If ever there was a doubt that campaign contributions effect the votes of lawmakers, look no further than today’s Op-Ed from Amy Showalter in Roll Call. Showalter is the President of the Showalter Group, providing advice to corporations and trade associations on how to leverage grassroots pressure and PAC contributions in their lobbying efforts. Showalter’s Op-Ed attempts to reveal why certain lawmakers changed their votes on the recent bailout legislation. In doing so, Showalter winds up higlighting the seedy behavior of feeding campaign contributions to lawmakers in exhange for votes and the stealth nature of grassroots lobbying. On PAC contributions she writes:

Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R-Mich.), who faced one of the toughest re-election fights in the House, told the Associated Press that he changed his mind after he received telephone calls from General Motors Corp. chief executive officer G. Richard Wagoner Jr. and other auto and corporate executives. “I’ve never talked to as many bank presidents in my life, over my entire life,” he said.

Knollenberg has received $131,500 from GM since he started serving in Congress in 1993, according to Federal Election Commission records, illustrating another “predictor of influence success.” Our survey showed that giving a legislator the maximum allowable political action committee contribution is a predictor of persuasion success.

Lobbyists representing the housing, financial, auto and other business sectors pushed hard for the bailout bill. Several of the lawmakers who changed their minds have received campaign contributions from those industry PACs.

Schmidt has received $70,100 from American Financial Group Inc., a Cincinnati-based insurance holding company, and $16,500 from the American Bankers Association since she was elected to Congress in 1989.

Rep. Judy Biggert (R) was the only Illinois lawmaker to change her mind about the bailout package. Since she began representing her suburban Chicago district in 1989, she has received $45,000 from the National Association of Realtors, $39,500 from the National Automobile Dealers Association and $37,548 from the ABA.

Most lawmakers say they aren’t influenced by campaign contributions, but the recent bailout votes suggest otherwise. We found that the most successful influence attempts typically include campaign contributions. In other words, a PAC contribution represents “exchange” and cements relationships.

While campaign contributions do have to be disclosed to the public, they are only disclosed in quarterly filing reports. This prevents the type of real-time oversight that could be occuring if these “exchanges” were made available to the public as they happened.

Showalter also emphasizes the need for lawmakers to here from “key influentials” in their district. These are often business leaders or small business owners who can be engaged in a grassroots lobbying campaign organized by trade associations. After the initial failure of the bailout bill in Congress, the business community, along with AARP, began a huge grassroots campaign to get business owners to call their congressmen and senators to push for passage of the bill. That grassroots push provided the many examples that Showalter uses in her Op-Ed to show the importance of constituent communications and likely pushed the bill to its ultimate, overwhelming success.

While coalitions that often engage in this type of manufactured grassroots pressure are required to disclose their activities under the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, the actual effort of grassroots lobbying is still left untouched by disclosure requirements. In the world according to Showalter, a pro at influencing lawmakers, the best ways to get to a lawmaker’s heart are still through means not fully policed by disclosure laws.

0 Comments

Update: Please see Ellen’s comment in the comment thread for a clarification of these numbers.

MAPLight.org’s excellent study on in-state vs. out-of-state contributions to congressional candidates provides so many great points of data. The Blog of the Legal Times (BLT) looks at the zip codes with the highest amount of giving to political candidates. No surprise here:

1. Washington, D.C. 20005, with $28.9 million raised (map)
2. Washington, D.C. 20001, with $27.5 million raised (map)
3. Washington, D.C. 20036, with $27.5 million raised (map)
4. Washington, D.C. 20006, with $21.8 million raised (map)
5. Washington, D.C. 20004, with $17.8 million raised (map)
6. Alexandria, Va. 22314, with $12.2 million raised
7. Washington, D.C. 20007 with $5.8 million raised (map)
8. Chicago, Ill. 60611 with $5.3 million raised
9. McLean, Va. 22102 with $5.2 million raised
10. Arlington, Va. 22209 with $5.2 million raised

All but one of these Washington, D.C. zip codes include parts of K Street, the chief lobbying corridor in the capital city. Arlington and McLean are part of a few of the richest counties in the entire country (McLean is in Fairfax County, the absolute richest county in the U.S.) These two Virginia locales are populated with pundits, lobbyists, defense contractors, lobbyists, and lobbyists.

And just in case there were any illusions left about campaign contributions and influence in Congress, take a look at this post from the blog of the law firm Womble Carlyle:

In the October 1 Political GPS we discussed the brave new world of regulation that has been ushered in by the current economic crisis. And from what we can see, “Joe the Hedge Fund Manager” should have as many concerns as “Joe the Plumber.” In short, the financial services industry will need to shift its government relations and PAC efforts into overdrive in order to outrun the regulatory tsunami headed its way.

Which plays nicely into the Washingtonian’s list of winners and losers in Washington over the collapse of the financial industry. Guess who the number one winners are: lobbyists and law firms!

2 Comments

Budgeting political risk helped Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and financial services companies avoid the kind of scrutiny they needed from Congress for the past several years. Millions of dollars in private travel, campaign contributions, and lobbyists-galore created a border wall that no regulation or reform could climb over. Florida Rep. Tim Mahoney’s hole gets deeper as a 2nd affair is revealed, the FBI opens and investigation, and the Democrats ditch him. There’s more in this round-up of today’s news:

Dave Jamieson at The New Republic looks into the lavish treatment members and staffers of the House Financial Services Committee received from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and financial services companies in the years preceeding the collapse of the industry. Former chairman Mike Oxley, who now works for NASDAQ and as a lobbyist, approved a half-million dollars worth of privately paid travel, much of it offered by financial services companies. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had approximately one lobbyist for each member of the 70 person committee. Campaign contributions were spread around like butter on cornbread. Of course, all of this largesse eventually lured numerous staffers and committee members into the private sector and Jamieson names names:

Former Oxley adviser Carter McDowell moved on to the American Bankers Association; Karen Lynch Calton, one-time counsel to the committee, has lobbied for the Consumer Bankers Association; Greg Zerzan, an aide to Oxley, eventually went to the International Swaps and Derivatives Association; Linda Dallas Rich, a committee adviser, headed to the New York Stock Exchange; longtime Oxley aide Clinton Jones hopped to Fannie for a spell, before returning to Congress to serve Bachus on the finance committee; and even though Baker had been a perennial foe to the GSEs, the congressman’s own former chief of staff, Duane Duncan, became a star on Fannie’s lobbying team.

Rep. Tim Mahoney is in a load more trouble after the Associated Press revealed another affair and ABC News, the team that broke this story, reported that the FBI is investigating the allegations of hush money paid to the first reported mistress. It is alleged that Mahoney hired Patricia Allen, the first reported mistress, to both his campaign and congressional staffs. After things went sour (she discovered he was having another affair) Mahoney fired her and allegedly paid her $121,000 to keep her from filing a wrongful termination lawsuit. Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for an ethics committee investigation (although those haven’t really led to anything since, I don’t know, the 1990s) and House Democrats effectively abandoned the freshman Florida congressman to fend for himself in a difficult district.

The defense team in Sen. Ted Stevens’ trial for filing false statements on his personal financial disclosure forms is attempting to show that the home renovations at the center of the charges were done for VECO’s Bill Allen and not for Stevens. Stevens’ daughter, Susan Stevens Covich, testified that when she appeared at her father’s Girdwood, Alaska home to spend time while visiting Allen was present in numerous other people, often taking up all five available bedrooms leaving her to sleep on the couch. Covich said she stopped staying there after Allen’s constant presence became “creepy“. Previously, defense attorneys have shown that Stevens spends most of his time living in Washington, DC and not at the home in Girdwood. The judge presiding over the case stated that the case will likely be handed to the jury next week.

0 Comments

Birds of a feather flock together. On Monday, our nation’s legislators will return, on winged flight, to finish up the year’s legislative work in less than 30 days. The bills of most pertinent attention will likely be appropriations bills, defense authorization, and, if necessary, a continuing resolution. The Senate Democrats just released an e-mail describing their September legislative agenda and groups are lining up to fight over a number of bills. Below, I’m going to take a quick look at the influence game around three of the bills that will surely get a vote in the next three weeks.

There are three bills outside of appropriations and military authorization that will come up in September. These include S. 3268, a bill to restrain energy speculation markets; S. 3186, a bill to provide low income heating assistance; and H.R. 1338, a bill to end gender discrimination in workplace pay. Using MAPLight.org’s listing of supporting and opposing interest groups and Open Secrets’ campaign contribution and lobbying data I have created some graphs showing the level of money groups are pumping into these two influence channels, and which side is spending more.

[Update: I only used 2008 data for these numbers. Campaign finance data at Open Secrets is updated through the second quarter filing period, which covers contributions up to June 30, 2008. Lobbyist disclosures also go through the second quarter filing covering spending up to June 30, 2008.]

S. 3268 — Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act of 2008

S. 3186 — Warm in Winter and Cool in Summer Act

H.R. 1338 — Paycheck Fairness Act

2 Comments

Three makes a trend, right? Today, there are three news stories on presidential bundlers - campaign contributors who solicit money from other contributors and bundle it together - and their activities. All of these stories highlight the need for bundling disclosure rules from the Federal Election Commission. But two of these stories pinpoint the potential for abuse in the bundling system.

The Washington Post looks at the odd practices of one Harry Sargent III, the owner of an oil trading company with billion dollar defense contracts. Sargent has raised over $50,000 for Sen. John McCain’s presidential bid from a collection of Arab-Americans who refuse to discuss why they gave money to the Republican’s campaign: (more…)

1 Comment

The Politico reports how the hedge fund industry, fearing an upcoming fight with Congress will put a dent into their eye-popping profits, is seriously beefing up its Washington influence operation after years of maintaining a low-key presence.  Earlier this year, the Managed Funds Association, the industry’s voice in Washington, lured U.S. Rep. Richard Baker to resign from Congress, where he served on the House Financial Services Committee, to lead their defense. The Congress has targeted the industry’s tax free, off shore accounts, as well as raising taxes on “carried interest,” the multimillion-dollar incomes hedge fund managers receive.

The association formed in 1991, but kept a low profile for most of its 17-years in Washington. The industry and its profits have grown “exponentially” as The Politico reports, with the association growing as well, going from 750 members five years ago to 1,600 today.  In the last couple of years the money the hedge fund industry spent on lobbying and campaign contributions to congressional candidates has skyrocketed, according the data from the Center for Responsive Politics. So far in the 2008 election cycle, the industry’s total contributions have shot up over 128 percent over the last cycle, going from $4.95 million during the 2006 cycle to over $11.3 million this cycle.  When it comes to lobbying expenditures, the industry’s increase has been just over 400 percent this cycle, ($8.4 million) over last ($1.6 million).

Hedge fund industry to Congress: “Do you hear me now?”

0 Comments

The Wall Street Journal reports

The housing industry already has given more money in political contributions this election cycle than in the entire previous cycle, while winning favorable provisions in an emergency housing bill moving through the legislature.

Through May, mortgage bankers and brokers, real-estate companies and home builders had given more than $95 million to federal candidates and political parties so far this election cycle, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. That compares to about $57 million at this point in the 2006 cycle.

The recipients include people with key roles in the legislation.

Wonder what that’s about. Nah. Not really. I know.

:

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

(Hat tip to State Agency Database Highlights) 

Illinois has a new database for state contracts and campaign contributions.  OpenBook is a great new site where you can search by contract holder or contributor.  When you search for either the results will show you two columns. The first shows if the company or person has any state contracts and the second is what campaign contributions they have made.  This site allows people to see if a relationship could exist between contracts and campaign contributions.  It is simple to use and the easy to understand, which is pretty impressive for a government database.  Kudos Illinois!

0 Comments

Following up on Paul’s insanely useful look at Sen. Jon Kyl, who will replace departing Sen. Trent Lott as minority whip, here’s a slightly different look at those jockeying to move on up in the leadership and take over Kyl’s old job as Republican conference chairman (I’m using the Washington Post’s list of likely contenders).

If Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison rises in the hierarchy, 20 former staffers of hers who are now lobbyists can say they once worked for the person responsible for the Senate GOP’s message operations (compared to three for Sen. Richard Burr and none for Sen. Lamar Alexander — so far at least). Hutchison has the most robust leadership PAC, called KPAC; in 2007, it has raised $632,952, of which $549,250 has been contributed by individuals, with the balance coming from other PACs. Burr has raised $215,500 — most of which comes from other PACs, according to the latest FEC filing. Just $15,000 of the donations to the Next Century Fund came from individuals. Alexander’s leadership PAC, the Tenn PAC, has raised $15,000 so far in 2007.

If you’re just following the money, you might infer that more people with more at stake on Capitol Hill have a vested interest in Hutchison moving up as opposed to Burr or Alexander. That holds for earmark recipients as well (see below the fold for more…)

Via GovTrack.us, we know that Alexander and Hutchison are both appropriators; Burr isn’t. Looking through the various appropriations bills tracked at Taxpayers for Common Sense, we see that Hutchison got a dozen earmarks in the Senate Agriculture bill worth $2.7 million; Alexander got one worth $1 million, and Burr got two (along with co-requester Sen. Elizabeth Dole) worth $825,000. In Defense (since not all of the bills have gone to conference, I’m just using the Senate versions for consistency’s sake), Hutchison landed 17 earmarks worth more than $38 million; Alexander got six worth more than $22 million, and Burr got five worth $8 million (all three jointly requested multiple other earmarks with other members). In the Energy and Water bill, Hutchison got eight earmarks worth more than $12 million; Alexander got two worth about $1.5 million, while Burr got one worth $300,000. EarmarkWatch.org makes it easier to check the earmarks in the Senate Labor, Education & HHS bill — Hutchison, with co-sponsors, stuffed it with 26 earmarks worth $6.5 million; Alexander, all by himself, got 10 earmarks worth $3 million, while Burr got 5 worth $750,000 (four of which were co-sponsored by Dole).

One final thing worth taking a peak at: the Voting Trend Analysis on OpenCongress. Scroll about halfway down each page to learn that Hutchison votes most frequently with fellow Texas Sen. John Cornyn, likewise fellow Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker has the closest vote pattern to Alexander. The oddball is Burr, whose votes most often match Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss. Hutchison and Alexander least often vote with Sen. Russ Feingold, whole Burr votes least often with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse. The Democrat all three vote most often with is Sen. Ben Nelson, while the Republican they disagree with most often is Sen. Olympia Snowe. In terms of policy, it doesn’t seem like there’s too much distant between any of the three…

0 Comments