Alex Knott stories from The Center for Public Integrity

Abramoff plea: digging up K Street

2011-11-17T16:12:27-05:00

Lobbyist Jack Abramoff's guilty plea to charges of mail fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials, could potentially open a Pandora's Box on both K Street and Capitol Hill, industry experts said.

"This thing is going to get a lot worse before it gets a lot better," said Paul Miller, President of the American League of Lobbyists. "And as busy as it's been, this is the calm before the storm."

The storm will be sparked by Abramoff's plea agreement, which stipulates that the lobbyist must provide information and testimony to prosecutors "concerning any matter," presumably including his dealings with members of Congress and their staff as investigators continue to scrutinize the relationship between politicians and K Street.

Throughout the past decade, the Center for Public Integrity has scrutinized and monitored the lobbying industry. The Center's LobbyWatch project provides access to data from 2.2 million public documents and details who the lobbyists and lobbying firms are, how much they spend and on whom.

For example, the Center found that Abramoff was one of 52 registered lobbyists who were major fundraisers for George W. Bush's presidential campaigns. Abramoff raised at least $100,000 for Bush's 2004 campaign and lobbied on issues brought before the White House for 19 clients.

In addition, federally registered lobbyists have served as the treasurers of at least 868 political committees since 1998. These committees have spent more than $525 million to influence the political process.

Abramoff is only one—albeit one of the most high profile—of the many well-connected operatives who have sought to reshape the political landscape through money and access. The Center for Public Integrity's LobbyWatch, an ongoing series of stories and a frequently updated database, reveals that the lobbying industry has grown more pervasive and influential on all political levels, over time becoming a "fourth branch of government."

Prosecutors' ability to require that Abramoff provide evidence about his transactions with members of Congress, congressional staffers and executive branch officials marks a turning point in this paradigm. Abramoff's plea gives credence to calls for greater transparency throughout the lobbying industry and will serve as a catalyst for increased scrutiny of K-Street activities.

"It [the Abramoff plea] has people shaking in their boots a little," said Celia Viggo Wexler, the vice president for advocacy at Common Cause. "What he did goes beyond the pale, and not what a typical lobbyist would do. But there are plenty of lobbyists wining and dining out there."

There are laws regulating the industry, but compliance is incomplete. Currently, the Senate has less than a dozen people who keep track of the $2 billion-a-year lobbying industry. An April 2005 Center study found that nearly 14,000 documents that should have been filed periodically with the Senate Office of Public Records were missing. Similarly, 49 of the top 50 lobbying firms had failed to file one or more required forms.

In addition, the Center for Public Integrity has issued numerous reports and investigative studies on lobbying industry issues, including:

The Revolving Door: In April 2005, the Center for Public Integrity revealed that more than 2,200 former federal government employees had registered as federal lobbyists between 1998 and 2004 and that nearly 250 former members of Congress and agency heads had registered to lobby.

Campaign Finance: A Center study revealed that more than 1,300 registered lobbyists have personally given more than $1.8 million to President Bush from 1998 through March 2004. Senator John Kerry received $520,000 from 442 lobbyists during the same period.

Lobbying the White House

2011-11-17T16:12:27-05:00

Not many companies change their names to accommodate a recent hire, but not every new employee has the standing of Kirk Blalock. In a town where influence is predicated on who you know, Blalock's connections are a conspicuously valuable commodity. As special assistant to the president, he often counseled George W. Bush and crafted political strategies with now-Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove. And as deputy director of the White House Office of Public Liaison, he coordinated the Bush administration's outreach to the business community—a role that gave him unique stature along Washington, D.C.'s K Street corridor.

Perhaps that's why in October 2003, just 11 months after Blalock left public service for Fierce & Isakowitz, the 25-year-old lobbying shop made him a name partner. It proved to be a profitable decision: Since Blalock's arrival, the firm has nearly doubled its annual revenue to more than $6 million, with its new marquee partner involved in much of the business. In fact, during Blalock's freshman year at what is now Fierce, Isakowitz & Blalock, he personally registered to lobby on behalf of 33 clients. Of those, more than 20* listed the White House as a lobbying target.

Blalock was part of a team that lobbied the White House for the American Forest & Paper Association in support of the Healthy Forests Initiative, a legislative plan that was billed as a common-sense way to reduce the threat of destructive wildfires. The proposal was applauded by Blalock's timber-business client as a way to address the "crisis" facing the nation's federal forests, but roundly criticized by environmental organizations as being a mere giveaway to the timber industry. On Dec. 3, 2003, over the vehement protests of those environmentalists, President Bush signed the Healthy Forests Restoration Act into law.

Lobbying the White House, as the American Forest and Paper Association did in that legislative fight, has become an increasingly preferred tactic in Washington. More than one in five of those lobbying the federal government since 1998 have lobbied the offices of the White House, according to a study by the Center for Public Integrity. More than 4,600 companies, trade associations and interest groups have directly lobbied the 14 offices of the White House, including those of the president and vice president. In fact, over the past seven years, the White House has been lobbied by more parties than have the Federal Communications Commission and the departments of Education and Veterans Affairs combined.

From Pennsylvania Avenue to K Street and back

Because industry profits can be affected by agency budgets, executive orders and federal regulations, many lobbying firms are now employing veteran ex-White House officials like Blalock who can navigate the halls of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Indeed, a new Center analysis reveals that 273 former White House staffers registered as lobbyists since 1998. Collectively, this analysis shows, these lobbyists have represented more than 3,000 special interests. They have been personally involved in billings worth approximately $1 billion—or as much as 10 percent of all federal lobbying since 1998.

"It can be alleged that they can leverage their contact base and knowledge base to help out clients," Bertram J. Levine, co-author of a book about lobbyists, told the Center. Most lobbying can be beneficial, he added, even though it may involve inherent conflicts of interest. "If there is any problem in the way that this is done," Levine said, "the problem would reside with the policymakers and how they do their jobs."

Sometimes these new lobbyists work on the same issues and legislation that occupied them during their White House tenure. Consider, for example, Alexander "Sandy" Kress, a former education advisor to President George W. Bush who was the primary architect of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

These days Kress is a lobbyist for Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, the powerhouse global law firm. According to his disclosure forms, which must be filed with the House and Senate semiannually, Kress was part of a duo who lobbied the White House on education for some of the companies that have benefited handsomely from the law he helped create.He has lobbied for NCS Pearson Inc., which has received millions from the testing mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act. He also lobbied for Kumon North America—one of the world's largest providers of supplemental education, which has seen greater demand for its services with the passage of this law.

In some cases, however, the familiar "revolving door" has swung in reverse, sending denizens of K Street to the White House.

Andrew Card, the president's chief of staff, previously lobbied on issues like product liability for the American Automobile Manufacturers Association. Similarly, Philip Cooney, former chief of staff of the President's Council on Environmental Quality, lobbied for the American Petroleum Institute (he resigned his post last June after revelations that he had altered national climate-change reports and will soon be heading for a position with ExxonMobil). And there is Edwina Rogers, who was a lobbyist for NASSCOM (India's IT trade association) before working as associate director for the White House's National Economic Council. Then, in 2004, Rogers left government to lobby for the Erisa Industry Committee, which represents the interests of employers in matters relating to retirement, pensions, health care and other worker benefits.

All told, the Center identified 12 former registered lobbyists who have been hired to work in the various offices of the White House—sometimes formulating public policy about the various issues on which they once lobbied. Similarly, the Center found that the Bush administration appointed 92 lobbyists to its transition advisory teams between 2000 and 2001.

Pioneers of the West Wing

Not surprisingly, large campaign contributors are often among those employing well-connected lobbyists in hopes of influencing the White House. PricewaterhouseCoopers, one of the largest donors to the Bush-Cheney re-election effort, retained Cheney's former press secretary in 2002 to lobby on corporate accountability legislation brought before the Office of the Vice President.

The Center found 52 registered lobbyists who were major fundraisers for the Bush campaigns. These "bundlers" include so-called Mavericks (who raised $50,000), Pioneers (who raised $100,000) and Rangers (who raised $200,000). The donations gathered by each fundraiser were tabulated with "Solicitor Tracking Numbers" assigned by the campaigns—a way to insure that each fundraiser received due credit for the donations he or she collected. Such tracking numbers appear on disclosure forms signed by lobbyists Wayne Berman of Federalist Group, Thomas Loeffler of The Loeffler Group and David Metzner of American Continental Group Inc., all of whom pledged to raise $250,000 for Bush.

Embattled lobbyist Jack Abramoff raised $100,000 for Bush's 2004 campaign as a Pioneer and represented 15 clients that were lobbying the White House, including such business enterprises as Tyco International Ltd. and Unisys Corp. Abramoff is also listed among those lobbying the Executive Office of the President and the White House on behalf of three American Indian tribes, including the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe and the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians.

There are also hundreds of Bush Mavericks, Pioneers and Rangers working for companies that lobbied the federal government since Bush was inaugurated in 2001. Their ranks include Blalock, who already had close connections to Bush after leaving the White House. As a Pioneer, Blalock raised $100,000 for the president's re-election.

While Fierce, Isakowitz & Blalock can legitimately trade on the currency of Blalock's White House experience, the firm didn't disclose his previous employment there on more than a year's worth of lobbying forms. Congressional rules require that such positions be detailed on all lobbying disclosure forms for two years following the termination of that employment. But none of the 92 pages that mention Blalock's name from 2002-2003 fulfill this requirement.

Illegal defense

2011-09-16T11:21:07-04:00

The Center's analysis of the legal expense funds maintained by eight sitting members of Congress revealed that in addition to DeLay and Reid, those receiving questionable donations included Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. Those five legislators collectively received donations from 12 lobbyists, the Center found.

Legal expense funds are designed to defray costs related to a variety of proceedings, including ethics, civil and criminal matters. Both House and Senate rules forbid any "contribution or other payment by a registered lobbyist or an agent of a foreign principal to a legal expense fund." This prohibition is similar to one that bars lobbyists and foreign agents from paying for lawmakers' travel.

DeLay faces a possible investigation by the House ethics committee over allegations that embattled lobbyist Jack Abramoff paid for some of the Texas Republican's travel, including a golf outing to Scotland. Abramoff is currently under criminal and congressional investigation for allegedly bilking six American Indian tribes out of tens of millions of dollars, and in the process possibly circumventing lobbying disclosure laws.

The Center found that five registered lobbyists and one lobbying firm contributed a total of $8,000 to DeLay's legal defense fund, although $3,500 of that was later returned. DeLay established this fund—which has since raised slightly more than $1 million— on June 22, 2000, after the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee filed a lawsuit accusing him of extorting campaign contributions. That suit was settled in 2001.

McDermott received questionable donations to his legal defense fund from the second-highest number of contributors: four lobbyists gave a total of $2,500. Both Hatch and Reid, a Nevada Democrat, received one donation of $3,000 each, and Hyde accepted one of $1,000.

In all, the Center found, these five congressmen accepted $17,500 from lobbyists who together personally represented at least 350 companies.

In 2004, Public Citizen first challenged DeLay's legal expense fund for accepting four lobbyists' donations, including one from Vin Weber, who previously served as a Republican representative from Minnesota, and another from a lobbying firm. Following these allegations by the nonprofit consumer advocacy organization, DeLay refunded a $1,000 contribution to Weber and $2,500 donated by the firm of Locke Liddell & Sapp which is registered to lobby. At the time, DeLay fund trustee Brent Perry told the Houston Chronicle that these donations were "a mistake" and "shouldn't have been accepted."

But the Center found that DeLay's fund accepted two more donations from individual lobbyists, bringing the total of questionable donations to six.

"I can say with a great degree of clarity that all donations that are not in compliance will be returned," Delay spokesperson Kevin Madden told the Center. In addition to looking into these contributions, Madden said that DeLay's fund is currently having an audit done by an independent firm as a proactive effort and that will be completed "very shortly."

So far, only the donations from Locke Liddell & Sapp and from Weber have been returned, according to DeLay's legal expense fund records. McDermott's spokesman Mike DeCesare said yesterday that following the Center's investigation, the fund will be returning three of the four donations in question and is investigating the other one. "The best thing we can do is be aggressive about following the rules," he told the Center. "The people that deal with the fund are pulling the checks in question, and if it turns out that we should not have taken those donations, we will return them."

Meanwhile, Tessa Hafen, spokesperson for Reid, said his office has recently "talked to the Senate Ethics Committee to see if there was a violation and has asked them how proceed." She explained that the contribution may have been overlooked by Reid's fund because the donor had only recently become a lobbyist. "Sen. Reid and Ben Barnes have been friends for 30 years and no one on staff had realized that he had registered as a lobbyist just months earlier," she said.

It is unknown whether these apparent rule violations are under investigation, because all such inquiries are kept confidential by the ethics committees in both houses of Congress. While the Senate Office of Public Records and the House Legislative Resource Center collect disclosure forms filed by all legal defense funds, the responsibility for enforcing issues of compliance rests with the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and the Senate Select Committee on Ethics.

There are currently eight sitting members of Congress with legal expense funds, three of whom appear to be in compliance with this rule. The Center could not identify any donations to the legal expense funds of Rep. Corrine Brown, D-Fla., Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., or Rep. Brad Miller, D-N.C., as having come from lobbyists or foreign agents.

While the Center's study focused on the donations listed on available disclosure forms, it could not account for potential violations from a significant number of missing documents. Congressional records offices currently are missing 20 required quarterly legal expense disclosure forms—cumulatively five years' worth—for Hatch. Likewise, Brown's fund appears not to have filed five reports, while Reid's records are missing three reports.

"What must have happened is that they went to the wrong address," said Sen. Hatch's fund trustee Kevin W. Bates about the 20 missing filings. Bates contends that efforts were made initially to file the reports but that they may not have arrived for some unknown reason. He told the Center that he plans to send them to the Senate Office of Public Records as soon as possible.

Officials at congressional records offices say that these required forms may have never been filed with their offices. The only repercussions for not filing could come from the corresponding congressional ethics committees, if there are any consequences at all.

Rules authorizing the establishment of congressional legal expense funds were adopted in 1980 following the Abscam scandal, an FBI sting operation targeting House and Senate members that resulted in bribery and conspiracy convictions. These trust funds were created to allow members, officers and employees of the House and Senate to raise money to defray the costs of legal proceedings that result from their congressional service.

Unlike donations to political campaigns, details of which are maintained by the Federal Election Commission and accessible online, the transactions of congressional legal expense funds are only available for viewing at the records offices in Congress.

While these donations from registered lobbyists to legal expense funds appear to violate congressional rules because they are considered to be personal gifts, similar donations to the campaigns of federal lawmakers are both legal and common. In May 2004, a Center study found that more than 1,300 registered lobbyists had given $1.8 million to President George W. Bush since 1998. Meanwhile, the Republican's rival Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry received $520,000 from 442 lobbyists.

Days before the 2004 election, a similar Center analysis found that more than 1,000 federally registered lobbyists had personally donated $2.76 million to the campaigns of U.S. senators seeking re-election that year.

"You would expect your elected officials to follow the rules that are on the books," said Celia Viggo Wexler, spokesperson for the campaign finance advocacy group Common Cause about the Center's study. "The reason lobbyists give is because they want to get close to the people in power. And most of the people who have these funds have a lot of power."

Industry of influence nets more than $10 billion

Washington,United States — 2011-11-17T16:30:01-05:00

Note to readers: This story has been reposted. Since the report was originally released, the Center for Public Integrity has changed the way it calculates lobbying expenditures to reflect a more stringent methodology for determining the total amounts. The change was made to correct the potential overstatement of totals. Figures or relevant text that have been changed are indicated with asterisks. (3/31/2006)

Special interests and the lobbyists they employ have reported spending, since 1998, a total of more than* $10.8 billion* to influence Congress, the White House and more than 200 federal agencies. They've hired a couple thousand former government officials to influence federal policy on everything from abortion and adoption to taxation and welfare. And they've filed—most of the time—thousands of pages of disclosure forms with the Senate Office of Public Records and the House Clerk's Office.

Washington's lobbyists reported billing $2 billion* in 2003, the most recent year for which complete data exist. That figure will almost certainly go up for* 2004.

Special interests routinely spend far more on lobbying each election cycle than they do contributing to politicians and political parties. In the 2002 election cycle, the most recent for which complete data exists, the Federal Election Commission reported that $1.6 billion was raised. In that same time period, lobbyists received in payment $3.4 billion* to press their case before the government. In 2000, the last presidential election for which complete data exist, those numbers were $2.3 billion for elections compared to $2.9 billion* for lobbying.

Yet the resources devoted to tracking Washington's political mercenaries and the billions they are paid to influence the decisions of members of Congress and executive branch officials is minimal. The Senate Office of Public Records employs 11 people, and the equivalent House office employs fewer than 35. By contrast, the FEC, which has authority to enforce campaign finance laws, has 391 employees and an annual budget of $52 million.

That may explain why one in five of the companies lobbying the federal government have failed to file one or more disclosure forms required by law. In all, there are 14,000 missing lobbying documents that should have been filed with Congress since 1998, including documents disclosing the activities of 49 of the top 50 lobbying firms.

Those are some of the findings of a new study by the Center for Public Integrity, which examined all of the lobby disclosure forms filed with the Senate Office of Public Records since 1998. As part of the study, Center researchers have created an online, searchable database of every registered, federal lobbyist in America, allowing users to find detailed data on lobbyists and their clients. The database provides aggregated information over multiple years for industries, issues or agencies lobbied and access to detailed information from individual lobbying records. It takes information difficult to access from sources such as the Senate Office of Public Records and makes it user friendly and easily accessible by company, lobbying firm or issue.

The database also details federal lobbying activities by companies based in each of the 50 states and six U.S. territories, along with information about lobbying by universities and local governments. It shows, for example, that in the past six and a half years, roughly 700 universities* have spent more than $264 million*, while more than 1,400 local governments have doled out more than $343 million* to secure funding for everything from freeways to fire trucks.

Influence pipeline

Because of their ability to influence lawmakers and legislation, lobbyists have been dubbed "the Fourth Branch" of government. But while they wield enormous influence in the capital, lobbyists receive little attention from the press and far less public scrutiny.

A search of the Nexis database shows that in 2004, news organizations wrote ten times more stories on campaign finance issues than on federal lobbying, even though the money spent on federal lobbying is routinely twice the amount given to federal candidates and committees in campaign contributions.

Yet the disclosure forms that lobbyists file show far more directly than contribution records what special interests seek in Washington. The reports can reveal that a company is trying to get federal grants and contracts, or a state is attempting to secure federal funding for a highway. They include information on who is fighting for which slice of the nation's $2.5 trillion annual federal budget, or for or against any of the rules in the 50 titles and tens of thousands of pages of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Federal election law bars corporations, labor unions, non-profits and other organizations from directly contributing to federal elections. These same groups can and do hire lobbyists and pay them directly from their budgets.

Altria Group Inc., the parent company of cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris USA, devoted $94 million* since 1998 to its lobbying operations. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a non-profit organization that represents businesses, spent $181 million* of its money on lobbyists—more than any other single entity. Even the Prison Fellowship Ministries, a religious organization founded in 1976 by Watergate figure Chuck Colson—who pled guilty to obstruction of justice in the Watergate scandal—to minister to inmates, ex-convicts and their families, has spent $1,575,577 on lobbying federal officials.

While all three organizations would be barred from contributing to an election regulated by the FEC, they can spend unlimited amounts of money hiring Washington insiders (if they can afford them) to push their agendas.

Rules made to be broken

Under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, the federal law that regulates the influence industry, a lobbyist must disclose his clients, the issues they have hired him to lobby on, the government entities he is trying to influence on their behalf and the amount of money they pay him. If the lobbyist is a former government official, for a limited period of time he must disclose his old government position.

Yet many lobbyists fail to file necessary disclosure forms. Others file their disclosures well beyond the deadlines established by law. Almost one in five lobbying disclosure forms filed were at least three months late. Similarly, more than 3,000 of those filings were submitted at least six months late, while more than 1,700 of them were late by at least one year.

The Center found that countless forms are filed with portions that are blank or improperly filled out. An unknown number of lobbyists neglect or refuse to file any disclosure forms whatsoever.

In 1994, the General Accounting Office (now called the Government Accountability Office) estimated that one in four lobbyists don't bother to register. Following passage of the Lobbying Disclosure Act, lobbyist registrations increased significantly from the prior year—in part because of the law's broader requirements for who must file—but there are still those who do not bother to file.

It's enough to confuse even a presidential candidate. Last year, Sen. John Kerry voluntarily released a list of all the lobbyists he had met with since 1989. At least 40 of the people Kerry listed as having lobbied him were individuals who didn't register—and may not have been required to do so. Only those who spend at least one-fifth of their time lobbying for their organization are required to register.

Included on Kerry's list were Sandra Feldman, president of the American Federation of Teachers until 2004, Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; and Ivan Seidenberg, CEO of Verizon. Between cocktails, lunches and Senate office meetings, Kerry met with these three people 10 times since 1998. And even though they represented their organizations, they were not required to register to lobby.

The offices that track lobbyist disclosure, the Legislative Resource Center of the House of Representatives and the Senate Office of Public Records, lack adequate staff to monitor the forms submitted to the House and Senate. Neither office has staff dedicated to ensuring compliance with the law.

In 1993, the chairman of the FEC wrote the House Judiciary Subcommittee to ask that his agency be put in charge of all lobbying disclosure. "All these functional activities are requirements of regulating campaign finance and we already have developed the type of staff expertise, procedures, physical plant and information technology necessary," FEC Chairman Scott Thomas wrote in addressing pending legislation. Two years later, when the Lobbying Disclosure Act was enacted, Congress decided to keep lobbying disclosure within its purview.

In 2003, the Center compared the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act to the lobbying disclosure rules in all 50 states and found that 47 states had better standards of disclosure than the federal government. Currently, Rep. Marty Meehan (D-Mass.) is looking to reform the Lobbying Disclosure Act, including by requiring reporting about grassroots efforts and lists of lobbying coalition members.

Over the years there have been various calls for lobbying reform, including everything from a bill that would increase the time that federal workers would have to wait before lobbying their old bosses to a provision that would make it illegal to send "fraudulent" lobbying communications to Congress.

Yet lobbyists who often oppose one another in the rough and tumble of backroom legislative battles have by and large united against more regulations over their industry. And for the 535 members of Congress and the 30,000 people who serve on their staffs, lobbying is often a lucrative career option. Some 240 former members of Congress and agency heads were registered lobbyists, according to the Center's analysis. In all, more than 2,200 people registered as lobbyists in Washington during the period covered used to work for the federal government in some capacity.

On the rare occasions when Congress has tried to rein in those who go from the government's payroll to working for private interests, its efforts have been narrowly focused.

"The real problem here is one of appearance—the appearance of a revolving door between government service and private-sector enrichment," Sen. Robert Dole remarked when the Senate debated the Lobby Disclosure Act in 1995. Dole referred to one type of federal official: those who worked for the U.S. Trade Representative's office, which negotiates trade agreements with foreign governments.

In its first investigative report, released in December 1990, the Center for Public Integrity documented that 47 percent of those officials went on to lobby for foreign interests after leaving government service.

Dole called for a lifetime ban on lobbying for foreign governments by the nation's top trade officials. "Service as a high Government official is a privilege, not a right," he said. "This amendment may discourage some individuals from accepting the U.S.T.R. job, but in my view, this is a small price to pay when the confidence of the American people is at stake."

After graciously accepting his defeat in the 1996 Presidential election, Dole bowed out of politics and went on to a lucrative career working for Washington lobby firms. The former Senate majority leader is now a registered lobbyist who has represented the government of Indonesia.

The Pentagon's $200 million shingle

2011-09-16T14:58:54-04:00

Beltz Newtech specializes in roofing, exterior commercial painting and even does some waterproofing. Beltz said he started the company 30 years ago after working as a school teacher and operates it with his wife, Karen, who is the company's vice president.

Beltz told the Center for Public Integrity he was unaware that the Pentagon reports his company as the recipient of a $245 million, cost plus contract that calls for working on large blast thermal simulators while providing "nuclear effects services" at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.

"I guess they made some type of mistake," Beltz told the Center. "Either that or they got me mixed up with another company."

Beltz's contract listing by the Department of Defense is indeed a case of mistaken identity—one of hundreds of errors the Center found while going through the Pentagon's database of awarded contracts.

A Center analysis of the Defense contracts database found there have been more than 2.2 million records entered during the past six years detailing more than $900 billion in Pentagon spending. But these records often have minor errors that are attributable to the Defense Department's antiquated system that was set up decades ago.

In the case of Beltz's company, the Pentagon confused the small roofing contractor with the New Mexico Technology Group, LLC, which is located on an Army base in White Sands, N.M., rather than in a house near a golf course in Hilton Head, S.C. But both companies do share similar shortened company names: Newtech and Newtec, respectively.

The case of mistaken identity was repeated 100 times during the course of four years, and the Pentagon listed Beltz Newtech, rather than New Mexico Technology Group, as winning more than $200 million of contracts.

"That's a lot of roofing," quipped Deidre Lee, Director of Defense Procurement & Acquisition, about the mistaken listings. Lee, though surprised by the case, said that she is aware that some mistakes occasionally get inputted. But she said she is confident Defense's data is an accurate reflection of the more than $150 billion that is spent through Pentagon contracts per year.

"The data is just as good as the people that put it in," Lee said about the tens of millions of transactions that her department documents. "Are there going to be data entry errors – absolutely. But the data is a pretty good reflection of what we are doing."

Among these records the Center found almost $35 billion in contracts where Defense personnel misidentified the correct parent company. Out of the $715 billion worth of contracts identified for the project, the mistakes amounted to an error rate of approximately five percent.

For instance, more than $700 million in contracts with Westinghouse Electric were mistakenly connected with National Amusements Inc. — a movie theater chain – instead of Bechtel Group and British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.

Lee believes that many of the mistakes in the Pentagon's contract database occur because of its decentralization. Currently, the data is provided by the person writing the contract, which is then sent to their larger organization, then to another, and then it is sent to Defense's Washington Headquarters Services, which then feeds the information into the Federal Procurement Data System.

The General Services Administration plans to implement a new system for contracting in 2005 that will consist of a direct feed from the person writing the contract with the data into the Federal Procurement Data System, Lee said.

Lee believes that the new system will decrease the number of mistakes and allow the data to have a more fluid process.

"That is pretty direct," Lee said. "Can I guarantee you that all the 20,000 people in the field inputting data are never going to make a mistake? No. But they know it is important."

The Pentagon's stealth rainmaker

2011-11-17T16:49:11-05:00

With scores of revolving door connections, more than $1 million in campaign contributions and clients that receive most of their contracts from the Pentagon without competition, only one defense lobbying firm can claim to give its clients "an inside track to business opportunities with the federal government."

The PMA Group, a lobbying firm that specializes in defense contracting, has reported receiving $21.7 million in lobbying fees since 1998 from large defense companies—the most paid to any defense lobbying firm, according to a study by the Center for Public Integrity.

A PMA spokesman said he would not comment on the Center's report.

The fees paid to PMA appear to have paid off for these 41 defense contractors and their parent companies, who collectively won $266 billion in contracts from the Pentagon during the last six years. That amounts to almost 30 percent of the dollar value of all contracts awarded by the Department of Defense.

Though these companies spent another $121 million employing in-house lobbyists and occasionally other lobbying firms, PMA clients' total lobbying versus contracts works out to a ratio of almost $1,859 in contracts for every dollar spent on lobbying.

Of the $266 billion that PMA clients and their parents received in defense contracts, $167 billion—nearly two out of three dollars—were received from contracts that were awarded without "full and open" competition. In fact, PMA clients account for 47 percent of all such non-competitive contracts handed out by the Pentagon since 1998.

Lobby firms like PMA have become a staple of political influence. In all, defense contractors have reported spending $537 million on outside lobbying firms like PMA during the last six years, while they have spent $1.4 billion on in-house lobbying.

PMA's has cultivated a closeness to the Pentagon and to Washington power brokers. PMA's lobbyists routinely make large donations to the lawmakers they lobby, and many at the firm have revolving door connections to Congress and defense agencies that authorize and maintain the contracts of their clients.

'Revolving Doors' keep money flowing inward

Take Paul Magliocchetti, the president and owner of PMA Group. Magliocchetti worked 10 years as senior staff member of the Committee on Appropriations of the U.S. House of Representatives where decisions are made about how much to spend on defense contractors. He also spent nine years working for the Defense Subcommittee during his tenure in the House where he worked on oversight of the $30 billion annual Navy procurement budget. He has also showered $56,000 in campaign contributions since 1998 on members of Congress and leadership committees.

Magliocchetti is hardly an exception at PMA, where almost every one of the lobbying firm's listed employees has passed through this proverbial revolving door, meaning that they have either worked for the Pentagon or Congress and in some cases both.

In fact, the Center found that 30 of the 31 upper-level employees that PMA lists on its Web site have prior employment with some branch of the armed forces or with the House and Senate.

PMA's lobbyists have connections to decision makers at almost every stage of the procurement process.

Recommendations for defense contracting and financial needs come from the Pentagon and branches of the Armed Services, where 16 PMA employees used to work. These recommendations and governmental actions are negotiated through the Defense Department's legislative liaisons offices, where at least 11 PMA lobbyists used to work. The House and the Senate, where 14 PMA employees used to work, vote on bills authorizing the amounts and designations for defense contracting. Many of the core decisions about what is included in each of these bills are made by the Appropriations committees, where six PMA employees used to work.

A key to PMA's success has been deploying lobbyists who remain largely focused on just a few large appropriations bills that are approved every session. In fact, the four bills that drew most of the group's attention during 2003 were appropriations measures totaling more than $65 billion.

Campaign Contributions Sweeten the Pot

Another way that lobbyists stay familiar in the minds of the lawmakers they lobby is by giving hundreds of thousands to congressional election campaigns.

PMA is one of the few lobbying firms that maintains a sizable Political Action Committee. The PMA PAC has given more than $975,000 to 340 House and Senate lawmakers.

In addition to these donations, the PMA employees that have registered to lobby have made more than $271,000 in donations to congressional campaigns, leadership and party committees, the Center found. More than 80 members of Congress were the recipients of these donations and many of the largest donations went to members of the House and the Senate who serve on key committees such as Appropriations.

Lobbyists bankrolling politics

2011-11-29T13:01:34-05:00

More than 1,300 registered lobbyists have given slightly more than $1.8 million to President George W. Bush over the last six years, according to a Center for Public Integrity study comparing the donations of all registered lobbyists from 1998 through March 2004. Sen. John Kerry received $520,000 from 442 lobbyists during the same period.

Such numbers account for a significant percentage of those who ply the influence game. In fact, the lobbyists who donated to Bush have represented about 6,000 clients; those who gave to Kerry, approximately 3,000 clients. Combined, these figures add up to more than half of all the companies that hire lobbyists, according to the Senate Office of Public Records. The SOPR says that there are currently 24,000 lobbyists registered to represent 15,000 clients.

The Center's study is the first of its kind to precisely track donations to presidential candidates from all federally registered lobbyists. Until now, campaign finance analysts used industry coding, a method that has included thousands of dollars from individuals not registered to lobby, while omitting donations from thousands of lobbyists hired outside of traditional lobby shops.

Several of the lobbyists donating to Bush also raise funds for the president. The campaign Web site's directory of volunteer fundraisers lists more than 550 so-called bundlers: Mavericks, who raise $50,000, Pioneers, who raise $100,000 and Rangers, who raise $200,000.

Of these, the Center found, 52 lobbyists—who have together raised more than $6 million for Bush's reelection—represent more than 800 organizations and companies. Since Bush's election as president, their firms have reported billing these clients $146 million for lobbying.

The Center also found that the Bush administration appointed 92 lobbyists to its transitions advisory teams between 2000 and 2001, according to its study of lobbying records and lists of transition teams made available by OMB Watch. These transition teams gave lobbyists a strong voice in affecting regulatory decisions; many were assigned to the very branches of government that they had been paid millions of dollars to influence. Nor did their work as lobbyists suffer from their stint in the transition committees: since then, these lobbyists' firms have reported billing their clients more than $250 million for lobbying.

While there is a disparity between the sums of money given to each candidate, some of the lobbyists giving to Kerry and Bush worked for the same firm. For instance, both Patton Boggs LLP and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP are among Bush's and Kerry's top four donors from individual lobbyists. Similarly, another 21 lobbyists gave money to both candidates. A trend has emerged where the lobbyists giving are often connected to the largest contributors to these presidential candidates. In fact, each of Bush's top ten career patrons were represented by at least one lobbyist who donated to the president's campaign, as were nine of Kerry's top ten career patrons.

Bush Lobbyists

Among the many lobbyists giving money to Bush is Jack Abramoff, a former lobbyist for Greenberg Traurig. According to the firm, Abramoff left Greenberg Traurig after he "disclosed to the firm for the first time personal transactions and related conduct which are unacceptable to the firm" in connection with his representation of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians. Abramoff, who is closely associated with House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, is a Bush Pioneer who also has lobbied on behalf of companies like Tyco for government contracts and tax legislation.

Other lobbyists who have donated to Bush have enjoyed the perks of political appointments that have included transition teams, positions with federal agencies and ambassadorships. Former Pioneer and lobbyist Peter Terpeluk was appointed as ambassador to Luxembourg in 2002.

But the measure of success for a lobbyist is whether he or she is able to influence legislation. Take Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP lobbyist and former Bush Pioneer John Schmitz, who represents Lockheed Martin, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a health care electronic prescription company called RxHub. RxHub paid $1.3 million for the services of Schmitz and three associates. During a two-year period, they lobbied for RxHub on only one listed bill: the recently passed Medicare Prescription Drug bill.

Related Charts

On March 4, 2003, RxHub got a break when Bush announced support for a proposal to make medical records and prescriptions available electronically. At an American Medical Association meeting, the president announced his initiative to increase funding to "help hospitals use information technology" by 53 percent. This provision became a core part of the only bill that RxHub lobbied and had a part that critics said was "tailor made to support" RxHub. The bill signed into law by Bush in December ended up including huge authorizations in favor of the company's area of expertise at a time when the Bush administration is asking others for fiscal restraint.

Kerry Lobbyists

The Kerry campaign also has its share of lobbyists who are acting as fundraisers. Piper Rudnick LLP's John Merrigan, for example, has given the senator thousands of dollars while lobbying on behalf of Merrill Lynch, Northwest Airlines and Raytheon Co.

In an unprecedented move last week, Kerry voluntarily released a list of some 300 lobbyists whom the senator has met with in the last 15 years. The move was intended to put pressure on the Bush campaign to release a similar list and to make public information about those who worked on the administration's controversial task forces.

A study of these documents by the Center found that 27 of those whom the Senator met with made donations totaling more than a $100,000 to Kerry's campaigns over the years. The campaign lists four of them as major fundraisers.

Other lobbyists who have been especially close to the senator include David Leiter, his chief of staff for six years. Leiter is a long-time beneficiary of Washington's loose "revolving door" policy, who years after his Senate position became a lobbyist for Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC, where Kerry's brother works. While contributing to Kerry, Leiter lobbied for a number of companies, including Cablevision, AT&T, and Clear Channel, that fell under the senator's purview as a member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Also representing AT&T is Michael Whouley, a top lobbyist-turned-Kerry-political consultant. As the Center reported on May 7, 2003, Kerry has co-sponsored legislation favored by and written letters on behalf of the wireless telecommunications industry.

Agustín Armendariz, Alexander Cohen and Daniel Lathrop contributed to this report.

Registered Lobbyists Appointed to Bush's Transition Teams and Their Activity

Team	FName	MI	LName	Affiliation	Lobbying Expenditures
Interior	Jason		Campbell	Public Lands Council	27,113,226
Labor	Randel	K	Johnson	Chamber Of Commerce Of The U.S.A.	22,840,000
Treasury	Gary	J	Gasper	Ernst & Young	20,400,000
Commerce	Barney	J	Skladany	Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld	19,004,000
HUD	Arne		Christenson	Fannie Mae	17,447,000
USTR	William	J	Morley	Chamber Of Commerce Of The U.S.A.	14,900,000
HHS	Doug		Badger	Washington Council Ernst & Young	13,000,000
HHS	Carl		Feldbaum	Biotechnology Industry Organization	11,306,000
Transportation	Carl		Biersack	Barbour Griffith & Rogers	9,200,000
Treasury	Susan		Molinari	Washington Group	9,027,000
HHS	Vicki	E	Hart	Verner Liipfert Bernhard Mcpherson & Hand	8,990,000
USTR	Frank		Vargo	National Association Of Manufacturers	8,802,220
Commerce	Jerry	J	Jasinowski	National Association Of Manufacturers	8,802,220
Commerce	Ray		Cole	Van Scoyoc Associates	7,210,000
HHS	Mark		Isakowitz	Fierce & Isakowitz	6,900,000
USTR	Deborah	A	Lamb	Distilled Spirits Council Of The U.S.	6,694,386
Transportation	Walter	B	Mccormick	American Trucking Association, Bryan Cave	6,260,000
Transportation	Susan	H	Lent	Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld	6,100,000
Transportation	Eugene		Patrone	Kessler & Associates Business Services, Washington Group	5,627,000
Commerce	Jack		Faris	National FederationOf Independent Business	5,188,370
Treasury	Jeff	A	Tassey	Williams & Jensen	4,840,000
HUD	Anne		Canfield	Canfield & Associates	4,325,000
HHS	Howard		Cohen	Greenberg Traurig	4,140,000
HHS	Dan		Boston	Federation Of American Hospitals	4,000,000
Interior	William	P	Jarrell	Boeing Co, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds	3,860,000
Treasury	Les		Brorsen	Ernst & Young	3,443,860
Energy	Don	R	Duncan	Conocophillips	3,387,712
HHS	Linda	E	Tarplin	Ob-C Group LLC	3,360,000
Labor	Bobby	J	Jackson	National Mining Association	3,040,000
USTR	Andrew		Shoyer	Powell Goldstein Frazer & Murphy	2,340,000
Transportation	Duncan	C	Smith	Dyer Ellis & Joseph	2,340,000
Energy	Gary	G	Ellsworth	Usec Inc	2,320,000
Interior	Cy		Jamison	Jamison & Sullivan	1,910,000
Interior	William	P	Horn	Birch Horton Bittner & Cherot	1,902,000
Commerce	David	A	Metzner	American Continental Group	1,750,000
Justice	Jerris		Leonard	Hopkins & Sutter	1,590,000
Interior	Marc		Racicot	Bracewell & Patterson	1,511,000
Energy	John	C	Tuck	Baker Donelson Bearman & Caldwell	1,480,000
Energy	Alex		Flint	Johnston & Associates	1,475,000
Agriculture	John	R	Block	International Foodservice Distributors Association	1,400,025
Commerce	Dirk		Van Dongen	National Association Of Wholesaler-Distributors	1,333,789
Energy	Gregg		Renkes	Renkes Group	1,100,000
Treasury	Alan	M	Kranowitz	National Association Of Wholesaler-Distributors	892,054
Agriculture	Tim		Hammonds	Food Marketing Inst	880,000
FCC	Richard	E	Wiley	Wiley Rein & Fielding	870,000
Treasury	Dan		Renberg	Arent Fox, Ghl Inc, Renberg Strategies	700,000
Treasury	Daniel	M	Price	Powell Goldstein Frazer & Murphy	700,000
USTR	Daniel	M	Price	Powell Goldstein Frazer & Murphy	700,000
Commerce	Cynthia		Sandherr	Enron Corp	680,000
USTR	Ron		Sorini	Sandler Travis & Rosenberg	670,000
Transportation	Michael	E	Korens	Sunrise Research Corp	520,000
Justice	Joseph	E	Digenova	Digenova & Toensing	520,000
Agriculture	Clayton		Yeutter	Hogan & Hartson	460,000
Justice	Monty		Tripp	Hill & Knowlton, Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates	460,000
Transportation	Becky		Weber	Peyser Associates	452,000
USTR	Kevin		Brosch	Dtb Associates LLP	450,000
Interior	William		Jarrell	Boeing Co, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds	440,000
Justice	Barbara		Olson	Balch & Bingham	400,000
Transportation	William	T	Coleman	O'Melveny & Myers	370,000
Agriculture	Mary		Colville	National Chicken Council	360,000
Energy	Howard		Baker	Baker Donelson Bearman & Caldwell	360,000
Interior	Gary	J	Taylor	International Association Of Fish & Wildlife Agencies	345,000
USTR	Kevin	M	Dempsey	Dewey Ballantine	340,000
Agriculture	Barry	D	Sackin	American School Food Service Association	340,000
USTR	Gary	N	Horlick	O'Melveny & Myers	300,000
Transportation	Frank	K	Turner	American Short Line & Regional Railroad Association	280,000
Justice	Victoria		Toensing	Digenova & Toensing	260,000
Justice	Robert	A	Mcconnell	Hawthorne & York International	260,000
Veterans	Robert	W	Spanogle	American Legion	240,000
Energy	Michael	J	Flannigan	Kennecott Services Co	240,000
Labor	Gary		Visscher	American Iron & Steel Inst	205,000
FCC	Bruce	P	Mehlman	Cisco Systems	200,000
EPA	Dale		Moore	National Cattlemens Beef Association	200,000
Agriculture	Jack		Eberspacher	National Association Of Wheat Growers	160,000
Treasury	Joseph	L	Seidel	Williams & Jensen	140,000
Transportation	David		Girard-Dicarlo	Blank Rome Government Relations LLC	140,000
Veterans	David	E	Woodbury	Amvets National Headquarters	140,000
Energy	David	N	Parker	American Gas Association	120,000
Transportation	Diane		Steed	Coalition For Vehicle Choice	120,000
Commerce	Larry		Pressler	O'Connor & Hannan, Pressler Group, Alcalde & Fay	120,000
Interior	Malcolm		Wallop	Western Strategy Group	120,000
USTR	Sam	M	Gibbons	Gibbons & Co	120,000
USTR	Mark	S	Mcconnell	Hogan & Hartson	90,000
Justice	John		Roberts	Hogan & Hartson	80,000
Justice	George	J	Terwilliger	White & Case	80,000
Interior	Steve		Griles	National Environmental Strategies	60,000
Justice	Thomas		Patten	Latham & Watkins	40,000
HHS	Susan		McNally	National Association Of Community Health Centers	N/A
Commerce	Paul		Johnson	Fleishman-Hillard Government Relations	N/A
Transportation	Randi		Hutchinson	Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky, LLP	N/A
Justice	Jose		Fuentes	Morgan Meguire	N/A
Agriculture	Chandler		Keys	Public Lands Council	N/A

Registered Lobbyists who are Bush Mavericks, Pioneers & Rangers and Their Activity

M-P-R	FName	MI	LName	Affiliate	Lobby Expenditures
Pioneer	Jack	A	Abramoff	Greenberg Traurig	26,200,000
Pioneer	John		Kelly	Microsoft Corp	23,560,000
Pioneer	Thomas	R	Kuhn	Edison Electric Institute	18,053,000
Pioneer	Bill		Paxon	Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld	14,420,000
Pioneer	Jack	N	Gerard	National Mining Association	12,000,000
Pioneer	Charles	N	Kahn	Federation Of American Hospitals	8,080,000
Ranger	Ray		Cole	Van Scoyoc Associates	7,210,000
Pioneer	Mary Kate		Johnson	Cassidy & Associates	5,830,000
Pioneer	Ronald		Kaufman	Dutko Group	5,402,550
Pioneer	Kirk		Blalock	Fierce & Isakowitz	3,680,000
Pioneer	Judy		Black	Evans Capitol Group	3,470,000
Pioneer	Les		Brorsen	Ernst & Young	3,443,860
Maverick	Thomas		Worrall	Rhoads-Weber Shandwick Government Relations	2,660,000
Pioneer	David		Pringle	Aflac	2,048,000
Pioneer	Tillie	K	Fowler	Holland & Knight	2,020,000
Pioneer	David	A	Metzner	American Continental Group	1,750,000
Pioneer	Andrea Fischer		Newman	Northwest Airlines, Inc.	1,404,000
Ranger	Dirk		Van Dongen	National Association Of Wholesaler-Distributors	1,333,789
Ranger	Richard	F	Hohlt	Hohlt, Richard F.	1,303,150
Ranger	Barclay	T	Resler	Coca-Cola Co	1,280,000
Pioneer	Kevin	P	McMahon	TRW	952,000
Pioneer	Jeffrey		Ballabon	Channel One Network	910,000
Pioneer	Charles	L	Grizzle	Grizzle Co	770,000
Ranger	Keith		Weikel	HCR-Manor Care	760,000
Ranger	Wayne	L	Berman	Berman Enterprises	750,000
Pioneer	Mark	A	Holman	Blank Rome LLP	700,000
Pioneer	David	K	Rehr	National Beer Wholesalers Association	672,000
Pioneer	Edward	D	Kratovil	UST	640,000
Pioneer	Paul		Welday	Strategic Federal Affairs	402,000
Pioneer	Alfonse		D'Amato	Park Strategies, LLC	400,000
Ranger	Robert	T	Grand	Barnes & Thornburg	280,000
Pioneer	Kent	R	Hance	Hance Scarborough Wright	270,000
Ranger	Thomas		Loeffler	Arter & Hadden	240,000
Pioneer	John	M	Tipps	Walker Bryant Tipps & Malone	225,000
Ranger	Lanny		Griffith	Policy Impact Strategic Communications	220,000
Pioneer	Alberto		Cardenas	Tew Cardenas LLP	160,000
Pioneer	John		Etchart	Gallatin Group	155,000
Ranger	David		Girard-Dicarlo	Blank Rome Government Relations LLC	140,000
Ranger	Robert		Leebern	Troutman Sanders Public Affairs Group	140,000
Pioneer	Thomas	P	Marinis	Vinson & Elkins	140,000
Ranger	William		Kilberg	Gibson Dunn & Crutcher	100,000
Pioneer	Michael		Govan	Legacy Group	80,000
Pioneer	Molly		Bordonaro	Gallatin Group	65,000
Pioneer	Annie		Presley	Mckellar Group	34,500
Pioneer	Charles		Black	BKSH & Associates	20,000
Pioneer	John	E	Thrasher	Southern Strategy Group	20,000
Pioneer	Carl		Buchholz	Blank Rome Government Relations LLC	N/A
Ranger	Michael		Hightower	Blue Cross & Blue Shield Of Florida	N/A
Pioneer	James		Langdon	Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld	N/A
Ranger	Stephen		Payne	Payne, Stephen	N/A
Pioneer	Timothy		Powers	Artemis Strategies	N/A
Pioneer	J Warren		Tompkins	BKSH & Associates	N/A

Lobbyists who met with Kerry and Their Contributions

First Name	Last Name	Lobbying Registrant	Donations to Kerry
Hector	Alcalde	Alcalde & Fay	1,750
Wright	Andrews	Butera & Andrews	2,000
Charles	Baker	Dewey Square Group	3,940
Richard	Bates	Disney Worldwide Services	1,500
Norman	Brownstein	Brownstein Hyatt & Farber	6,000
Jack	Ferguson	Ferguson Assoc, Jack	4,000
Barry	Gottehrer	Gottehrer & Co	1,500
Lloyd	Hand	Verner Liipfert Bernhard Mcpherson & Hand	5,750
Lester	Hyman	Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman	8,250
Harold	Ickes	Ickes & Enright Group Inc	1,000
Dennis	Kanin	Foley Hoag & Eliot	7,000
Michael	Kempner	MWW Group	4,000
Paul	Mattera	Liberty Mutual Insurance Co	4,500
John	Merrigan	Piper Rudnick	16,250
George	Mitchell	Verner Liipfert Bernhard Mcpherson & Hand	1,000
Charles	Moneypenny	Transport Workers Union Of America	3,500
Ralph	Nurnberger	Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds	1,500
George	Olsen	Williams & Jensen	3,500
Jonathan	Orloff	Cassidy & Associates	2,250
Wayne	Pacelle	Humane Society Of The U.S.	250
John	Podesta	Center For American Progress	1,500
Paul	Quinn	Wilkinson Barker & Knauer	3,000
John	Raffaelli	Washington Group	4,000
Ann	Richards	Verner Liipfert Bernhard Mcpherson & Hand	1,000
Robert	Sachs	Natl Cable & Telecommunications Assn	5,375
Ivan	Schlager	Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom	5,000
Riley	Temple	Halprin Temple	2,450
		Total	101,765
The employers of most of the lobbyists Kerry listed meeting with were not included in his voluntary disclosure. Therefore, the Center was only able to verify the individuals as donors above.

Bush has a new top career patron

Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. — 2011-11-29T13:04:14-05:00

A small number of donations by employees of the credit card giant MBNA Corp. last month was enough to unseat Enron as President George W. Bush's top career donor.

The Delaware-based company has given Bush $605,041 over his career, while Enron ($602,625) slipped to second, according to a recent supplement to "The Buying of the President 2004," a book by the Center for Public Integrity detailing the financial interests behind each presidential candidate.

The Center's study found that investment companies continue to make staggering donations to Bush, driven by so-called bundlers. Nine of Bush's largest ten donors during October 2003 through January 2004 were financial services companies. All of Bush's ten largest donors from October through January are linked to bundlers who have pledged to donate $100,000 to $250,000 as part of the president's Pioneer and Ranger Programs.

Officials Investigated about Enron Scandal Who Gave to Bush
Individuals	Former Position	Status	Donations
Kenneth Lay*	Chief executive officer	Indicted	$139,500
Jeffrey K. Skilling	chief executive	Pleaded not guilty	$6,000
Kevin Hannon	Assistant treasurer	Negotiating plea	$3,000
Joe Hirko	Treasurer	Pleaded guilty	$1,000
Kenneth Rice	Finance executive	Pleaded guilty	$1,000
Richard Causey	chief accounting officer	Pleaded guilty	$1,000
Ben F. Glisan Jr.	Finance executive	Indicted	$500
Andrew S. Fastow	Accountant	Indicted	$200
* Lay's figures include donations from his family.

The change in the top donor spot occurred in January, when MBNA employees donated $6,000 to the Bush campaign—enough to push the company, which calls itself the world's largest independent credit card issuer—ahead of Enron. Coming in third was Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. ($585,754). PricewaterhouseCoopers, which contributed $214,000 during the last four disclosed months, came in fourth, with a total of $576,698. Rounding out Bush's top five career patrons was UBS AG Inc. ($490,800).

In its 2003 filings with the Senate Office of Public Records, the credit card firm disclosed that it lobbied Congress, the Bush administration and the Treasury Department on a host of issues, including provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act on banking records, amendments to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and tax issues. The firm reported spending a total of $5.2 million on lobbying that year.

Recent Fundraising Trends
	Bush	Kerry
Fourth Quarter	$48,136,800	$5,239,863
January Filing	$13,096,545	$7,662,801
Total Raised	$146,445,063	$32,946,297
Cash on Hand	$105,553,631	$2,294,339
Amount Spent	$40,891,432	$30,651,958
Recent Daily Average Raised	$497,832	$104,899

The Center first identified Enron as Bush's top career patron four years ago in "The Buying of the President 2000."

A more recent Center study about the Enron scandal found that eight of the company's employees who have been indicted by the federal government have personally donated to the various Bush campaigns—including former chief executive Jeffrey K. Skilling.

Bush's largest donor from Enron remains longtime friend and former chief executive officer Kenneth Lay. He and his family have given the president $139,500 over the years, which accounts for almost a quarter of Enron's contributions to Bush. Lay is under investigation but "is the only top executive in the major corporate scandals who has not been indicted," according to the Wall Street Journal.

So far the president's campaign has raised $146.4 million and spent $40.8 million. During the last four months Bush is raising an average of $497,832 a day.

Top Ten Donors to Bush During the Last Four Months and Their Connections to His Bundlers
Amount	Organization	Pioneers	Rangers
$214,000	Pricewaterhouse Coopers		Partner Richard R. Kilgus
$126,300	Deloitte & Touche LLP	Partner Paul Maynard
$101,750	MBNA Corp.		CEO Charles M. Cawley and Senior Executive Vice Chair Lance Loring Weaver
$85,655	Ernst & Young LLP	Managing Director of Govt Relations Les Brorsen
$80,254	Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.		CEO E. Stanley O'Neal
$78,947	Southern Co.		Executive Vice President Dwight H. Evans
$76,000	Goldman Sachs Group	CEO Henry M. Paulson Jr. and Managing Partner George H. Walker IV	Limited Partner Peter R. Coneway
$71,350	UBS AG Inc.		UBS Wealth Management USA CEO Joseph J. Grano
$64,325	Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co.		Managing Director William H. Strong
$59,850	United Services Automobile Association Group	CEO Robert G. Davis
List is based on contributions to Bush-Cheney '04 Inc. and Bush-Cheney '04 Compliance Committee Inc. during last four reported months through Jan. 31, 2004. The Pioneers and Rangers listed are based on names published by Texans for Public Justice.

Meanwhile, Democratic frontrunner Sen. John Kerry of Mass. raised a total of $32.9 million and spent $30.6 million. He raised an average of $104,899 a day for the last four months.

Being criticized for taking money from lobbying firms did not stop the Kerry campaign from accepting donations from such groups in January. In fact, the Center found, four of Kerry's top five donors during January were lobbying firms: Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi ($28,500); Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson ($10,500); Greenberg Traurig ($10,000); and Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld ($9,500). Rounding out the list was the non-lobbying law firm, Kreindler & Kreindler ($19,500).

The contributions from Robins, Kaplan were large enough to move the group into Kerry's top 10 list of career patrons for the first time. The firm, which lobbies on some insurance-related legislation, has given Kerry more than $135,000 throughout his career.

Both Top 10 Career Patron lists for Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Rev. Al Sharpton remained unchanged with only a total of $1,000 in new contributions between both Top 10 lists.

Who gives the most money

2011-11-29T13:15:51-05:00

Investment companies dominated President George W. Bush's $47 million fourth quarter fundraising, driven by networks of top individual contributors, according to a recent supplement to "The Buying of the President 2004," a book by the Center for Public Integrity detailing the financial interests behind each presidential candidate.

Trial lawyers led the way for the Democrats running for president.

All of Bush's ten largest donors for the period are linked to bundlers who have pledged to donate from $100,000 to $250,000 as part of the president's Pioneer and Ranger Programs.

Seven of the ten are financial services companies.

The largest donors for the quarter were Pricewaterhouse Coopers ($122,750), MBNA Corp. ($93,750), Deloitte & Touche LLP ($73,525), Southern Co. ($67,147), and Goldman Sachs Group ($65,750).

Rounding out the list were Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. ($58,904), United Services Automobile Association Group ($57,775), Rooney Holdings/Rooney Brothers ($56,000), and UBS AG Inc. ($54,850).

Among the most significant movers was credit card giant MBNA Corp., which jumped into second place on Bush's list of career patrons, trailing Enron Corp. by just $6,000.

At least 40 individuals from the Delaware-based company donated the maximum $2,000 amount during the last three months of 2003. Bush's fundraising strategy of having individuals raise large sums ("bundling") may have played a role at MBNA, which is headed by former CEO Charles M. Cawley and Executive Vice Chair Lance Loring Weaver. Cawley and Weaver are both Bush "Rangers," fundraisers who pledge to raise $250,000 for the president.

In addition to being among Bush's top donors, the seven financial services companies all lobbied on bills and issues that were being considered by the president. Some issues listed on these companies' lobbying forms included the dividend tax cut, bankruptcy reform and even the PATRIOT ACT, according to disclosures from the Senate Office of Public Records. Other legislative issues affecting these companies include the president's proposal to privatize Social Security and auditing regulations following the Enron scandal.

Overall, the Bush campaign raised just over $131 million in 2003 and had $99 million in the bank at the end of last year, according to reports filed with the FEC last week. So far, the president has raised almost $30 million more than all the democratic candidates combined. The president raised amounts at a rate of $577,000 a day. In contrast, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean raised $67,000 a day, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., brought in $64,000 a day and Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, averaged $45,000 a day.

With some of his largest donations for the quarter coming from Microsoft ($20,313), IBM ($14,387) and Compaq ($8,247), Dean showed he does not only raise money on the Internet but from Internet-related companies.

The top career patron to Dean's campaign continues to be Time Warner ($73,000) and University of California ($45,000). Dean, whose drop in the polls and fundraising took place after his disclosures, also received large contributions from financial services contributors like Citigroup ($10,280), Morgan Stanley Dean Witter ($8,796) and UBS AG ($8,781) late in 2003.

Kerry's largest donor in the quarter was the personal-injury law firm of Heard, Robins, Cloud, Lubel & Greenwood LLP ($28,000). In fact, law firms made up half of Kerry's top ten career patrons, including his top donor Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, which employ's Kerry's brother and has donated $232,736. Other firms include Hale and Dorr LLP ($129,858) and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom ($125,550).

Trial lawyers accounted for six of the largest 10 donors to Sen. Edwards for the quarter and make up eight of his top 10 career patrons. The other two are Steven Bing ($907,000) and Goldman Sachs Group ($174,350). Interestingly, Edwards' second largest donor during the second quarter was his own campaign workers, who donated more than $11,000.

Top Quarter Patrons

Rank	Organization	Total	Pioneers	Rangers
1	Pricewaterhouse Coopers	$122,750		Partner Richard R. Kilgus
2	MBNA Corp.	$93,750		CEO Charles M. Cawley and Senior Executive Vice Chair Lance Loring Weaver
3	Deloitte & Touche LLP	$73,525	Partner Paul Maynard
4	Southern Co.	$67,147		Executive Vice President Dwight H. Evans
5	Goldman Sachs Group	$65,750	CEO Henry M. Paulson Jr. and Managing Partner George H. Walker IV	Limited Partner Peter R. Coneway
6	Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.	$58,904		CEO E. Stanley O'Neal
7	United Services Automobile Association Group	$57,775	CEO Robert G. Davis
8	Rooney Holdings/Rooney Brothers	$56,000	Chair Frances Rooney
9	UBS AG Inc	$54,850		UBS Wealth Management USA CEO Joseph J. Grano
10	Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co.	$44,250		Managing Director William H. Strong

Top Quarter Patrons list is based on contributions to Bush-Cheney '04 Inc. and Bush-Cheney '04 Compliance Committee Inc. through Dec. 31, 2003. The Pioneers and Rangers listed are based on names published by Texans for Public Justice.

Gore spent recount money in primary states before bowing out

New Hampshire,United States — 2011-11-29T15:31:26-05:00

As former Vice President Al Gore mulled a White House run late last year, he used a campaign finance loophole to send $100,000 he raised two years ago for the Florida recount to bolster his position in the first two states where presidential candidates test their mettle.

IRS forms reveal disbursements on Oct. 24, 2002 to the Iowa Democratic Party Coordinated Campaign ($25,000), New Hampshire Senate Democratic Caucus ($20,000), New Hampshire Democratic Party ($30,000) and Iowa's Truman Fund ($25,000). The donations came 10 days after Gore made a two-day trip to Iowa, where he attended fundraisers for Democratic candidates.

Some have raised ethical questions about the expenditures, saying the Gore campaign should not have spent recount money to run for president.

"He should not have been using the recount donations for future political office," said Robert Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies, a nonpartisan organization that studies the government and campaign finance reform. "The people gave the money to the recount for the purpose of recounting votes. Should he be allowed to do this? The answer is no."

Many campaign finance analysts have raised questions about the sort of soft money loophole Gore took advantage of because it allows candidates for federal office to receive unrestricted large donations that they would not be able to receive through a conventional political committee regulated by the Federal Election Commission. The Gore-Lieberman Recount Committee, for example, accepted nine contributions of $100,000 or more from individual donors like Mouse Systems founder Steven Kirsch ($500,000), movie producer Stephen Bing ($200,000) and actress Jane Fonda ($100,000). In fact, the Center for Public Integrity found that almost two out of three dollars used by his recount committee came from large donors giving $25,000 or more.

Republicans have also taken issue with the money's use for potential election efforts after it was originally collected to recount votes in Florida following the 2000 presidential election. What's more, they point out, the expenditures to Iowa and New Hampshire may help the presidential campaign of Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn. because both states have historically played a critical role in the nomination process as the first states to hold primaries. Iowa is slated to hold its caucuses on Jan. 19, 2004, and New Hampshire is scheduled for Jan. 27, 2004. To make some of the donations, the Gore-Lieberman Recount Committee registered itself as a Political Action Committee in at least one state, New Hampshire, and the donations may help Lieberman in primary elections because the donations come from a PAC that bears his name.

"I can tell you we have not had any contact with the Gore-Lieberman Recount Committee," Adam Kovacevich, spokesperson for Sen. Lieberman, told the Center.

But will the disbursements ultimately help Lieberman's campaign? "The sense was that that [contribution] was Gore money," Mark Daley, communications director of the Iowa Democratic Party, said. "But there's a great deal of donations being made."

The Center was unable to contact Gore, but Allison Sharpe, accountant for the Gore-Lieberman Recount Committee said her "understanding is that Al Gore makes those decisions" about expenditures by the committee.

While this disclosure raises ethical questions about use of the recount funds, it also may be a further indication that Gore was taking serious steps toward running for president before withdrawing his name from public consideration. The use of the recount fund may also be a reflection of Gore's limitations in fundraising, which was rumored to be one of the main reasons for bowing out.

Gore's expenditures came as a surprise because the apparent inactive recount committee has been stagnant lately — not spending any funds for almost a year. Prior to the disbursements to Iowa and New Hampshire, Gore's recount fund appears to have almost exclusively spent its money on legal bills related to Florida.

It is unknown whether the Gore-Lieberman Recount Committee will continue to make donations. The fund may still have a surplus of close to $235,000, according to filed reports, which show $3.7 million in contributions and only $3.5 million in expenditures.

The Gore-Lieberman Recount Committee, a soft money account, also gave $75,000 to the Florida Democratic Party, $50,000 to Victory 2002, the Coordinated Campaign for the Tennessee Democratic Party and $10,000 to the Louisiana Democratic Party during the last two reporting periods of 2002. Other 527s — soft money accounts associated with presidential candidates — have also spent more than half a million dollars in primary states, including those linked to Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

As for the Bush-Cheney Recount, it actually appears to be in a deficit of $2.7 million after filing showing papers that it raised $11.1 million and spent $13.8 million. But media reports explain that this disparity in funding comes from unreported individual contributions of less than $200 that the 527 is not obligated to disclose.

Center for Public Integrity Database Editor Aron Pilhofer contributed to this report.

It's a millionaires' race: New financial disclosure database details assets of 2004 presidential candidates

2011-11-29T15:27:06-05:00

If Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry were elected to the White House in 2004, he would be America's richest president in more than a century.

Kerry, a democratic presidential candidate, has listed assets worth between $165 and $626 million on his latest financial disclosure forms, and has publicly said that he has not ruled out using some of this wealth to run for president.

While President George W. Bush is thought to have a political advantage in campaign finance, Kerry has more than 20 times the reported personal capital of the incumbent president and leads all other likely candidates, according to a Center for Public Integrity study of recent financial disclosure forms.

Bush's running mate, Vice President Dick Cheney, finished second in wealth among names that could end up on 2004 presidential tickets, amassing at least $22 million. Rounding out the list of presidential candidates with large personal resources are: Bush ($9.6 million), Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., ($8.7 million); Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., ($7.3 million); former Gov. Howard Dean, D-Vt., ($3.9 million); Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., ($376,000); and Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., ($134,000), with these figures being reported as the minimum ranges of their net worth.

In an attempt to shed light on how personal interests could affect the agenda of presidential candidates, the Center compiled data from the 2002 financial disclosure reports and created a searchable database. For the first time ever, the general public can search a candidate's income, assets and other reported information available on federal public disclosure forms. The assets on each form were listed in ranges, which unfortunately precludes the deduction of precise figures for each candidate.

Other candidates can't ketchup

Kerry married Teresa Heinz, the widow of Sen. John Heinz, a Pennsylvania Republican who died in a plane crash outside of Philadelphia in 1991 and who was heir to the Heinz ketchup fortune. The couple's fortune has been estimated by some media sources to be worth as much as $675 million, making him the richest member of Congress (Kerry's most recent financial disclosure form, which requires officials to value their assets within broad ranges, shows a top figure of $688 million).

Kerry has at least $2,500,000 million in CDs, money markets, and banking accounts, $3,700,000 listed in diversified investments, such as 401Ks, IRAs, and mutual funds, and at least $151,000,000 in stocks and bonds. But most of those assets are listed in his wife's name. In fact, of the 950 assets listed on his disclosure form, all but three are owned by his spouse.

Kerry has publicly stated that most of the money is his wife's and not his, but his spokesman has hinted that he might use his personal financial resources during his 2004 presidential campaign.

"He's not ruled it out but he has said that he has never used his money to run for office before and it is not the way he would like to run for office," said Kerry's spokesman Bob Wade. "But if it is the only way to respond to a vicious attack, he may have to consider it."

Kerry is not the only millionaire to vie for the White House tickets in 2004. Bush, Edwards and Graham are all worth at least seven figures, and Vice President Dick Cheney valued his assets somewhere between $22 million and $103 million. The former chairman and CEO of Halliburton Corp., the oil services firm, has money market accounts worth between $250,000 and $500,000; a Vanguard account valued between $1 and $5 million; and three other investment funds worth between $5 million and $25 million each.

His boss is worth somewhere between $9 million and $26 million. Bush has a $116,000 fund lingering from his partnership as a former owner of the Texas Rangers. He also has a diversified trust and a 1583-acre ranch in McLennan, Texas each valued at between $1 million and $5 million, and a money market account worth at least $225,000.

Edwards, the freshman senator from North Carolina, filed a disclosure showing assets worth between $8.7 million and $36.5 million. He opened a blind trust in 2001 and transferred assets to it worth between $5 and $25 million comprised of stocks, bonds and other investments. His other assets include a money market valued at between $250,000 and $500,000, a 401k worth more than $100,000 and a few North Carolina properties worth cumulatively more than $500,000. He also has a note receivable from "J. Edwards for Senate" Committee valued at more than $5 million, presumably from his 1998 election.

Graham, whose estimated worth stands between $7.3 million and $30.6 million, has $5.8 million in assets relating to the Graham Company, his family's real estate and cattle business. He also owns stocks in 47 other companies worth between $738,000 and $2.1 million.

Dean of Vermont is from one of three states in the nation that do not require elected officials to file personal financial disclosure forms. But a recently obtained federal disclosure form obtained by the Center states he is worth almost $4 million. Among his largest assets are a Salomon, Smith Barney cash account worth more than $910,000, Treasury bonds worth $441,000 and small amount of stocks in companies like Intel, General Electric and Merck. Dean's 2001 tax returns reveal that he and his wife Judith had a total income of $170,000 from his salary and her practice as a family physician.

Another candidate for the Democratic nomination is Rev. Al Sharpton. Sharpton is a private citizen, and under no obligation to disclose his assets. He received a $90,000 salary in 2001 from his position as president of the non-profit National Action Network, according to the group's filings with the Internal Revenue Service.

The rich get richer

Not surprisingly, those with the most money also made the most money. Kerry and his wife made a minimum of $13.2 million in revenue -- much of it from "unearned income" from their investments — more than seven times the total unearned income of eight other potential presidential candidates put together. That's just the low end. They may have made more than $65 million alone in interest, stock dividends and other unearned income.

Cheney finished a distant second in unearned income with at least $1.2 million. Bush had at least $340,000, Edwards $274,000 and Graham had $273,000.

Cheney had an especially lucrative year. In addition to receiving his salary for duties as Vice President, he received a $1.4 million bonus from his former employer Halliburton in January 2001, the month of his inauguration. Halliburton also gave Cheney an elective deferred salary payout of $147,579 and a Senior Executive Deferred compensation of $57,719.

He wasn't the only one to receive money from a previous job. Edwards received $1.2 million last year as part of a five-year buyout of his partnership in Edwards & Kirby, L.L.P., a law firm. Graham's family ownership in the Graham Companies earned him between $100,000 and $1 million.

Executive-ship has its privileges

Being president has its advantages. Bush reported receiving gifts during his term including a four-inch silver-and-gold belt buckle with the presidential seal valued at $450. Bush was also given 10 neckties worth more than $1,400. Some celebrities were among the benefactors. Paul McCartney sent Bush an autographed hardcover edition of "The Beatles Anthology," while two-time Masters champion golfer Ben Crenshaw gave him his very own golf cart valued at $7,101.

Cheney also received his share of gifts including a hand-painted boomerang from Denis Burke, the Australian Northern Territory Government's Chief Minister, a bronze sculpture from Laurance Rockefeller and a sterling silver coffee serving set valued at $9,000 from Procter & Gamble Company, on whose board he served.