On Saturday, Nancy Pelosi said she and the Democratic leadership had changed their position on offshore oil and gas exploration. Republicans have pounced on drilling as their solution to the pain at the pump Americans are experiencing while depicting Democrats as putting environmental concerns before the pocket books of the country’s drivers. Pelosi’s fudging on the issue is evidenced that the GOP’s campaign is working. And the energy debate is raging as a top issue locally in competitive congressional races.

Dave Johnson writing at The Huffington Post said that the GOP was “a political party working for oil companies - for money.”

With this coordinated campaign we see oil company advertisements on TV, hear them on the radio, read reports of “studies” from these industry front-group “think tanks,” read op-ed pieces written by industry-paid “experts,” and then to top it off elected officials and candidates reinforce the message (while the industry message reinforces their candidacy).

But what about the Democrats? Is Pelosi’s switch evidence of Democrats succumbing to Big Oil’s cash as well?

The Center for Responsive Politics’ charting of oil and gas interests giving over the past 10 election cycles shows Republicans have received three out of every four dollars. So far in this current cycle, again, the GOP has received 75 percent of the $19.8 million contributed by oil and gas companies and PACs. The Democrats 25 percent is up from 18 percent over the 2006 cycle, which must partially reflect the fact that Democrats control Congress. The industry has almost matched its $20.2 million contribution it made in the whole 2006 cycle, and there’s two-and-a-half months left before election day. With the Democratic leadership signaling they are willing to shift their position, it will be interesting to see if any more petro cash will flow their way.

(more…)

0 Comments

New campaign finance data — covering both the Congressional and Presidential races — is now available from the Center for Responsive Politics. Here are some of the highlights:

Barack Obama and John McCain’s top contributing industries look awfully similar . . .

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) has given the most money to other candidates and lawmakers through his leadership PAC or candidate committee, according to our updated candidate-to-candidate section. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who’s in a tight re-election battle, collected the most from other lawmakers at nearly $351,900.

The percentage of money coming from donors giving $200 or less to Barack Obama’s presidential bid has increased by two points, from 45 percent to 47 percent, according to our updated presidential donor demographics page. We’ve also updated our donor demographics pages for members of Congress.

The National Association of Realtors’s PAC has given more money to candidates than any other PAC so far this election cycle, according to our updated PAC database. The group has given $2.3 million so far, 59 percent of which has gone to Democrats. Sixteen of the top 20 PACs have favored Democrats with their contributions. We’ve also updated contributions from PACs to individual members of Congress.

In addition, CRP has  updated their 527s database, Donor Lookup for members of Congress and presidential candidates, and our ZIP code lookup.

0 Comments

As of July 30 lobbyists will have to report some interesting new information: any campaign contributions, including those from a political action committee controlled by the lobbyist or organization; honorary expenses linked to lawmakers; expenses for meetings involving lawmakers; and donations to presidential libraries. The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 required this new disclosure that lobbyists will file twice a year, with the first deadline being July 30th.  The new forms, LD-203, are here. The Center for Responsive Politics says they plan to capture all these reports. Should be some interesting material in these new reports.

But I was struck by the lack of timeliness of these new reports. Being filed only twice a year raises the question: how much transparency will these forms actually provide?  With all the online tools we have access to today, why not have instantaneous disclosure?  Why wait six months, when the money changing hands is affecting legislation being written today?  It seems to me that this new requirement will give us some more information about the role of the power lobbyist, it does little to deal with the most critical problem - the timeliness of reporting.

Hat tip: Amanda Adams at OMB Watch’s Advocacy Blog.

0 Comments

Here’s a great Follow-the-Money story in this morning’s Wall Street Journal about the battle between the car manufacturers and consumer and environmental groups over the new fuel-economy regulations being draft by NHTSA. The agency was given the task of drafting rules that will set industry wide average fuel-mileage standards for cars and trucks to at least 35 miles per gallon.

Wonder who will win? Money is likely to be some indicator. According to CRP numbers, the automotive industry has been nearly $500 million on lobbying in the last 10 years; the environmental community spent approximately r $90 million in the same period. When it comes to campaign contributions, the environmentalists have given some $18 million in political contributions while the automotive industry has given some $128 million.

Let’s all follow-the-money.

0 Comments

The American News Project has a nice piece today on the revolving door problem in Congress, using as an example the recently announced retirement of defeated-in-the primaries Rep. Al Wynn.  There are literally thousands — if not tens of thousands –  of such stories buried here in the Center for Responsive Politics Revolving Door Database.

0 Comments

The Center for Responsive Politics has a nice post that digs deeply into that treasure trove known as the Personal Financial Disclosure forms of members of Congress.

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…

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.

Really interesting stuff.

1 Comment

Sunlight has joined with seven other organizations in calling on the McCain and Obama campaigns to provide more details about their bundlers, the “mega-fundraisers” who are very skilled at using their business and personal contacts to raise large amounts of campaign cash for a specific candidate. By clicking on the following links, you can view the letters sent to John McCain and Barack Obama.

Bundlers are well-connected political players such as corporate executives and lobbyists collect far more money from friends, business associates and other contacts than they are allowed by law to give as an individual donor. Bundling is a big source of funds for the campaigns, earning the bundlers great access and power within a campaign and, for those fortunate to have chosen the right horse, great access and sway in the new administration. (Think Ambassadorships, appointments to regulatory commissions like the SEC, FCC, and other plumb positions.) McCain and Obama have voluntarily listed how much their bundlers have raised their campaign but in the most general terms.

Specifically, we are asking McCain and Obama to:

• report on their Web sites the exact amount bundlers have raised for the campaign;
• ask their party’s national committee to track and disclose bundling funds coming to the party;
• to disclose bundler’s locations by city and state, as well as their occupations and employers, matching FEC requirements for any donor contributing more than $200;
• and for individual contributors of $200 or less, we are asking the candidates to disclose the number of contributors and cumulative amounts by ZIP code and country (for those Americans living oversees).

(more…)

0 Comments

In Paul’s roundup this morning he mentions several of the reports that came from the release earlier this week of the PFDs  –  personal financial disclosure forms –  filed by House and Senate members that profile their personal financial interests — stocks, mutual funds, IRA assets and other holdings and liabilities.

Newspapers and other media outlets all across the country have dug into the reports and are highlighting nuggets they’ve found about the finances of their local congressional delegation. For instance, The Boston Globe found that “six of the 10 House members from Massachusetts are landlords who made thousands of dollars last year on rental properties.”  The Washington Post found a clue as to why former Rep. Al Wynn resigned his seat to take a position with a K Street lobbying firm whose “partners on average make slightly more than $1 million a year”…He needs the money.  And then there is Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, who decided apparently that she does not need the money.  The Kansas City Star reports on her walking away from $1 million dollars, having past a deadline last week to pay off the loan she made to her 2004 gubernatorial campaign. As her report indicates, she is one of the more wealthy members of Congress, so much so that she won’t likely miss the fortune she’s walked away from.  And The Cleveland Plain Dealer’s Washington bureau chief, Stephen Koff, got especially creative in his review of the reports.  He was able to get independent professional financial advisers to look at and comment on the reports of each member of Northeast Ohio’s congressional delegation. The financial advisors have some interesting advice on what financial strategies the lawmakers have employed in managing their own money. Quite clever.

(more…)

0 Comments

Yesterday, Dan Christensen had a report in The Miami Herald about two Florida Congressmen who are also brothers, Lincoln and Mario Diaz-Balart, receiving $7,100 and $3,000 respectfully from a Maryland company weeks and days before they signed on to be cosponsors of a bill prized by the company — the Hanger Orthopedic Group (HOG), a Bethesda, Md., -based prosthetics company, is pushing the Group Health Plan Prosthetics Parity Act (H.R. 5615). The bill would broaden insurance coverage for its products (artificial limbs), putting them on par with other medical coverage. Christensen reports that the manufacturing of prosthetics is a $2.5 billion industry, but private insurance companies currently cap the benefits. According to the Center for Responsive Politics’ Influence and Lobbying database, HOG has spent $70,000 so far in 2008 lobbying Congress, and $130,000 since last summer on this issue, according to The Herald.

Christensen writes that the Diaz-Balarts are curious sponsors since they have not traditionally championed health care issues in Congress, and neither is on the committee where the bill was referred. He did mention that the company was in need of Republican cosponsors, and one of the brothers had an interest in helping children amputees in the Ukraine. Oh, and both brothers are also facing tough reelection races which probably means they need to raise more money than they ever have before. A campaign spokesperson for both brothers said there was no connection between the campaign contributions and their support of the bill.

Hat Tip: War and Piece blog.

0 Comments

Last week, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report that details the extensive revolving door where former Department of Defense officials are now working for defense contractors, creating glaring conflicts of interest.

GAO’s report found that in 2006, defense contractors employed over 86,000 former DOD employees who had left the agency since 2001. The report found instances where former DOD officials were working on contracts under the responsibility of their form agency, office or command. And they found nine instances where former officials are working on a contract "for which they had program oversight responsibilities or decision-making authorities while at DOD."

This isn’t a newly recognized problem. A 2004 report by the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) on the revolving doors between the government and large private contractors found "conflict of interest is the rule, not the exception."

Scott Amey at POGO Blog wrote that individuals "move seamlessly between government and contractor positions, potentially subverting the contracting process." He adds that the system is "accepted and entrenched." Scott wrote that he hopes the GAO report will convince Congress "to jam the revolving door." You would think.

Another resource on the subject is the Center for Responsive Politics’s Revolving Door database, where you can access the profiles of 110 former top DOD officials.

0 Comments