has favored Democrats, giving as much as 59 percent of its overall contributions to Democrats this election cycle.
Professors and others in education have given Obama $7 million and a mere $700,000 to McCain. In 2004, Kerry raised nearly four times more than Bush from educators. This cycle the industry has given 79 percent of its total contributions to Democrats.
Although health professionals have traditionally favored Republicans with their cash, Democrats this election cycle have collected 54 percent of their contributions. It's no surprise, therefore, that Obama's haul is two times more than McCain's ($4.1 million compared to $1.9 million).

Brooks notes that although Obama's fundraising base may not be that different from other Democrats, the noted change is in the amount of money flowing into the industries backing Democrats. Brooks suggests that economic shifts can only benefit Democrats' fundraising: "The Democratic Party (not just Obama) has huge fund-raising advantages among people who work in electronics, communications, law and the catchall category of finance, insurance and real estate. Republicans have the advantage in agribusiness, oil and gas and transportation. Which set of sectors do you think are going to grow most quickly in this century's service economy?"

NRA Aims for Results

2008-06-30T12:34:53Z

The Supreme Court's ruling last week to lift the ban of handguns in Washington, D.C., households is the first ever to determine that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to own guns. While the judicial branch took more than 200 years to rule on the issue, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has spent years developing a relationship with the legislative branch.

For the past decade, the NRA has lobbied and contributed heavily to congressional candidates, mostly Republicans, on behalf of gun rights. In the 2006 election cycle, the group donated $947,600 to federal candidates, parties and committees, and its political action committee spent nearly $2 million on independent expenditures, or ads and other political activity supporting or opposing candidates, putting the association on CRP's list of Heavy Hitters. In the last presidential election cycle, the NRA gave $1.2 million to federal candidates and its PAC spent $7 million on independent expenditures. The organization has yet to reach such numbers in this presidential election cycle, giving $640,600 to federal candidates and spending less than $200,000 on independent expenditures through May of this year. That is likely to change, though, as Politico reports that the NRA is planning to spend approximately $40 million in order to publicly define presidential candidate Barack Obama as a supporter of "Chicago-style gun control," despite his endorsement of yesterday's ruling.

The pro-gun group has maintained its lobbying spending since 2006, when it spent $1.6 million to get its message across. Last year the NRA spent $1.8 million lobbying and in the first three months of this year it spent $325,000, putting it on track to spend a little less than in 2007.

The gun control movement has pumped considerably less money into Washington. The largest organization to advocate for gun control, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, contributed less than $50,000 to Congress in 2006, and has given only $1,750 through May of this year. The group spent $135,800 on lobbying efforts last year and a mere $35,000 on lobbying this year.

OpenSecrets.org's Gun Rights Resources
Campaign Contributions
Lobbying

OpenSecrets.org's Gun Control Resources
Campaign Contributions
Lobbying

Senators Disclose Mortgage Details

2008-06-27T14:35:08Z

Thanks to a request from Politico, all senators but one have revealed details about their home mortgages--information they aren't required to report but that has been sought after in light of recent revelations that Countrywide Financial cut Sens. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) a break on their loans. As of Wednesday evening, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) was the only senator not to provide such information, and Politico obtained public records showing that she does, indeed, have a mortgage with Countrywide. (Cantwell's office told Politico that her original lender sold her mortgage to the embattled lender.) A few senators declined to answer all of the newspaper's questions surrounding how they obtained their home loans but emphasized that it wasn't through Countrywide. Politico started putting out calls about this on Tuesday, June 17.

Members of Congress are required to disclose only property, or mortgages on that property, if it produces income. Since the scandal broke, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said the annual personal financial disclosure forms should require information about what may be a lawmaker's single largest asset or liability. Republicans have introduced an amendment to the housing bill under consideration that would require mortgage disclosures, although it doesn't call for the value of the member's home to be included. Now for the next question Politico might want to ask lawmakers: How many of them would support requiring such information annually?

FEC: Ready for Action

2008-06-26T18:38:12Z

Just when the rest of us are taking off for summer vacations, the Federal Election Commission is getting back to work. The five new commissioners confirmed by the Senate this week now constitute a full quorum. The business that's awaiting them, however, isn't so usual, as they will immediately take up issues new to this election year. First the new members will have to decide how to implement congressional rules requiring lobbyists to disclose the campaign contributions they collect, known as bundling. They'll also dive right into the issue of public financing, though their hands will be tied on deciding whether presidential nominee John McCain broke the rules when he used public funds as collateral to get a loan for his debt-ridden campaign (and then backed out of the federal financing program). Because the FEC didn't have a quorum until Tuesday, it wasn't able to take up the issue within 120 days after the DNC filed a complaint, allowing the party committee to file a lawsuit and earning the ire of Republican leadership.

The new commissioners joining sitting commissioner Ellen Weintraub, a Democrat, are:

Democrat Cynthia L. Bauerly of Minnesota
Republican Caroline C. Hunter of Florida
Republican Donald F. McGahn of D.C.
Republican Matthew S. Petersen of Utah

Also, recess appointee Steven T. Walther, a Democrat, was confirmed to a full term, completing the six-member panel. These appointments come after six months during which the FEC could not take official action because it did not have the required minimum of four commissioners, making it impossible to issue advisory opinions or dole out public funding. As we've written about several times, the impasse began when President Bush sent a controversial nominee to the Senate for confirmation.

Supreme Court Casts a Vote for Millionaires

2008-06-26T17:50:20Z

Millionaires running for Congress will no longer have to worry if spending their own money in a race will give their opponents an advantage. Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the so-called Millionaires' Amendment in federal election law is unconstitutional. Jack Davis, a wealthy factory owner from upstate New York and a three-time congressional candidate, originally challenged the measure, which allows congressional candidates who face wealthy, self-funded opponents to raise more than fundraising limits normally allow. Davis argued the provision deterred candidates from spending their own money and, therefore, limited their freedom of speech.

The high court agreed. In a 5 to 4 vote, the justices determined that the Millionaires' Amendment, which was written into the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (commonly called McCain-Feingold, because of its chief sponsors), violates the First Amendment. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority: "Different candidates have different strengths. Some are wealthy; others have wealthy supporters who are willing to make large contributions. Some are celebrities; some have the benefit of a well-known family name. Leveling electoral opportunities means making and implementing judgments about which candidates should be permitted to contribute to the outcome of an election. The Constitution, however, confers upon voters, not Congress, the power to choose the Members of the House of Representatives, and it is dangerous business for Congress to use the election laws to influence the voters' choices."

The Millionaires' Amendment kicks in when a self-financing candidate for the House puts at least $350,000 more than his or her opponent into the race. (The threshold for Senate races is based on the state's population.) Although the implications of the case may be widespread (including its effect on public financing, as well as political spending by corporations and unions), the measure itself isn't often invoked.

So far this election cycle, the number of congressional candidates who have put at least $350,000 into their own campaigns appears to be lower than the total by the end of the 2006 election cycle, CRP found. In the 2006 election cycle, 52 congressional candidates spent at least $350,000 on their own campaigns, compared to at least 28 so far this cycle. In 2006, the "millionaire" candidates together put in a total of $117.1 million of their own money. So far this cycle, they've put in at least $27.9 million. Some may have been waiting to see how this case played out before reaching deeper into their own pockets.

Here's a full list of candidates in 2008 who have put in at least $350,000 of their own money:

SelfFunded08Candidates.rtf

For Richer or Poorer

2008-06-26T16:56:17Z

The marriage vow "for richer or poorer" is more than a promise between two people when one of those people is a member of Congress. When lawmakers and their spouses utter those words, they're agreeing to reveal to the world the scope of how rich or poor they may be. And thanks to these disclosures, the public can determine not only if lawmakers' own assets could pose a conflict of interest, but if their work on Capitol Hill could have an impact on their spouses' investments, as well.

Forty-six husbands and wives of Congress members reported owning stock in 2006 in companies that have a vested interest in their spouses' committees, worth a total of $27.3 million to $46.7 million, the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics has found. The list includes spouses who own stock in Lockheed Martin while the lawmaker sits on the House Armed Services Committee; or are invested in food giant SYSCO while the lawmaker is a member of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry Committee; or own shares of Exxon Mobil while married to a member of the House Energy & Commerce Committee.

"I don't know if there's a big difference between the member holding the stock and their spouse holding the stock," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). "Any member who's voting on something that affects their family's financial situation, that's a cause for concern."

In 2006, the most recent year for which CRP has been able to analyze personal financial disclosure data, the spouses of Democratic lawmakers had more invested in companies related to their committees (worth at least $23.2 million) than the lawmakers themselves did (worth at least $5.5 million). The spouses of Republican lawmakers, by contrast, had less money invested in companies related to these committees (worth at least $4.1 million) than the lawmakers themselves (worth at least $39 million).

Overall, 304 congressional husbands and wives whose finances were reported on their spouses' forms were worth between $698.8 million and $1.3 billion from their stocks, corporate bonds and other investments in 2006. (Assets and liabilities are disclosed in ranges on these forms, making it impossible to calculate net worth precisely.) The most popular spousal assets overall included General Electric, drugmaker Pfizer and Bank of America.

In at least 61 cases, the husbands and wives of Congress had investment portfolios worth significantly more than the lawmaker's. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, for example, reported assets worth no more than $15,000, while her husband, Paul, an investor, had between $16.2 million and $57.8 million in assets. Spouses also bring with them their mortgages, school loans and other liabilities, however. For Paul Pelosi, this could mean up to $10.3 million in debt, more than any other lawmaker's spouse.

No matter their assets, as long as legislators' votes on an issue don't affect their investments exclusively, no congressional rules would be violated, ethics watchdog Sloan said. "If any kind of voting on any particular company--even if you or your spouse holds stock in it--would affect many other people besides you, under the rules that's not a conflict of interest."

Debbie Dingell had between $550,000 and $1.1 million invested in automotive company General Motors in 2006, the same year her husband, Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), was the chair of the House Committee on Energy & Commerce. "Virtually every company listed on any exchange could have business before the [committee]," said a Dingell spokesman, Adam Benson. "Congressman Dingell would be the first to tell you it is his job to put the merits of the subject matter and the concerns of the people he represents above any and all outside factors."

Others say that the disclosure requirement itself acts as a protection against conflicts of interest. "The purpose of financial disclosures is to provide transparency and ensure the public is aware of holdings to make up their own mind in terms of the legislators and whether there's conflict," said Meredith McGehee, policy director of the campaign finance reform group Campaign Legal Center. "While transparency recognizes that a spouse is an independent person, they are part of a common household and, therefore, it is the public's business."

A spokesman for Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas), whose wife, Suzanne, had between $1,000 and $15,000 invested in Campbell Soup while he sat on the House Agriculture Committee, agreed. "We have financial disclosure so that people can see what they're invested in. That's the whole point," Austin Weatherford said.

According to the office of Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), whose wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, has 25 investments in 2006 in companies regulated by the committees on which her husband sits, the senator faces no conflict of interest because his wife's assets are held in family trusts established by her late first husband. Mrs. Kerry had more money than any other congressional husband or wife in companies with an interest in her spouse's committees (at least $18.6 million), followed by the husband of Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), Sidney (at least $2.4 million), and Cindy McCain, wife of Arizona senator and Republican presidential candidate John McCain (at least $1.3 million). Mrs. McCain held stock in both U.S. Airways and Walt Disney, both of which have business before the Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee, of which her husband is a member.

Last month Cindy McCain refused to release her complete tax returns, which she has filed separately from her husband for 28 years, saying it was a privacy issue. Since then she has released a few pages of her 2006 returns and received an extension to file her 2007 tax returns. Last week, the McCain campaign asked the Center for Responsive Politics not to include her investments in its calculations of John McCain's net worth, which would be an exception to the organization's methodology for all members of Congress.

Including the value of both his wife's and dependents' assets, McCain is worth between $27.8 million and $45 million, making him the eighth richest senator. After excluding his family's investments, however, he appears to be worth far less--between $17,000 and $80,000, putting him in the Senate's bottom five. CRP has declined the campaign's request, since McCain still benefits from his wife's wealth--and she could potentially benefit financially from his official decisions.

Financial planners agree that one partner's finances do not exist in a realm completely isolated from the entire home and family. Kathleen S. Parks, a certified financial planner at Greenbrier Capital Management in Knoxville, Tenn., said it's up to the couple to decide whether they share information about their investments, but she prefers that both know about the other's portfolio.

"How much do they have of their own and how informed are they? How much of their lifestyle or living expenses are funded by each of the spouses' investments?" Parks said. "If I'm living a big lifestyle on his money, maybe I have my own, but maybe I can't live that lifestyle if his money goes away."

CRP Personal Finances Researcher Dan Auble contributed to this report.

FISA Flipfloppers Got $8,000 from Telecom

2008-06-26T12:52:57Z

The telecom companies clearly know a thing or two about phone bills--whether it's asking customers for money or getting their way with federal legislation. Last week 94 House Democrats who once opposed providing immunity to the telecom companies for their role in the Bush administration's controversial warrantless wiretapping program voted in support of the protection. What distinguished the 94 lawmakers who switched their vote from the 116 that remained opposed? Campaign contributions from the companies, according to an analysis by MAPLight.org.

Using CRP's data on campaign contributions, MAPLight determined that the House Democrats who changed their vote received $8,360 on average from the political action committees of Verizon, AT&T and Sprint, compared to an average of $4,990 given to those who remained opposed. These companies, among others, could face more than 40 lawsuits for their participation in the program without Congress's support. The companies have remained mum about the topic, so the money is clearly doing the talking. According to MAPLight, 88 percent of the Democrats who voted in favor of the immunity after opposing it have received contributions from at least one of these three company's PACs in the last three years.

MAPLight.org's report provides a list of the flipfloppers and how much they've collected from the telecom companies most vested in the immunity offered in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The totals could easily be higher, since it will be a while before we know how much the companies pumped into Congress recently.

Center for Responsive Politics and Other Watchdogs Urge Obama, McCain to Reveal More Donor Information

2008-06-25T17:31:00Z

WASHINGTON (June 25, 2008) -- Eight government watchdog organizations today urged Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain to reveal more details about fundraisers for their presidential campaigns who "bundle" contributions in amounts greatly exceeding what they're permitted to contribute on their own, and to furnish additional data about their small donors.

The organizations sent their letters as Obama tries to recruit Hillary Clinton�s top fundraisers in Washington on Thursday and McCain rushes to raise private money before switching later this summer to public financing.

Bundlers, who are often corporate executives, lobbyists, hedge fund managers or independently wealthy people, are able to funnel far more money to campaigns than they could personally give under campaign finance laws. Despite the tremendous influence these individuals can have in a campaign�and in an administration after the election�no disclosure of bundling is currently required. While both campaigns have voluntarily listed how much their bundlers have generally raised, it would be far more meaningful if the candidates identified precise, cumulative amounts for all their bundlers, the groups wrote in letters to Obama and McCain.

"Bundlers can bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars for a campaign, yet the public knows less about them than about contributors who give just a few hundred dollars. Small donors, too, remain a mystery," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. "We hope the candidates in the most expensive U.S. election ever will lead by example and reveal more information about their top fundraisers and their small donors."

The letters were signed by the Center for Responsive Politics, Campaign Finance Institute, Common Cause, Democracy 21, League of Women Voters of the United States, Public Citizen, Sunlight Foundation and U.S. PIRG.

Last week, Obama announced that he would forego the $84 million the federal government offers presidential candidates in the general election and rely on private contributions, instead. Obama�s decision to use only private donations for his campaign mandates that he be more transparent about his fundraising, the groups wrote. McCain�s continued reliance on private money until his party�s nominating convention also underscores the need for greater disclosure.

The eight groups urge the candidates to disclose more complete information about donors to set a high standard of campaign funding transparency for future presidential candidates. Specifically, the groups ask the candidates to divulge on their campaign websites the exact amounts that bundlers raise for their official campaign committees and joint fundraising committees that benefit the campaign. The letter also asks each candidate to instruct his party�s national committee to keep track of its bundlers and disclose the same information. The groups also urge the candidates to release bundlers� locations by city and state, and their occupations and employers�disclosure no more burdensome than what the Federal Election Commission requires for any donor contributing more than $200.

As for individual contributors of $200 or less, the groups urge the candidates to reveal the number of contributors and cumulative amounts received by ZIP code and country (the latter is included because Americans living abroad can donate funds) to provide the public with more comprehensive insight into the demographics of their donors.

�We recognize that our organizations are asking you to share information that presidential candidates have not provided in the past,� the letter says. �But, to borrow a phrase, for those to whom much private money has been contributed, much is required.�

You can read the letters to Sens. Obama and McCain here:

WatchdogLettertoObama6.25.08.pdf

WatchdogLettertoMcCain6.25.08.pdf

$84 Million--Not Enough to Run for President?

2008-06-24T13:12:51Z

$84 million, or what the government has available to hand out to both the Republican and Democratic nominees for president, is more money than most people will ever see in their lifetimes, making some wonder why it's not enough for Barack Obama to run his campaign. In announcing last week that he will fund his general election campaign with private donations, Obama suggested that the fat check he's declining (and that John McCain plans to accept) couldn't float him adequately to Election Day. In the primaries, Obama was the biggest spender overall, blowing through $244 million through May of this year. More than $100 million, or at least 41 percent, has gone toward media.

Had Obama accepted public funding, his campaign would be limited to spending about $1.2 million per day from the end of the Democratic convention until Election Day. And that would have to cover everything--his staff's salaries, travel around the country, office space in each state and, most significantly, advertising.

Here's how much a few major corporations spend per day on advertising alone, based on a recent article in the Washington Post:

Procter and Gamble: $13.4 million
AT&T: $9.15 million
Ford: $7 million
Johnson & Johnson: $6.27 million

Granted, both Obama and McCain will receive free media coverage throughout their race for the White House, as their campaign events are often televised and their surrogates make daily appearances on cable newsand talk radio, a luxury not often bestowed upon Fortune 500 companies.

$84 million to promote a presidential candidate may seem like a lot of money, but if choosing the next president is as important as buying the right cell phone plan or picking a suitable soap off the shelf, it just might not be enough.

John McCain's DINOs

2008-06-23T18:13:39Z

You've heard of RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) and now here come the DINOs--you guessed it, Democrats in Name Only. Trying to court independent voters and conservative Democrats, Republican John McCain last week put out a list of what he called "prominent Democratic and unaffiliated leaders and activists" who are supporting his bid for president. Yes, this includes one of Hillary Clinton's elected delegates, but it seems that some of the other 30 people on the list are Democrats from another era--true DINOsaurs--and have more recently had Republican ties. And while the DINOs may help McCain pick up a few votes, he shouldn't count on them for much money. Over the years, just seven appear to have contributed enough to show up in FEC records, totaling just $38,450--and the bulk of that has gone to Republican candidates, parties, not Democrats. McCain's Hall of Democrats includes:

Alexander Sandy Keith: A former Minnesota lieutenant governor and state Supreme Court justice, Keith hasn't held office since the 1960s and is actually known for a court ruling that favored the GOP, ultimately helping Republican Arne Carlson win the governor's office. Along with his wife, Keith, who currently works for the conservative Center for American Experiment, has given a total $8,700 to candidates, parties and PACs since 2003--and all of it has gone to Republicans. His wife, Marion, has given $1,500 to McCain this election cycle.

Tim Penny: Penny is a former Democratic congressman from Minnesota and ran as an independent in the state's 2002 gubernatorial race. Since 2004, Penny has given $950 to Democrats at the federal level, compared to $2,300 to Republicans (all of which went to McCain last year). Otherwise his favorite candidate in the past few election cycles has been third-party candidate Tammy Louise Lee, who has collected $3,250 worth of Penny's pennies.

Stephen Wenzel: This former state representative in Minnesota was a Bush appointee to the USDA. His $14,100 in campaign contributions since 2003 have gone entirely to Republicans, including $2,000 he gave to McCain in January.

David Carlin: Carlin, who last ran for state office in Rhode Island in 1992, is a pro-life Democrat who recently published a book called "Can a Catholic Be a Democrat? How the Party I Loved Became the Enemy of My Religion." Carlin hasn't dug very deep into his own pockets to make federal contributions--he's given a meager $250 in total, and it all went to Rep. Jim Langevin, a Rhode Island Democrat.

Roy Orr: This former Texas Democratic Party chair has given all of his $5,000 in contributions since 2003 to Democrats, though he now serves on Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison's Texas Leadership Board and is a long-time advisor to Phil Gramm, the former Republican senator from Texas.

A Billion Dollars Later, Two Candidates Left Standing

2008-06-23T15:20:20Z

As the field of competitors for the Republican and Democratic nominations has narrowed, the money haul has continued to expand, putting the total raised through the end of May at more than $1 billion--already the most ever raised by candidates in a presidential election. Presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama ended the month with a total $43.1 million in the bank, compared to soon-to-be Republican nominee John McCain's nearly $36 million total. But McCain came out ahead in funds left for the primary alone, ending May with $35.8 million to spend until the nominating convention later this summer; Obama had $33.6 million. McCain also came close to matching his Democratic opponent in total raised for the month--$21.4 million compared to $21.9 million for Obama. After the nominating conventions, the fundraising paths of the two candidates will diverge--McCain has indicated he will accept public funds, and Obama announced last week that he'd opt out of the federally funded system and continue to collect from individual donors.

McCain has come a long way since the early days of campaign debt, while Democrat Hillary Clinton, who started as the candidate to beat in the money race, didn't fare so well at the end of her bid. Clinton poured all of her resources--and then some--into beating Obama, ending her run with $2.6 million left for the primary but $22.5 million in debt. Clinton raised a total of $14.5 million in May.

Our presidential page will soon show summary data about how much the presidential candidates raised and spent and what they've got left in the bank. But because the Federal Election Commission has changed the format of their electronic filing program, it'll take us some time to adjust our own programming to process the data. Expect our site to show data by industry, geography, gender, etc., beginning next week.