Dave Levinthal stories from The Center for Public Integrity

Senators investigating Apple own company stock

Apple Inc. — 2013-05-23T10:31:05-04:00

Two senators serving on a subcommittee that Tuesday grilled Apple Inc. executives over the company's offshore tax practices are themselves owners of Apple stock, either directly or through a spouse, according to interviews and a review of federal disclosure documents by the Center for Public Integrity.

Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., owns the most Apple stock among the 14 members of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, with her holdings worth at least $250,001 and up to $500,000, according to personal financial disclosure documents for calendar year 2012. She also earned up to $5,000 in Apple stock dividends last year, records show.

Heitkamp was one of six committee members to not attend Tuesday's hours-long hearing, during which Apple Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook defended his company against accusations of tax dodging. Attendee or not, the senator's stock holdings do not pose a conflict with her committee service, a spokeswoman said.

“Senator Heitkamp was selected to serve on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee because of her unique position being from a border state and her past experience as a state attorney general working along aside law enforcement," spokeswoman Whitney Phillips said. "Her position on this committee is in no way impacted by her personal financial holdings.”

Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and an ex officio member on its Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations who attended the hearing and asked questions, reported that his wife, Martha Ann, owned up to $100,000 worth of Apple stock during 2012. The stock also generated up to $2,500 in dividends last year, federal records show.

Officeholders generally disclose their assets and earnings in broad ranges.

Carper's committee office confirmed the senator's wife currently owns Apple equities, but spokeswoman Jennie Westbrook declined to answer specific questions about the stock holding.

(Update, 10:19 a.m., May 23: Westbrook followed up with a statement regarding Carper's Apple holdings, which reads: “In his role as chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Chairman Carper continues to make it a top priority to conduct thorough and proper oversight. Neither Chairman Carper’s financial holdings nor his family’s influence his policy and oversight work on the committee or in the Senate. This is underscored by the fact that he actively participated in Sen. [Carl] Levin’s hearing on this important matter.”)

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., another ex officio subcommittee member, also reported trading in Apple stock options during 2012, earning up to $50,000 from the transactions, according to his newly released personal financial disclosure document.

The same document also states that Coburn's Apple holdings at the end of 2012 were worth $1,000 or less — an indication he may no longer have Apple holdings. Representatives for Coburn, who also did not attend Tuesday's hearing, could not be reached for comment.

In addition to Carper, Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich; John McCain, R-Ariz.; Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.; Ron Johnson, R-Wis.; Rob Portman, R-Ohio; and Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H. attended Tuesday's hearing. These senators reported no Apple stock holdings in 2012 outside of what might exist in broad-based mutual funds that many of them reported.

Another committee member in attendance, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., was granted a 90-day filing extension for his 2012 disclosure paperwork after asking for more time. It is therefore unknown whether Paul, who defended Apple during the hearing, owned Apple stock during 2012. During 2011, he did not, federal records show.

In 2011, Apple stock, which today closed at $441.35 per share, ranked among the most popular holdings by all members of Congress — just below the stock shares of other massive companies such as General Electric, ExxonMobil, Pfizer and Bank of America, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

IRS scandal sparks fundraising blitz

2013-05-24T13:50:59-04:00

The scandal-singed Internal Revenue Service could unwittingly generate a mountain of cash for Republican interests.

GOP politicians and party committees this week are soliciting supporters far and wide in attempts to capitalize on conservatives' outrage over IRS officials singling out tea party and other right-leaning nonprofit groups for enhanced scrutiny.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus blasted a missive to backers Wednesday asserting that this week has been a "complete disaster for the White House," citing the IRS imbroglio, congressional hearings on Benghazi and revelations that the Department of Justice secretly seized phone records of Associated Press journalists. He also snipes at House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

"Clearly he's hoping a Democrat-controlled House will let him off the hook. We can't let that happen," Priebus wrote. "Contribute $25, $50, $100, or whatever you can today to help us defend our House so we can hold President Obama and the Democrats accountable."

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., wrote supporters through his Reclaim America PAC leadership committee to say that "if there was ever a time for conservatives to take a stand against an expanding federal government, it is now." He further noted that "the very message of the Tea Party movement has been validated" because of the IRS situation.

Then Rubio's pitch: "You can help by contributing to the Reclaim America PAC today. Your donation will ensure that we have the resources to take this fight to the highest levels possible."

The National Republican Congressional Committee, for its part, has set up a page featuring a large photo of House Speaker John Boehner with his recent quote superimposed: "My question isn't about who's going to resign — my question is who is going to jail over this scandal?"

Next to it sits a form where people are asked to submit their name, email address and ZIP code, which the NRCC reserves the right to use for future solicitation purposes. The NRCC is also spending "thousands" of dollars on three Web advertisements slamming the IRS and directing people to its page.

The IRS scandal is a galvanizing issue ripe for political advocacy because it "involves an institution every American has had to deal with and understands — and to make matters worse, Americans hated the IRS to begin with," NRCC spokeswoman Andrea Bozek says. "In terms of 2014, this latest abuse of power is another indication that Democrats are going to have a hard time winning the House with Obama leading their recruitment efforts."

Among House of Representatives members fundraising off the IRS' actions is Rep. Chris Collins, R-N.Y.

"Targeting conservatives and Americans who believe in the Constitution is outrageous and we can't let it stand," he wrote supporters before providing a link to a donation page that states, "Help me today."

Rep. Pat Meehan, R-Pa., took a slightly more direct approach.

"House Republicans are going to investigate the IRS' actions -- but we need a majority in the House to do it," he writes. "Please consider supporting our efforts with a contribution of $250, $100 or even $50."

Democrats haven't shied away from fundraising this week, although there's nary a mention of the IRS to be found in their financial come-ons.

Instead, they struck out at one member of their usual cast of conservative bogeymen and women.

"Scandal-ridden Republican Michele Bachmann is at it again," the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee writes today. "That's right: in the midst of a federal investigation for campaign violations, Bachmann has the nerve to spearhead the Republican effort to block Obamacare before its full implementation."

The email then asks readers to "declare your support for Obamacare" and provides a link to a political contribution page that urges individuals to "contribute $3 or more today to support President Obama's agenda!"

The Democratic National Committee, meanwhile, today asked party faithful to "chip in $5 or more today and help elect Democrats who will stand up for marriage equality across the country, just like the ones in Minnesota did yesterday."

IRS nonprofit division overloaded, understaffed

2013-05-20T15:50:01-04:00

Amid withering accusations the Internal Revenue Service targeted tea party and other conservative groups with enhanced scrutiny, the agency faces another problem: it’s drowning in paperwork.

The IRS’ Exempt Organizations Division, which finds itself at the scandal’s epicenter, processed significantly more tax exemption applications in fiscal year 2012 by so-called 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organizations — 2,774 — than it has since at least the late 1990s, according to an analysis of IRS records by the Center for Public Integrity.

Compare that to 1,777 applications in 2011 and 1,741 in 2010, federal records show. Not since 2002, when officials processed 2,402 applications, have so many been received.

Meanwhile, Exempt Organizations Division staffing slid from 910 employees during fiscal year 2009 to 876 during fiscal year 2012, agency personnel documents indicate.

In 2010, IRS officials projected exempt division staffing at 942 employees. But IRS officials cut the number to 900 after the agency began slashing its budget in response to fiscal woes affecting most corners of the federal government.

The agency said this weekend that a heavy workload prompted bureaucrats to “centralize” the “influx of advocacy applications” and, in the name of efficiency, scrutinize groups that contained more common phrases such as “tea party” in them.

“That was wrong, that was absolutely incorrect, insensitive and inappropriate — that’s not how we go about selecting cases for further review,” Lois Lerner, IRS exempt organizations director, said Friday. “We don’t select for review because they have a particular name.”

Lerner, who denied the targeting was politically motivated, added that about 75 groups with words such as “tea party” or “patriot” received extra scrutiny but none had its tax-exempt status revoked.

The IRS could not be reached for comment Monday.

(Also read: IRS employees back Obama, Democrats)

For Washington, D.C.,-based attorney Dan Backer, who represents two tea party-affiliated organizations, blaming such actions on staffing cuts and increased workload is a “lame excuse” that the IRS should stop using.

“They could have hired new employees, they could have reallocated employees, they could have done a lot of things, the not doing of which doesn't suddenly make it OK for them to engage in viewpoint discrimination,” said Backer, who said he is considering suing the IRS. “At worst, their staffing woes maybe justifies a growing backlog, not discriminating against those whose viewpoints they disagree with.”

IRS records show that applications of the most common nonprofit organizations — 501(c)(3) educational nonprofits, private foundations, charities and the like — have dropped this decade after reaching a high of more than 85,000 in fiscal 2007. Generally, this type of nonprofit entity must remain apolitical.

As for 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations, such as the tea party groups in question, they may engage in politics so long as it isn’t their primary purpose.

During the 2012 election cycle, however, numerous 501(c)(4) organizations — most of them conservative, a few left-leaning and all endowed with new spending powers thanks to the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision — together spent tens of millions of dollars overtly advocating for or against political candidates.

And unlike super PACs, which may also raise and spend unlimited amounts of money, they’re not required to reveal their donors

Democrats primarily cried foul, accusing groups such as the Karl Rove-backed Crossroads GPS and Koch brothers-supported Americans for Prosperity of violating their tax-exempt status.

But the IRS has taken no definitive action against these or other nonprofit groups, and several campaign finance reform advocates have opined that this latest incident will further stymie their effort to convince the IRS to crack down on nonprofit groups they consider overridingly political.

As for tea party-named nonprofit groups, for all the attention now on them, they generally played bit roles during the 2012 election.

Of the more than 40 organizations that identified themselves as tea party-related in IRS documents, just one — the National Tea Party Group of California — reported assets of more than $100,000 in its most recent publicly available financial filing.

For now, Republicans and Democrats in Congress have called on the Obama administration to investigate the matter, and Obama himself described the IRS’ conduct as “outrageous.”

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration is expected to release a full report on the matter later this week, and officials in the House and Senate are promising hearings.

Karen Gries, an appointee to the IRS Advisory Committee on Tax Exempt and Government Entities, says she expects her committee will discuss the matter when it meets later this year.

In the meantime, Gries praised the overall performance of Lerner, the exempt organizations director, while expressing concern about her department’s ability to do its job.

“They are asked to do more with less resources,” said Gries, a principal at with accounting firm CliftonLarsonAllen LLP. “The EO group operates very lean.”

Benghazi debate sparks little formal lobbying

Benghazi,Libya — 2013-05-09T20:23:11-04:00

Benghazi is a non-starter for professional lobbyists.

Despite this week's politicized fray on Capitol Hill, just two organizations have specifically lobbied the federal government about the Libyan city in the months after terrorists there killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, according to disclosure documents filed with the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.

Of late, the families of people killed in Libya-related terrorist attacks from the 1980s brought to bear more formalized lobbying pressure, federal records indicate.

Among lobbying groups focused on Benghazi, ACT! for America spent $60,000 from October through March lobbying Congress on a variety of issues that include support for "legislation establishing a select committee to investigate and report on the attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya," congressional disclosures show.

Republicans in particular have loudly criticized the Obama administration — former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, specifically — for what they consider failures to adequately protect the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi. They've also accusing Democrats of hiding details about the incident. State Department official Gregory Hicks joined in the chorus of criticism while under oath before a House committee investigating the matter.

But this outrage has failed to materialize into a more formal lobbying effort, in which organizations and special interests invest big dollars to advocate for a specific action or result.

"It's surprising, but even more than that, it's disturbing," said Guy Rodgers, ACT! for America's executive director, when informed his group is all but alone in terms of formally lobbying the federal government on Benghazi-related issues.

Rodgers cites "a failure by the establishment press" to properly report on the aftermath of the killings as a major reason why more lobbies haven't pressured lawmakers through formal lobbying channels on Benghazi-related matters.

"If you're an organization, or a lobbyist paid to do things, you're looking at what people are paying attention to," Rodgers said. "The establishment press needs to start being a watchdog, not a lapdog."

ACT! for America describes itself as a "nonpartisan, non-sectarian organization whose mission is to give Americans concerned about national security, terrorism and the threat of radical Islam, a powerful, organized, informed and mobilized voice."

Virginia-based security company Triple Canopy, Inc., also noted lobbying on Benghazi among several other issues in a report covering July through September of last year when it spent $129,000 overall on federal-level lobbying.

While the firm's filing doesn't indicate whether its efforts pertained to the Benghazi attack, the company confirmed in a statement to the Center for Public Integrity that its lobbying was attack-related.

"Following last year’s attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, Triple Canopy took the initiative to suggest a series of security solutions to protect U.S. diplomats and others who serve overseas," the statement said, offering no details on what its suggestions involved.

Since Sept. 11, 2012, when the Benghazi attack took place, about a dozen companies and organizations have reported lobbying lawmakers and federal agencies about Libya in general, congressional disclosures show.

None their efforts, however, appear related to the events in Benghazi.

Marathon Oil, for example, lobbied the government on petroleum issues in Libya. The National Foreign Trade Council lobbied on U.S.-Libya relations. And Halliburton pressed the government on Libyan trade issues.

Sheldon Adelson's anti-cancer campaign

2013-05-09T14:01:36-04:00

As casino mogul Sheldon Adelson buoyed Republican politicians with unprecedented riches, he quietly funded warfare on a decidedly apolitical enemy: cancer.

Adelson and his wife personally fueled their little-known private foundation — The Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Medical Research Foundation — with about $4.3 million during 2011, according to documents filed with the Internal Revenue Service.

The Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Medical Research Foundation in turn disseminated most of the money to more than a dozen hospitals, laboratories and universities for medical research into cancer, as well as inflammatory bowel disease and neural repair and rehabilitation, IRS documents indicate.

Donation recipients in 2011 include The Rockefeller University in New York ($500,000), Tel Aviv University in Israel ($457,608), Harvard Medical School ($280,328), the UCLA Foundation ($280,000) and Johns Hopkins University ($200,000).

Such money is a fraction of the more than $93 million the Adelsons bestowed on pro-Republican super PACs during 2011 and 2012, ahead of last year's national elections. Nearly half of that amount went to a pair of conservative powerhouses: American Crossroads, the super PAC co-founded by Karl Rove received $23 million, while pro-Mitt Romney super PAC Restore Our Future took in $20 million.

But Adelson's medically focused giving further illuminates the complex and diverse donation habits of the nation's top super PAC patron, whose Las Vegas Sands gambling empire has made him one of the world's most wealthy individuals.

Consider that the Adelsons also operate a much larger, separate nonprofit foundation, the Adelson Family Foundation, that's contributed $191 million to primarily pro-Israel and Jewish cultural, educational and research organizations. Most went to Birthright Israel, a charity that offers free 10-day trips to Israel to Jews between age 18 and 26.

Yet another Adelson-led 501(c)(3) charitable foundation, the Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Educational Institute, funds an "extensive secular and Judaic studies curriculum" for school-aged children at the Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Educational Campus in Las Vegas.

The educational foundation's latest filing with the IRS shows it raised more than $8 million from July 2011 to June 2012, although it doesn't state where the money came from. The organization reported more than $48 million in assets but more than $49 million in liabilities, leaving it about $800,000 in the red through last June, according to its IRS filing.

Meanwhile, the Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Charitable Trust, which is also a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, had nearly $80 million in assets through the end of 2011, IRS filings show. Most of the more than $19.4 million it spent that year went to other Adelson-controlled foundations.

But the Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Charitable Trust did report giving $500,000 in 2011 to the George W. Bush Foundation, which funded the design and construction of the newly opened George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum near Dallas.

The Las Vegas-based Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Clinic for Drug Abuse Treatment & Research Inc., likewise organized as a nonprofit charity, reported about $133,000 in net assets through the end of 2011, IRS records show.

As for the Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Medical Research Foundation, it's taken in about $58.9 million — mostly from the Adelsons themselves — from its formation in mid-2006 through the end of 2011. It spent about $58.5 million during the same time period, according to IRS records.

After spending more than $24.4 million in 2007, the research foundation's giving has waned, dropping to $4.2 million in 2010 before inching up in 2011.

Sheldon Adelson's office in Las Vegas directed questions to Kenneth Fasman, the foundation's chief science officer, who declined to comment on the Massachusetts-based foundation's work and finances during 2012 and 2013.

"The Adelsons prefer a relatively low profile in this area," Fasman said.

The foundation's website offers some general details on its purpose and mission.

"Instead of funding individual experiments that cautiously advance progress, we ask investigators who receive funding to interact with peers at many institutions within the context of creative and risk-taking approaches that may yield much more than the incremental progress engendered by many funding organizations," it states.

Colbert Busch backed by D.C.-based groups

2013-05-07T08:56:26-04:00

Some support Republican Mark Sanford. Far more back Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch.

But the political groups that have together poured $1.1 million — 85 percent benefiting Colbert Busch — into South Carolina’s special congressional election are effectively uniform in where they’re from: Washington, D.C.

Only one of the 10 political action committees, super PACs, nonprofit groups or party committees that have urged voters to support or oppose Colbert Busch or Sanford is based in the Palmetto State, and it’s spent a pittance — just $20,000, a Center for Public Integrity analysis of federal spending disclosures through Monday indicates.

And of the more than 20 contractors and vendors these political powerhouses hired to produce television attack ads, print flyers or place telemarketing calls, all but one are located outside South Carolina. The others hail from seemingly everywhere but: North Carolina, Virginia, Alabama, Maryland, Minnesota, Ohio and California, among others, according to federal records.

So as many South Carolina voters hit the polls today to elect their newest 1st District congressional representative, they do so amid a torrent of out-of-state influence that’s increasingly commonplace following the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, which eliminated many restrictions on how outside political groups could raise and spend money to advocate for or against candidates.

Today’s dead-heat special election, which features the state’s philandering former governor against comedian Stephen Colbert’s comparatively unknown sister, could foreshadow outside groups’ activities in regularly scheduled midterms in 2014.

Congressional races in even the sleepiest states or districts could attract unprecedented attention from moneyed national entities that have little inherent connection to locals and primarily care about picking up (or defending) a critical seat for their party or pressing a particular special interest, which in other contests might include guns or energy and environmental issues.

The D.C.-based Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has so far spent the most during the South Carolina special election, hitting Sanford with more than $458,000 in negative advertising. It has used Great American Media of D.C. and Adelstein | Liston LLC of Illinois to produce its ads, disclosures show.

Democratic super PAC House Majority PAC, meanwhile, has spent nearly $426,000 on broadcasts, direct mail and online ads denouncing Sanford. The super PAC, which is based in D.C., has exclusively used D.C.-based firms to do so: Waterfront Strategies, The Strategy Group, Ralston Lapp Media and Rising Tide Interactive.

Independent Women’s Voice, a conservative 501(c)(4) nonprofit group based in the nation’s capital, has proved to be Sanford’s strongest outside advocate, slamming Colbert Busch with more than $145,000 in broadcast ads, flyers and telephone calls, according to federal records.

Its contractors include Victory Media Group of Illinois, Antietam Communications of Georgia, Creative Associates LLC of Wisconsin and Kasey Kirby of Washington, D.C. And it’s particularly significant since the National Republican Congressional Committee, the DCCC’s GOP counterpart, decided against spending money in the race.

Other D.C.-based outside groups that have made independent expenditures leading up to today’s vote include FreedomWorks Inc. (pro-Sanford), Environmental Majority (pro-Colbert Busch), National Right to Life Political Action Committee (pro-Sanford), National Right to Life Victory Fund (pro-Sanford) and the Votevets.org Action Fund (pro-Colbert Busch).

The Columbia, S.C.-based South Forward IE PAC is the lone outside group not from D.C. to advertise for or against the candidates, spending about $20,200 on television and online ads, as well as door hangers, to oppose Sanford’s candidacy. Its contractors are all from outside of South Carolina.

The Amalgamated Transit Union used a South Carolina firm — Harbinger Publications — to produce its $5,000 worth of pro-Colbert Busch flyers, but the union itself is based in D.C.

It’s possible that outside political groups could spend close to, or as much as the candidates themselves during the race.

As of April 17, Colbert Busch had spent about $942,000, federal records show, while Sanford had spent about $626,000, including money he spent winning the GOP nomination. But Sanford entered the home stretch with slightly more cash on hand (more than $284,000) than Colbert Busch (more than $254,000).

The candidates' spending figures will assuredly have increased by the time post-election disclosures are filed with the Federal Election Commission. Unlike outside political expenditures, which are filed in real time, candidates’ expenditures are not.

Need political cash? Use the force

2013-05-04T11:25:36-04:00

Politicians aren't always the most grounded bunch.

For Rep. Derek Kilmer, D-Wash., he's off in galaxy far, far away.

That's not necessarily a knock, however, since the brainy, bespectacled freshman — he's a Princeton University graduate and University of Oxford doctoral degree recipient — is parlaying his love for the cosmos into potentially exospheric campaign cash.

To wit: Kilmer is set to benefit from a Star Wars-themed political fundraiser later this month originally conceived as not one, but two separate Star Wars-themed fundraisers, easily putting him on pace to become the first sitting congressman to make the Capitol Hill Cash Run in less than 12 parsecs.

The merged fundraiser will culminate May 22 in a "galactic trivia battle," with tickets starting at $50 and climbing skyward to $1,000 for political action committees and full trivia teams, according to an invitation. The National Cable and Telecommunications Association's Washington, D.C., headquarters will play host.

A spokesperson for Kilmer's re-election campaign could not be reached for comment, but Stephen Carter, Kilmer's congressional spokesman, confirmed his boss is, "yes, a pretty huge Star Wars fan."

Perhaps it's no surprise, then, that Kilmer is a member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

(See the current event's invite here. The other, once-separate-and-now-incorporated fundraiser's invitation advertised a screening of Star Wars: A New Hope.)

Novelty political fundraisers are commonplace these days, with rubber chicken dinners and stodgy grip-and-grin sessions increasingly yielding to ski trips, skeet shoots and sports events. A Taylor Swift concert, Las Vegas golf retreat and Bermuda beach bash are among federal legislators' many scheduled outings this month, according to fundraiser tracker Political Party Time.

Thank the burgeoning cost of campaigns and never-ending election cycles for congressional candidates' compulsory creativity.

In 2005, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee lambasted three Republican congressmen for conducting a political fundraiser at the screening of a Star Wars movie, saying the "GOP looks to the dark side." Given Kilmer's unabashed fandom, however, his event almost assuredly features the highest probability in congressional history of at least one lobbyist ditching his power suit for Boba Fett armor or a political aide donning a Yoda mask.

Looking for the real thing?

Kilmer should know that Han Solo — that is, Harrison Ford — is a dedicated Democratic donor, having contributed tens of thousands of dollars to candidates and committees over the years, including $28,500 to the Democratic National Committee in 2008, according to federal records.

But, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, it was the people and PACs associated with Boeing and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, among others, that donated the most to Kilmer en route to him rasing nearly $1.9 million last cycle.

All the presidents' debt

2013-05-02T11:40:10-04:00

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich dubbed the national debt a "burden for our children for life."

Ex-Rep. Dennis Kucinich vilified Republicans for adding, by his calculations, $4 trillion to it.

Rep. Michele Bachmann, meanwhile, predicted debt will precipitate a future of "indentured servitude to foreign lenders."

What unites these and other presidential candidates is that they themselves are in debt. Campaign debt.

It's a dubious distinction shared by Democrats and Republicans, eccentric nonagenarians and White House occupants.

Such debt isn't really hurting anyone but creditors — certainly not the nation nor its creditworthiness.

But it is a reminder that despite candidates' soaring rhetoric about fiscal responsibility, they often fail to follow their own prescription for sound budgetary management amid the relentless rush to remain competitive with political rivals during election seasons that are longer and more expensive than ever.

Until the debts are paid, the federal government requires former candidates in most cases to keep their campaign committees open and, technically, active, meaning some of the indebtedness stretches back decades.

Following are the nation’s top presidential campaign deadbeats who still find themselves at least $100,000 in the red, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of disclosures filed with the Federal Election Commission:

1.) Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.

Election year: 2012

Debt: $4,595,394

The back story: For a moment in December 2011, Gingrich appeared to have requisite momentum in his bid to capture the Republican presidential nomination. And then, the moment passed. That didn't stop the former House speaker from continuing to spend lavishly on his flagging campaign, which finally petered out in April 2012 when it became clear rival Mitt Romney would capture the GOP banner. Among the dozens of debts totaling nearly $4.6 million the Newt 2012 presidential committee still owes as of March 31: more than $983,000 to Moby Dick Airways for chartered air travel and more than $413,000 to the Patriot Group for private security services. Gingrich's campaign also owes Gingrich himself about $647,500. Other vendors waiting for Gingrich to pay them back include Twitter (nearly $13,000 for a media buy), Herman Cain Solutions (more than $16,500 for "strategic consulting/travel”) and Verizon Wireless ($862 for cell phone service). The committee also disputes about $130,000 worth of bills from vendors. Gingrich has of late attempted to raise money to pay down his debt by renting the personal information of his supporters to data companies. But the income has barely made a dent in his obligations, which at one point reached nearly $5 million. Gingrich has also created the Committee for America, a federal joint fundraising committee that states it’s raising money for the dual purpose of retiring his presidential committee’s debt and funding a separate political action committee he runs — the American Legacy PAC, which most recently reported about $60,000 in available cash after having spent most of its money late last year on telemarketing expenses. Gingrich officials did not return requests for comment, although a former spokesperson R.C. Hammond last year explained: "Our preference is obviously not to have gone into debt. If we could eliminate the debt overnight, we would. But realistically, this will take years."

2.) Lyndon LaRouche, Democrat

Election years: 1984, 2000, 2004

Debt: $3,230,438

The back story: An eight-time presidential candidate who attracts a passionate, if fringe following, the 90-year-old LaRouche never paid many of his 1984 campaign's phone, rent, legal and data bills, which are now almost 30 years old, according to federal filings. The campaign committee also hasn't settled dozens of small, unsecured loans made by individuals to the campaign. In all, the 1984 campaign alone owes $1.22 million. It's probably no wonder: LaRouche served more than five years in federal prison after a federal jury convicted him of fraud and conspiracy. He exited prison in 1994 and again ran for president in 1996, 2000 and 2004, with his final campaign committee owing about $1.06 million. Two other LaRouche presidential committees report smaller debts. Representatives for LaRouche, who today leads the LaRouche PAC political action committee, could not be reached for comment. Democratic Party officials say they have no comment on LaRouche’s debt, as they maintain no association with LaRouche or his past campaigns.

3.) President Barack Obama, Democrat

Election year: 2012

Debt: $3,101,117

The back story: Obama may have won re-election in November, but for a campaign that raised more money than any in U.S. history, there are still some books to balance. As of March 31, it still owed more than $3.1 million to a variety of vendors, including telephone companies, media consultants, insurance firms, computer businesses and attorneys, among others. The two largest single debts the Obama campaign has yet to clear are with Maryland-based Hargrove, Inc., which is owed nearly $627,000 for "staging, sound, lighting" services, and Washington, D.C.-based New Partners Consulting, Inc., which is owed $501,000 for telemarketing services. The debt won't likely linger, however, as Obama's political machine is unmatched in its ability to quickly generate cash. It also has plenty of assets to sell and rent. During early 2013, for example, it earned $350,000 just from renting its supporters' personal information to the committee coordinating the presidential inauguration. And tens of thousands of dollars in personal contributions continue to flow in. The committee also reports almost $591,000 cash on hand. “The campaign will take care of all outstanding vendor debt as it continues to wind down,” Democratic National Committee Communications Director Brad Woodhouse promised. Vanquished Republican rival Mitt Romney turned out to be a fiscal conservative after all. His own campaign committee is debt free.

4.) Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Republican

Election year: 2008

Debt: $1,756,988

The back story: Giuliani ultimately couldn't translate his popularity as "America's mayor" into a presidential candidacy most Americans supported, and he made a surprisingly early exit from the 2008 GOP primary while finding himself more than $2.7 million in the red. More than five years later, the campaign committee still owes money to about two-dozen vendors — including two Giuliani-related companies — while also owing its namesake candidate a quarter-million bucks. Verizon Wireless (about $236,000) and AT&T Inc. (nearly $107,000) also crack six figures. But this will soon change, Giuliani says. "We're at the point now where we have agreements with almost every vendor on settlement amounts — maybe one or two to go," Giuliani said by phone. The next step, he said, will be to submit a settlement plan to the Federal Election Commission for approval so that he may terminate his presidential committee. The plan will be submitted "optimistically, by the end of the month, and worst-case scenario, by the middle of next month," Giuliani said. He noted that he's fronted about $1.2 million of his own money to pay off debts to smaller vendors so to "take care of anyone in a difficult situation first." Ultimately, Giuliani said, "we'd like to get this done by the end of the year ... we've been working on this for two years to get this done and get it right."

5.) The Rev. Al Sharpton, Democrat

Election year: 2004

Debt: $925,713

The back story: Who doesn't the bombastic preacher and civil rights activist-turned-MSNBC program host owe? That might be the better question to ask of Sharpton, whose quixotic 2004 presidential campaign remains deep in debt as of Dec. 31 to entities ranging from the U.S. government (for campaign violation penalties) to a laundry list of former staffers (for back wages and repayments). Sharpton is himself also owed money from unsecured loans he made to his campaign. Sharpton's campaign debt has actually grown in recent years thanks largely to fines federal regulators slapped on the campaign. “He does intend to do a series of fundraisers around his birthday in October,” spokeswoman Rachel Noerdlinger said. “He’s also been talking with the Federal Election Commission about reaching a settlement” on the fines. At the end of 2004, weeks after George W. Bush secured a second term, Sharpton's campaign found itself in better shape than it does today, owing creditors about $567,000.

6.) Former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.

Election year: 2012

Debt: $619,629

The back story: Like Gingrich, Santorum continued to deficit spend in hopes of keeping his dwindling presidential aspirations alive into the spring of 2012. He hung in until April before finally bailing out — owing a variety of creditors nearly $2.3 million. Santorum has steadily improved his financial lot in the year since, although he still owes 11 vendors back payments, including more than $430,000 to Pennsylvania-based consulting firm Brabender Cox for media placement and consulting services. The campaign committee also still owes $12,500 to Front Row Motor Sports as part of its sponsorship of driver Tony Raines' NASCAR car. Santorum, a vocal advocate of a federal balanced budget amendment, initiated attempts to retire his debt almost immediately after quitting the race, writing to supporters that he “cannot be free to focus on helping defeat [Obama] with this burden. I am asking you to consider one more contribution.” The former senator is now leading (and raising money for) a 501(c)(4) nonprofit group called Patriot Voices, which describes itself as dedicated to protecting “faith, freedom, family and opportunity.” Santorum aides did not reply to requests for comment.

7.) Former Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio

Election year: 2004, 2008

Debt: $546,413

The back story: When Kucinich received permission in February to terminate his 2008 presidential campaign committee, he still reported owing money to nine different creditors, including $45,000 for legal services to McTigue & McGinnis LLC of Columbus, Ohio. The Federal Election Commission noted that Kucinich's committee, while is no longer required to file regular reports, "does not relieve the committee of any legal responsibility for the payment of any outstanding debt or obligation." That’s not, however, Kucinich’s biggest problem: The former congressman still owes $493,910 from his 2004 presidential bid. Donald J. McTigue, Kucinich’s lawyer and campaign treasurer, is due most of it. “The committee recognizes it has a debt, and if and when it becomes possible to work on the debt, it will,” McTigue said. Does he ever expect to see his money? “I’m always hopeful,” McTigue said. “Who knows what the future holds?”

8.) Herman Cain, Republican

Election year: 2012

Debt: $450,000

The back story: Forget 9-9-9. The former pizza executive, who soared to the top of the 2012 Republican presidential ranks only to fall away just as quickly, has a much larger number to recoup — one just south of half-million dollars. But in contrast with most other presidential committees, the Friends of Herman Cain presidential committee owes what it owes to its own candidate: It's failed to reimburse Cain for $175,000 in travel expenses and hasn't paid back $275,000 in cash Cain loaned the committee. Scott F. Bieniek, who served as the committee’s general counsel, said he’s no longer affiliated with the committee and directed questions to Treasurer Mark Block, who couldn’t be reached for comment. Added Bieniek: “I certainly think very highly of Mr. Cain and hope that the committee is able to raise the funds necessary to repay any personal money that he loaned to the campaign.”

9.) Former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.

Election year: 2004

Debt: $331,586

The back story: You might expect an Edwards’ debt stems from the former senator's 2008 presidential run, during which federal prosecutors alleged he used campaign cash to hush up a staffer-turned-mistress who secretly gave birth to his love child. The tawdry tale ostensibly ended Edwards' political career, but he nonetheless beat the rap and avoided jail time. Edwards' 2004 presidential run, meanwhile, is the culprit for his continued financial indebtedness. Credit a lion's share of the more than $331,000 his 2004 campaign committee owes — about $226,000 — to unpaid legal and consulting fees billed by Washington, D.C.-based law firm Ryan Phillips Utrecht & McKinnon. Edwards' campaign debt has effectively remained the same since late 2006. “We’re working on that,” campaign treasurer Lora Haggard said of the debt, “but I don’t have any more information at this time.” During the 2004 campaign, Edwards once promised he’d “get us seriously back on the road to fiscal responsibility” if elected president. Edwards' 2008 presidential campaign committee? It finally shut down this month and doesn't owe anyone a cent after itself owing more than $2 million at one point.

10.) Former Ambassador Alan Keyes, Republican

Election year: 2000

Debt: $301,144

The back story: Keyes collected about 5 percent of all votes during the 2000 Republican presidential primary and never seriously challenged neither eventual winner George W. Bush nor Sen. John McCain. His legacy? More than $300,000 in debt owed to a dozen campaign vendors, with about half owed to Virginia- and California-based consulting firm Politechs. Keyes appears to be in little hurry to pay off any of it: A full decade ago, his committee's debt stood at about $337,000. Keyes also sought the presidency in 2008. His campaign committee from that cycle has no debt and actually maintains a small surplus. Keyes aide Carla Michele said campaign officials are “doing everything they can” to retire the debt, although she didn’t have additional details.

11.) Former Rep. Bob Barr, Libertarian

Election year: 2008

Debt: $158,450

The back story: As a minor-party candidate, Barr, who once served in Congress as a Republican from Georgia, had about a libertine's chance in North Korea of leading the nation. Nevertheless, Barr ran and lost, and in doing so, left a mess of unpaid obligations in his wake. Among them: $47,000 to Maryland-based author James Bovard, who ghost-wrote a book for Barr and didn't get paid. (As a presidential candidate, Barr once called for a "surge in federal fiscal responsibility.") Debt or no debt, Barr is eyeing a return to the U.S. House, having announced last month he'll seek a congressional seat in Georgia — as a Republican. Will Barr move to quickly pay his old debts off? “The team associated with the 2008 campaign has worked to retire the debt from $214,221 to about $150,000,” Barr campaign manager Jeff Breedlove said. “They continue to do so in a professional and dedicated manner.”

12.) Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.

Election year: 2012

Debt: $127,996

The back story: Days after Bachmann quit the presidential race after the January 2012 Iowa caucuses, her campaign reported being more than $1 million in debt with less than $166,000 in available cash. In the 15 months since, Bachmann has been able to whittle her debt down to less than $128,000, as of March 31. “That said, we are in communication with our venders and are working to pay the residual remaining balance off in the near future," Bachmann for President finance chairman James L. Pollack said. Nahigian Strategies in Alexandria, Va., is owed more than half that amount for campaign management services. And Bachmann owes more than $6,200 to law and lobbying firm Patton Boggs for legal services. Smaller, stranger debts include $688 to a golf cart supplier in Omaha, Neb., and $47 to a general store in West Des Moines, Iowa. Bachmann's campaign committee has found itself particularly crosswise with the golf cart rental set, as one Iowa-based supplier sued Bachmann — and won — after her campaign allegedly damaged several contracted vehicles, then failed to pay the bill. Bachmann ultimately paid up.

13.) Gary Bauer, Republican

Election year: 2000

Debt: $108,557

The back story: While few folks even remember Bauer's long-shot presidential candidacy, the Internal Revenue Service certainly does. That's because Bauer's campaign committee still owes the tax man more than $10,000, according to its latest federal disclosure filing. The campaign committee for Bauer, who today leads the conservative Campaign for Working Families organization, also has yet to pay its bills from four direct mail and list rental firms. “The plan is to pay it off little by little over time,” Bauer aide Kristi Hamrick said. “As soon as possible is the time frame.” At a rally last year against now-Sen. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., Bauer railed against the national debt. “America is drowning in red ink,” he said. “Obama and his Democrat allies in Congress have added trillions of dollars to the national debt and raised taxes by hundreds of billions through Obamacare,"

14.) President Bill Clinton, Democrat

Election year: 1996

Debt: $100,080

The backstory: One might reasonably assume that after 17 years, the former leader of the free world, who presided over Israelis and Palestinians signing the Oslo Peace Accords, could settle a disagreement with campaign creditors. Apparently not. The Clinton/Gore '96 Primary Committee, which technically remains open and active, still owes more than $100,000 to three firms for consulting and polling fees. Clinton's committee disputes the charges, and the debts from a year when the Macarena topped the music charts, remain unresolved. Clinton aides did not return requests for comment. Hillary Clinton? She cleared her once massive 2008 presidential debts earlier this year.

Gun groups, defense contractors buck downward trend in lobbying

2013-04-23T13:53:15-04:00

Gun groups, defense contractors, oil companies and the world’s largest social network increased their spending on lobbying last quarter, bucking an overall downward trend, newly filed congressional disclosures show.

As debate over gun control raged in the Senate, the National Rifle Association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation and Mayors Against Illegal Guns each spent more on federal-level lobbying during the year’s first three months than in any previous quarter.

Raytheon, United Technologies and General Dynamics also fired up their lobbying machines from January to March, easily surpassing their spending from the same period one year ago as budget sequestration forced them to face down deep cuts to their bottom lines.

Northrop Grumman, at $5.8 million, posted its third biggest lobbying quarter in company history.

And Facebook’s $2.45 million in first-quarter lobbying expenses obliterated its previous quarterly record — $1.4 million during the final three months of 2012 — as it pressed lawmakers and governmental agencies on a variety of issues, from online advertising and privacy concerns to taxation and supporting visas and permanent residency for highly skilled foreign workers.

But those are exceptions.

About three-fifths of the nation’s 100 top lobbying organizations spent less on lobbying during the year’s first quarter than during the first quarter of 2012, a Center for Public Integrity analysis of congressional disclosure reports and Center for Responsive Politics data indicates.

A slight majority of them also spent less on lobbying from January through March than they did from October through December — a period on Capitol Hill marked by an election and a congressional recess-induced lull, interrupted by an end-of-the-year flurry of fiscal cliff activity.

This decline mirrors a recent trend in U.S. politics in which traditional lobbying spending, which experienced unbridled growth last decade, has recessed of late. Overall, fewer lobbyists are registering with the federal government, and some companies and special interests are diverting funds to government influence activity that doesn't necessarily fit Congress' definition of what constitutes formal lobbying activity.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce this quarter retained its perennial perch atop the list of top lobbying spenders, although its collective first-quarter output ($16.8 million, when including affiliates) is dramatically down from recent quarters.

The Chamber spent nearly $26.4 million during last year’s first quarter. During the final quarter of last year, in spent more than $40.6 million, in large part because it ranks among a small group of lobbies that opt to disclose state- and grassroots-level lobbying (and sometimes political organizing) costs alongside federally focused efforts.

Attribute the recent drop-off to 2013 not being an election year, Chamber spokeswoman Blair Latoff Holmes said, noting that the nation’s largest trade group still spent heavily on its policy agenda to “generate stronger, more robust economic growth and create jobs.”

That, according to its disclosures, included lobbying implementation of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law as well as the oversight capabilities of the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Google’s lobbying expenditures had been on a torrid pace of late, as the omnipresent Internet company jumped from $1.5 million during the first quarter of 2011 to $5.4 million during the first quarter of 2012. But it throttled back this past quarter, spending less than $3.4 million on a range of topics that include federal regulation of online advertising and consumer privacy.

Among the dozens of other prominent lobbies that spent less during the first quarter than they did during the same period last year: AT&T ($7.1 million to $4.3 million), General Electric ($5.7 million to $5.2 million), the American Hospital Association ($4.5 million to $3.8 million), Verizon Communications ($4.6 million to $3.7 million), Dow Chemical ($3.3 million to $2.7 million), drug maker Pfizer ($3.6 million to $2.9 million) and the American Bankers Association ($2.7 million to $1.6 million).

While many defense contractors experienced lobbying growth early this year, Boeing and Lockheed Martin experienced slight spending declines during the first quarter compared to the same period last year.

Of those that spent more, the National Association of Realtors ($6.1 million to $8.5 million) led all others in overall first quarter spending. But like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Realtors report their lobbying activity broadly, and their first quarter spending was significantly down from the final three months of 2012, when it burned through nearly $15.5 million.

Many oil-related companies and associations also reported first-quarter lobbying spikes, including ExxonMobil ($4.2 million to $4.8 million), Koch Industries ($2.3 million to $2.6 million), Chevron ($3.2 million to $3.7 million), the American Petroleum Institute ($1.8 million to $2.1 million) and Occidental Petroleum ($1.6 million to $2.1 million).

The American Medical Association, CTIA-The Wireless Association, AARP, Altria, America’s Health Insurance Plans and the National Association of Manufacturers also recorded mild to moderate increases.

While not among the nation’s biggest lobbying spenders, the National Rifle Association spent $810,000 during the first three months of the year to lobby the federal government — the most ever during a first quarter.

The money appeared to be well spent, as Senate Republicans, aided by a few Democrats, blocked passage of all major gun control legislation championed by President Barack Obama and most of his partisan brethren.

Meanwhile, Mayors Against Illegal Guns spent a quarter-million dollars from January through March — five times what it typically does.

The organization, led by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Tom Menino, never spent beyond $60,000 during a single quarter to lobby the federal government.

Obama inauguration fueled by corporations, unions

2013-04-24T10:49:15-04:00

Corporations, unions and special interest groups fueled President Barack Obama's second inauguration ceremonies with more than $18 million — money the commander in chief generally rejected during his first inaugural.

The total represents more than 40 percent of the nearly $44.6 million the Presidential Inaugural Committee 2013 collected, according to a disclosure document filed Saturday night with the Federal Election Commission.

Many of the companies and unions that donated to the president's 2013 inauguration rank among the most powerful government lobbying forces in the nation, collectively spending hundreds of millions of dollars attempting to influence federal policy since Obama first took office.

The Presidential Inaugural Committee 2013's seven-figure donors include some of the nation's most notable corporate names, the FEC filing reveals.

Among them are telecommunications giant AT&T ($4.6 million), software maker Microsoft ($2.1 million), aviation and defense firm Boeing ($1 million) and oil company Chevron ($1 million).

Those that gave $250,000 to $750,000 include:

Biotech company Genentech ($750,000)
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices ($500,000)
Accounting firm Deloitte ($500,000)
Event and trade show company Hargrove ($500,000)
FedEx ($500,000)
Coca-Cola ($430,000)
Bank of America ($300,000)
Xerox Corp. ($250,000)
ExxonMobil ($250,000)
Financial Innovations ($250,000)
Hisvision Inc. ($250,000)
PSP Capital Partners ($250,000)
International Association Of Fire Fighters ($250,000)
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ($250,000)
International Brotherhood of Teamsters ($250,000)
National Education Association ($250,000)

Among the several dozen other such entities making five- or six-figure contributions were the American Federation of Government Employees, American Hospital Association, American Postal Workers Union, Centene Management Corp., Comcast Corp., Credit Union National Association, Edison Electric Institute and the Forest County Potawatomi Community.

Also: Laborers International Union of North America, Northrop Grumman, Pepco, Service Employees International Union, Southern Co., United States Steel Corp., United Therapeutics, Visa and Verizon Communications Inc.

Several dozen individuals also gave $50,000 or more, the inaugural committee's filing indicates.

The 2013 inaugural committee turned away donations from federally registered lobbyists, political action committees, foreign governments, political parties, registered foreign agents or anyone under the age of 16, as it did four years before.

But Obama’s 2009 inaugural committee had banned corporate contributions altogether and limited individual donations to $50,000.

Obama — long a critic of the influence of lobbyists and big money's influence on politics — this year instituted no such prohibition for corporations, special interests or labor unions that together employ hundreds of lobbyists to influence government policy and legislation. Individuals could also give any amount.

Several political advocacy groups or their affiliates indeed made contributions, according to records.

The inaugural committee reported a $10,000 contribution from the Miami headquarters of Greenberg Traurig, a law firm whose Washington, D.C., office provides government lobbying services for dozens of clients and once employed Jack Abramoff, the fallen lobbyist who served more than three years in federal prison.

Lobbying firm Capitol Council, which also represents dozens of clients, gave $12,500.

Virginia-based Purple Strategies, a bipartisan public affairs firm run by several prominent Democratic and Republican political operatives, contributed $15,000.

The Democratic Governors Association gave $55,000. And Priorities USA, the lower-profile nonprofit sister organization of pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA Action, also chipped in $10,000.

The inaugural committee also reported refunding more than $1 million in contributions — including $150,000 from the Machinist Nonpartisan Political League Multicandidate Committee and $10,000 from the Asbestos Workers Political Action Committee. This means it took in a net of about $43.2 million.

(Update, April 24, 10:46 a.m.: The inaugural committee on April 23 filed an amendment to its original disclosure report, which states that it collected just more than $44 million in donations and refunded almost $1.1 million for net income of more than $42.9 million.)

About 16,000 itemized donations are listed in the inaugural committee's disclosure. Almost $4.6 million worth of the inaugural committee's smal-dollar contributions (those $200 or less) were unitemized.

An inaugural committee representative couldn't immediately be reached for comment late Saturday.

Last January, the committee said in a statement that “the inaugural is a civic event and our guidelines aren’t just consistent with the law — they are consistent with the president’s commitment to transparency and to reducing the influence of PACs and lobbyists in Washington.”

Obama's ceremonial inauguration took place Jan. 21 on the steps of the U.S. Capitol before hundreds of thousands of onlookers.

As is tradition, a parade and series of presidential balls followed the ceremonial swearing-in ceremony. (Obama actually began his second term the day before.)

Obama's new nonprofit lobbying group, Organizing for Action, initially planned to accept corporate donations but ultimately decided against doing so. It does accept unlimited contributions from most individuals and unions, and much of the initial money it's raised has come from a few wealthy donors.

NRA spends record money on lobbying this year

2013-04-30T22:39:15-04:00

As gun control debates raged in Congress early this year, the National Rifle Association increased its federal government lobbying expenditures to record levels, new filings with the U.S. Senate indicate.

The NRA and affiliated National Rifle Association of America Institute for Legislative Action together spent at least $800,000 lobbying the federal government during the first quarter — more than any year covering the same period, according to federal records.

Such aggressive advocacy preceded a major legislative victory Wednesday for gun advocates, as the U.S. Senate defeated a proposal to expand background checks on guy buyers.

And it came as gun control advocates — from President Barack Obama and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the families of children killed last year in Newtown, Conn. — pressured lawmakers to pass laws limiting purchases of firearms.

The NRA groups' first-quarter lobbying expenditures have been steadily increasing in recent years, but never cracked the $700,000 mark.

During the first three months of 2012, they spent $695,000. That follows $675,000 in 2011 and $615,000 in 2010.

This year, the NRA's lobbying efforts were exclusively directed at the House and Senate, according to federal disclosures. The group lobbied on numerous U.S. House and Senate bills proposed by federal legislators.

Among them:

H.R. 751, the Protect America's Schools Act of 2013
H.R. 274, the Mental Health First Act of 2013
H.R. 329, the Strengthening Background Checks Act of 2013
H.R. 575, the Second Amendment Protection Act of 2013
S. 54, the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act of 2013
S. 374, the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013
S. 146, the School and Campus Safety Enhancements Act of 2013
S. 174, the Ammunition Background Check Act of 2013
S. 480, the NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2013
H.R. 138 and S. 33, the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act
H.R. 142 and S. 35, the Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act of 2013
H.R. 437 and S. 150, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013

The NRA itself spent $700,000 lobbying the federal government during the first quarter, federal records show. Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's chief executive, was among 12 in-house NRA officials to lobby during the year's first three months.

Several contract lobbying firms, including Crossroads Strategies, Prime Policy Group, FTI Government Affairs and Shockey Scofield Solutions, combined to spend at least another $100,000 lobbying on behalf of the NRA or National Rifle Association of America Institute for Legislative Action from January through March.

Companies, unions and special interest groups that lobby the federal government have until Monday to submit mandatory first quarter lobbying disclosure reports to Congress.

The NRA and its affiliate spent nearly $3 million on federal-level lobbying in 2012 — more than it has during any previous year, according to data maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics, but spending during this year's first quarter puts it on pace to exceed that mark.

Terrorism, disasters can't stop political fundraising

2013-04-19T18:10:56-04:00

The terrorist bombing in Boston and the subsequent manhunt there provided tragic bookends to a horrific week also marred by a massive industrial explosion in Texas, a tornado outbreak in Oklahoma, flooding in Illinois and attempted ricin attacks in Washington, D.C.

All of that wasn't enough, however, to keep several prominent politicians, political parties and special interest groups from attending to other business: fundraising.

"Giant thorn in Boehner's side" is the title of one fundraising message Thursday from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to supporters, which warns them: "Tomorrow is our ad buy deadline in the South Carolina special election. Elizabeth Colbert Busch (yeah, Stephen’s sister!) has a real chance to become the first Democrat to represent this ruby-red district in 30 years."

But it continues, ominously: "Right now, Elizabeth is in danger of getting drowned out by misleading Republican attacks. We can’t let that happen — especially in a tough district like this. We need $200,000 by midnight tomorrow for our Democratic Rapid Response Fund to fight Republican attacks like these and set the record straight."

It followed a Wednesday morning e-mail in which DCCC Executive Director Kelly Ward writes on Colbert Busch's behalf: "Look, stand with us right now and chip in $3 or more today" before providing a hyperlink to a contribution form.

Sponsors of an upcoming fundraiser for Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., on Thursday emailed potential attendees to "cordially invite" them to a Wednesday event on Capitol Hill hosted in part by lobbyists, such as Sam Geduldig and Dejan Pavlovic, and Charlie Spies, a political strategist who helped run the pro-Mitt Romney Restore Our Future super PAC.

The event, which requires a minimum $250 contribution, will benefit the Rubio Victory Committee, a joint fundraising committee that splits money raised between Rubio's campaign committee and leadership political action committee.

Ken Martin of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, meanwhile, wrote backers Thursday to promote congressional candidate Jim Graves — and beat up on Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn. — while asking for cash.

"We know that early money can make all the difference in a close race like this," Martin writes. "So please, don’t wait. Now is the time to get involved. We must seize this chance to defeat Rep. Bachmann."

Today, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee didn't fundraise but informed supporters of the fruits of its fundraising: a $100,000 ad buy that will first "pressure Sen. Max Baucus this Sunday in seven papers across Montana" as part of holding "the four Democratic senators who voted against background checks this week accountable."

President Barack Obama's lobbying nonprofit, Organizing for Action, also expressed agitation over the Senate's gun vote Wednesday in a message to supporters.

"The special interests have been at this longer, and they can do a real good job at scaring people by distorting the facts — they think we'll go away quietly," Executive Director Jon Carson writes. "But there are so many more of us than there are of them. And as long as you don't give up, we're going to keep fighting, and someday soon, we will win."

The email steers clear of fundraising through most of the message, but includes a quick pitch after Carson's signature.

"Let's keep fighting for change," it reads. "Chip in $5 or more to support Organizing for Action today."

Meehan stockpiling cash for future political run?

2013-04-17T11:49:24-04:00

A cool $4.7 million could buy you Dodgers pitcher Zack Greinke's new compound.

Or this cyclotron.

Or — yes — the original Batmobile.

For ex-Rep. Marty Meehan, such a cash stash ($4,661,671, to be exact, according to a new federal campaign disclosure report) sits quietly in a congressional campaign account the Massachusetts Democrat hasn't had much need for since he resigned from Congress in 2007 to become chancellor of the University of Massachusetts Lowell.

But Meehan may yet use the money for its intended purpose: seeking elected office.

"I have no immediate plans, but I'm only 56 years old," he told the Center for Public Integrity by phone. "I haven't made a firm decision, I haven't decided I could never be a candidate for office again."

Any run for higher office, if one ever occurred, would likely come years from now, Meehan said.

"If you're trying to have a transformative impact on a university, that usually takes about 10 years," he said. "I'm very happy doing what I'm doing."

Meehan recently was the subject of brief but intense speculation that he'd seek the U.S. Senate seat John Kerry vacated in January to become Secretary of State. He did not run, telling The Eagle-Tribune in December: "I’m not thinking of leaving to go back into politics in Washington.”

Immediate federal-level options in Massachusetts beyond U.S. House seats are scant: Kerry's former seat is slated to be filled in a June special election, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., just began her six-year term in January.

Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick's current term expires in 2015 and he's pledged not to seek a third term.

But Massachusetts campaign finance law prohibits transfers of federal campaign cash to state-level candidate committees, meaning Meehan couldn't easily tap his stash. Massachusetts law does state that a state-level candidate may "coordinate arrangements, with a federal committee that refunds contributions pursuant to federal law, for a solicitation of the same contributors by the candidate's committee."

For now, Meehan — long a campaign finance reform advocate — says he won't convert his federal campaign committee into a super PAC or other such big-dollar political vehicle, even if he one day categorically decides against re-entering electoral politics.

If anything, he says he'd donate his leftover campaign funds to charities, or perhaps give some away to Democratic brethren, as he has to a modest degree in recent years.

Meehan is co-author of the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill of 2002, which served as the House of Representatives companion to the better-known McCain-Feingold Act, also known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. The Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision was a setback for reform, leading to the creation of free-spending organizations known as super PACs.

Meehan said such organizations are "bad for the system."

He says he'd love to see the ratification of a constitutional amendment overturning the Citizens United decision.

"But I look at the composition of the Congress and this seems unlikely — very unlikely," Meehan said. "There would have to be a change in the composition of the [Supreme] Court for something to happen."

Massa quits paying wife from campaign account

2013-04-16T14:07:47-04:00

During the three years since Rep. Eric Massa resigned his congressional seat after male staffers accused him of sexual harassment, the Upstate New York Democrat has paid his wife — and campaign treasurer — a monthly salary from his dormant re-election account.

Apparently, no longer.

Beverly Massa received no money from the Massa for Congress campaign committee between Jan. 1 and March 31, according to its latest Federal Election Commission disclosure report, filed Monday evening.

It's an abrupt change: Since Eric Massa quit Congress in March 2010, Beverly Massa consistently earned up to $2,404 per month to keep the books for a candidate committee with no active candidate, disclosure documents indicate.

Beverly Massa's monthly salary dropped to $1,694 per month in December 2010, then $1,292 in October 2011, before creeping back up to $1,294 in January 2012. In July 2012, it fell again to $692 per month.

For most cases, Beverly Massa's salary payments were earmarked for work performed during Eric Massa's 2010 primary, although a January 2012 payment of $1,294 went toward a "2012 primary" in which Eric Massa never ran.

In all, the Massa for Congress committee has paid Beverly Massa nearly $79,000 since its namesake candidate ceased to be a candidate, including a lump payment of $27,000 on April 1, 2010, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of federal disclosures.

Such payments are highly unusual for a defunct congressional committee, which usually require minimal accounting attention. Many simply terminate themselves upon clearing any outstanding debt, donating surplus funds to other political committees or charitable organizations.

Phone messages left for both Beverly and Eric Massa were not immediately returned.

The Massa for Congress committee still had $61,520 remaining in its account as of March 31.

During the year's first quarter, Massa for Congress spent just $809, all on payroll taxes and service fees to payroll management company Paychex.

Allen West fuels his nonprofit with campaign cash

2013-04-15T23:53:40-04:00

Vanquished Rep. Allen West, R-Fla., is using his boatload of surplus campaign cash to fuel another political endeavor — building his newly created nonprofit organization.

West's still-active campaign committee made a "charitable donation" of $400,000 to the Allen West Foundation on March 27, according to a filing submitted to the Federal Election Commission today.

This is on top of $250,000 his campaign donated to the Allen West Foundation in January.

West formally established the Allen West Foundation in March as a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization, saying he intends to use it to train and educate conservative candidates who are minorities or have military backgrounds. He also plans to have the nonprofit group directly involve itself in political races.

During the 2012 election cycle, 501(c)(4) groups, which by law cannot have a primary purpose of engaging in politics, spent hundreds of millions of dollars directly advocating for and against political candidates — advocacy made possible by the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling in 2010.

Such nonprofits may raise and spend unlimited amounts of money, but unlike another kind of powerful electioneering entity — the super PAC — 501(c)(4) groups aren't generally required to reveal their donors.

Donations from a campaign committee to a nonprofit group are legal, and there are no restrictions on the amount. Candidates may also donate campaign funds to their own charities, as former presidential candidate and Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, did earlier this month.

West also spent about $178,400 to fund legal efforts surrounding a vote recount from the November election, in which Democratic challenger and current Rep. Patrick Murphy ultimately won by a narrow margin.

The race, in which West and Murphy combined to spend $24.1 million, was the nation's most expensive House race during 2012, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. West accounted for the vast majority of that spending.

Super PACs and nonprofits, meanwhile, spent an additional $6.5 million in the race.

West's campaign committee ended March with nearly $143,000 in the bank and no debt.

The former congressman also operates a political action committee, the Allen West Guardian Fund, which reported less than $9,000 cash on hand through December.

GOP super donor Bob Perry dead at 80

2013-04-16T16:17:49-04:00

Texas homebuilder Bob Perry, who ranks among the nation's most generous donors to Republican candidates and causes, has died at age 80.

Perry is perhaps best known in political circles for helping bankroll an aggressive media campaign against Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry as part of a 527 political committee known as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

During the 2012 election cycle alone, Perry contributed $23.5 million to a variety of GOP super PACs.

They include:

$10 million to Restore Our Future (pro-Mitt Romney)
$8.5 million to American Crossroads (pro-Republican)
$1 million to the Congressional Leadership Fund (pro-Republican)
$1 million to Independence Virginia PAC (pro-George Allen)
$1 million to Club for Growth Action (pro-conservative)
$1 million to Freedom Fund North America (pro-Denny Rehberg; pro-Rick Berg)
$600,000 to Texas Conservatives Fund (pro-David Dewhurst)
$250,000 to Freedom PAC (pro-Connie Mack; pro-Allen West)
$100,000 to Make Us Great Again (pro-Rick Perry)
$15,000 to Maverick PAC USA (pro-Republican)

Perry also financially supported multiple Republican presidential candidates at once last cycle, donating early in the election season to Mitt Romney, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who Bob Perry has long backed at the state level. (The two men are not related.)

For a full Center for Public Integrity profile of Perry, click here.

Wealthy supporters fuel Obama nonprofit

2013-04-12T23:15:10-04:00

Sixteen people accounted for nearly a quarter of the $4.8 million collected by Organizing for Action, the self-described "grassroots" nonprofit group affiliated with President Barack Obama that was created to push the White House’s policy agenda.

About 109,000 people gave money to the nonprofit from January through March, Organizing for Action announced today.

Donors from California ($568,215), New York ($363,893), New Jersey ($221,737), Florida ($84,010) and Massachusetts ($75,975) gave the most, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.

The top donor by far was Philip Munger of New York City who gave $250,000. Munger is a philanthropist, academic and long-time contributor to Democratic causes.

Next were John Goldman of Atherton, Calif., and Nicola M. Miner of San Francisco who both gave $125,000. Goldman is former chairman of Willis Insurance Service of California, Inc. a U.S. branch of a global insurance brokerage firm. Miner is the daughter of Bob Miner, co-founder of Oracle Corp. and wife of John Mailer Anderson, a novelist and screenwriter.

Of the top 16 donors, each who gave $50,000 or more, nine are Obama campaign bundlers — elite fundraisers credited with raising funds from well-connected friends, family members and associates, then delivering it in a "bundle." Organizing for Action bills itself as nonpartisan.

Among other top donors:

Orin S. Kramer of Englewood, N.J. ($75,000): Chairman of hedge fund Kramer Spellman LP and former Clinton administration transition team adviser.
Ryan Smith of Salt Lake City ($50,875): CEO of Qualtrics, a Utah company that produces Web-based software for surveys.
Anthony P. Crabb of Healdsburg, Calif. ($50,000): Philanthropist and marriage equality advocate.
Barbara Grasseschi of Healdsburg, Calif. ($50,000): Bundler who raised at least $200,000 for Obama’s re-election efforts and is married to Crabb.
John Morgan of Orlando, Fla. ($50,000): Partner at Morgan & Morgan, the Florida law firm that employs former Gov. and Republican-turned-Democrat Charlie Crist. Morgan is also a campaign bundler who raised at least $500,000 for Obama’s re-election efforts.
Laura Debonis of Boston ($50,000): Former director of the Google Books Library Project.
William H. Freeman of Nashville, Tenn. ($50,000): Campaign bundler who raised at least $500,000 for Obama’s re-election efforts.
Wayne Jordan of Oakland, Calif. ($50,000): Campaign bundler who raised at least $500,000 for Obama’s re-election efforts.
Michael Kempner of East Rutherford, N.J. ($50,000): Campaign bundler who raised at least $500,000 for Obama’s re-election efforts.
Charles H. Murphy III of Little Rock, Ark. ($50,000): Founder of Murphy Oil Corporation.
S. Donald Sussman of Portland, Maine ($50,000): Prominent hedge fund investor.
Andrew Tobias of New York City ($50,000): Treasurer of the Democratic National Committee and gay rights activist. Also a bundler who raised at least $500,000 for Obama’s re-election efforts.
Imaad Zuberi of El Monte, Calif. ($50,000): Campaign bundler who raised at least $500,000 for Obama’s re-election efforts.

About 60 percent of the group’s money appears to have come from donors who gave less than $250 and were not identified.

Although the group actively collects donors' employer and occupation information, it has declined to release such information publicly. Withholding such data complicates confirming the identities of donors with common names.

As a nonprofit organization, Organizing for Action is not required to release any information about its donors — unlike campaign committees or super PACs. And for weeks after its founding early this year, leaders offered no indication that it would.

After pressure from campaign finance reformers and others, the group relented and agreed to reveal some donor information. The group also reversed course on seeking corporate contributions. It also refuses lobbyist money, but accepts cash from unions.

The National Education Association is one union that donated early this year, giving the pro-Obama nonprofit $15,466.

Not all big-dollar Obama backers, however, have contributed to Organizing for Action.

For example, the four largest donors to the pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA Action — James H. Simons, Fred Eychaner, Steve Mostyn and Jeffrey Katzenberg — were absent from Organizing for Action's donor list.

Reity O'Brien and John Dunbar contributed to this report.

McCain campaign reels in riches from 2008 legal fund

2013-04-09T18:13:27-04:00

More than four years after the fact, John McCain the senator is benefiting big time from John McCain the presidential candidate.

That's because the McCain-Palin Compliance Fund Inc. of a presidential election more than four years distant transferred $819,200 this winter to the Arizona Republican's U.S. Senate campaign committee, according to a document filed today with the Federal Election Commission.

Cash transfers between established political committees are in general, legal, and McCain for several years after the 2008 election routinely shuttled funds among the several political committees under his watch. They include his 2008 presidential committee, a Senate committee, joint fundraising committees and a leadership political action committee.

But the McCain-Palin Compliance Fund was supposed to raise private dollars to pay for legal and accounting costs associated with McCain complying with presidential campaign finance rules.

It now will ostensibly fuel a Senate re-election bid, which would next come in 2016 for the 76-year-old senator.

As it was, McCain — the last major presidential candidate to accept public presidential matching funds in exchange for limiting private donations — used a portion of the McCain-Palin Compliance Fund's money in 2008 for advertising, travel, facility rentals, finance consulting, website services and other such expenses, exploiting a legal loophole in federal election law.

Last year, the compliance fund also donated $9 million to an educational foundation that bears McCain's name and is run by a trio of the senator's top political fundraisers.

McCain first created the compliance committee in February 2008 under the name John McCain 2008 General Election Compliance Fund, amending its name when adding then-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, according to federal records.

The compliance fund's overriding prohibition: it could not directly fund McCain's presidential campaigning efforts, for which he had a separate political committee.

The fund, however, transferred $550,000 in February to the yet-to-be-terminated John McCain 2008 Inc., which as of March 31 reported $633,000 cash on hand. The transfer was legal, apparently, because the race was over.

A McCain representative could not immediately be reached for comment.

Update, 4:49 p.m.: McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said in an email that the senator plans this year to consolidate the cash across his remaining presidential-related accounts into his Senate committee.

"The [compliance fund] is getting closed out this year, so transferring those funds to the campaign committee gives Senator McCain maximum flexibility to manage them in the coming months and years," Rogers wrote.

Rogers concurs that such transfers are legal, and he notes that former Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., transferred 2004 presidential compliance fund cash into his Senate committee three years after losing his own White House bid.

Immediately before the 2008 presidential election, the McCain-Palin Compliance Fund boasted more than $20.5 million in its account. That amount has dwindled to less than $35,000 as of March 31, according to its latest filing.

While transferring money from a compliance fund to a dormant campaign appears legal, an online donation form for the McCain-Palin Compliance Fund, which was active until being taken down following this article's posting (see screenshot), seems to suggest otherwise.

It reads, in part: "Contributions to the Compliance Fund will be used solely for legal and accounting services to ensure compliance with federal law, including a portion of the cost of broadcast advertising, campaign offices, and computer/website expenses. Federal law prohibits the Compliance Fund contributions from being used for a candidate's election."

Ron Paul using campaign cash to aid his nonprofit

2013-04-09T17:31:46-04:00

Texan Ron Paul's congressional career is over, but he's still helping himself from his well-stocked campaign account.

On March 11, the Committee to Re-Elect Ron Paul donated $150,000 to the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, a nonprofit charitable group Paul himself founded in 1976, according to documents filed today with the Federal Election Commission. Carol Paul, his wife, is the group's president, Internal Revenue Service documents show.

The Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, which shares a Texas address with Paul's congressional committee, describes itself as "dedicated to individual liberty and free-market economics." It is also the publisher of "Ron Paul's Freedom Report," a periodic newsletter.

Additionally, it this year is publishing Paul's wonky weekly column, the most recent of which focused on the financial meltdown of Cyprus. Paul, long a backer of a gold standard and currency competition, used it to deride the island nation's "fiat paper money system combined with fractional reserve banking" and advocate that the United States "end the Federal Reserve, stay away from propping up the euro and return to a sound monetary system."

The Foundation for Rational Economics and Education's most recent filing with the Internal Revenue Service lists assets of nearly $653,000 at the beginning of 2011, up from the more than $564,000 a year earlier. Like other nonprofits, the foundation is not required to disclose its donors on its IRS filings.

By law, political campaign committees may contribute unlimited surplus funds to 501(c)(3) charitable nonprofits such as the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, and there's no prohibition on a former candidate directing those funds to his or her own charity.

With the $150,000 contribution to his nonprofit, Paul has all but tapped out his congressional account, which reported about $27,300 cash on hand as of the end of March, federal filings show.

But Paul's 2012 presidential campaign committee reported nearly $1.1 million in available cash and no debt through December, according to its most recent filing with the FEC.

It may soon be known what, if anything, it has done with this leftover cash. The committee has until April 15 to file its next financial report, as the FEC in January approved its request to change its filing frequency from monthly to quarterly.

Paul, a libertarian-leaning Republican, left Congress in January after failing to win the 2012 Republican presidential nomination and opting against seeking re-election to his Houston-area U.S. House seat.

Air show lobbyists to buzz Capitol Hill

2013-04-03T14:47:52-04:00

A trade group for air shows — stung in recently weeks by sequestration's grounding of military aircraft demonstrations — is launching a government affairs offensive.

Lobbying firm Van Scoyoc Associates is now representing the International Council of Air Shows, Inc., lobbying on "air shows regarding sequestration related issues," according to a U.S. Senate document filed today. It marks the first time the International Council of Air Shows has ever hired federal lobbyists.

Jennifer Cave, a former legislative aide to ex-Sen. John Warner, R-Va., is one of two lobbyists handing the account, the filing indicates. Cave also has worked as a special assistant to the National Security Council and Senate Armed Services Committee.

Michael W. Schupp will also lobby on the International Council of Air Shows's behalf.

The move to hire lobbyists is necessary because the freeze on military aircraft demonstrations, such as those conducted by the Air Force's Thunderbirds and Navy's Blue Angels, "represents a threat to our existence as an industry," said John Cudahy, the council's president.

"Dozens, maybe hundreds, of air shows across the country will go out of business if this continues," Cudahy told the Center for Public Integrity. "Some areas have had 10, 15 or 20 percent cuts they've had to deal with. We've seen a 100 percent cut in the support the U.S. military can provide air shows."

Cudahy argues that air shows generate up to $1.5 billion in business annually and are often the public's only up-close link to the military equipment its tax dollars fund. Several dozen air shows — of the roughly 350 that typically take place — have already been canceled this year, he added.

"It's never been necessary for us to hire a lobbyist. It's a pretty mom-and-apple-pie industry," Cudahy said. "But we have to do this now."

Van Scoyoc Associates is being retained on a month-to-month contract, Cudahy added.

In a message to members this month on its website, the Council also urged supporters to individually advocate for air shows whenever possible.

"Tell the public about all of the aerial entertainment that will be available at your event. Emphasize your dates, location and website URL," the message stated.

It continued: "Even if your show never expected to receive military support, turn the media’s current interest in air shows into an opportunity to raise awareness about your event in your community. In 'normal' circumstances, you would welcome coverage and exposure many weeks before your event, so be sure to take full advantage of that publicity in these not-so-normal times."