Congress from The Center for Public Integrity

Gun lobby's money and power still holds sway over Congress

2013-05-01T15:35:06-04:00

In the days leading up to last month’s crucial votes on the most significant gun control legislation to come before the Senate in nearly two decades, polls showed that about 90 percent of Americans supported background checks for all gun purchases. But when the clerk called the roll, the centerpiece amendment — requiring background checks for firearm sales at gun shows, through classified ads and on the Internet — got just 54 “yea’s,” six votes short of the 60 vote super-majority required.

Just four months after Adam Lanza killed 26 people at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., and President Obama promised tougher gun laws, the vote proved to be the latest in a long-running string of victories for gun rights activists, the firearms industry and particularly the National Rifle Association, the nation’s pre-eminent gun lobby.

The power of the gun lobby is rooted in multiple factors, among them the pure passion and single-mindedness of many gun owners, the NRA’s demonstrated ability to motivate its most fervent members to swarm their elected representatives, and the lobby’s ability to get out the vote on election day. But there’s little doubt that money, the political power it represents, and the fear of that power and money, which the NRA deftly exploits, have a lot to do with the group’s ability to repeatedly control the national debate about guns. Whether that fear is justified is an intriguing question —but it clearly exists. That has, perhaps, never been clearer than it was last month on Capitol Hill.

Big money, big gaps

For starters, the dollars and cents disparities are nothing short of staggering. The NRA and its allies in the firearms industries, along with the even more militant Gun Owners of America, have together poured nearly $81 million into House, Senate and presidential races since the 2000 election cycle, according to federal disclosures and a Center for Responsive Politics analysis done for the Center for Public Integrity.

The bulk of the cash — more than $46 million — has come in the form of independent expenditures made since court decisions in 2010 (especially the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision) essentially redefined electoral politics. Those decisions allowed individuals, corporations, associations and unions to make unlimited “independent” expenditures aimed at electing or defeating candidates in federal elections, so long as the expenditures were not “coordinated” with a candidate’s actual campaign.

“Members of Congress pay attention to these numbers, and they know that in the last election cycle the NRA spent $18.6 million on various campaigns,” says Lee Drutman, who has studied the role of gun money in politics for the Sunlight Foundation. “They know what the NRA is capable of doing and the kinds of ads they’re capable of running, and especially if you’re someone facing a close election, you don’t want hundreds of thousands and potentially millions of dollars in advertising to go against you.”

In the decade before Citizens United, from the 2000 election cycle to 2010, much of the money was donated directly to campaigns. During that period, pro-gun interests so thoroughly dominated electoral spending as to render gun control forces all but irrelevant, having directly donated fully 28 times the amount of their opponents in House and Senate races, $7 million on the pro-gun side compared to $245,000 on the gun control side. Of the total expended by gun rights interests, fully $3.9 million was delivered by the NRA. Since the Citizens United decision, gun control interests have gained new financial muscle, thanks largely to independent expenditures totaling at least $11.6 million by activist New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and groups tied to Bloomberg — nothing to sneeze at, but still just a fraction of that $46 million in post-2010 gun rights money.

Among the 46 senators who voted to prevent any expansion of background checks, 43 have received help — either direct campaign contributions or independent expenditures — from pro-gun interests since 2000; in aggregate about $8.5 million. NRA expenditures ranged anywhere from a $95 contribution in one race to more than $2.6 million spent on the 2010 election of Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo. A total of 38 of those senators have gotten $15,000 or more in overall NRA help since 2000. Among the leaders: Ron Johnson, R-Wis., $1.2 million, Rob Portman R-Ohio, $1.35 million, Richard Burr, R-N.C., $852,000, John Thune, R-S.D., $717,000, and Saxby Chambliss R-Ga., $355,000. In several races, gun rights groups spent independent money both for one candidate and against his opponent (see chart). Forty-one of the 46 who voted with gun rights groups against expanded background checks were Republican.

Five Democrats also voted against the background check amendment, although Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did so to preserve his right under the Senate’s arcane rules to bring the measure up again. Reid, who has a B rating from the NRA, has benefited from $30,200 from gun rights groups since 2000, including $18,400 from the NRA. The other four Democrats who bucked their party and voted with the NRA, have benefited from a mere $30,830 in total funding from gun rights groups since 2000. Max Baucus of Montana (NRA A+) was the beneficiary of $28,830 while Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor (NRA C-) got $2,000. Mark Begich of Alaska (NRA A) and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota (NRA A) have received no money from gun rights groups.

As for the 54 senators who voted in favor of expanding background checks, at least 18 of them have also benefited from gun rights group help since 2000. By far the largest chunk — $1.7 million — benefited a single NRA “defector,” Sen. Patrick Toomey, R-Pa., the co-author of the background check amendment. The money those 54 have received since 2000 from gun control groups totals just $608,827.

Mayor Mike and his forces

Bloomberg, who founded Mayors Against Illegal Guns in 2006, is a relatively new player in the gun debate but apparently wants to level the playing field. With a fortune estimated by Forbes magazine at about $27 billion, he has taken on the issue with great deliberation, organizing political allies, financing sophisticated research and, more recently, spending sizable amounts of his own money on pro-gun control television ads and elections. Prior to the most recent Senate votes Bloomberg said he would spend $12 million on issue ads aimed at 13 key senators, only four of whom ended up supporting his position. He has reportedly made a six-figure donation to Americans for Responsible Solutions, a group run by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and her husband Mark Kelly, which financed television ads encouraging senators to vote for tougher background checks. And Mayors Against Illegal Guns is contemplating an ad campaign to make an example of Arkansas Democrat Mark Pryor because of his vote against the background check proposal.

Most of Bloomberg’s campaign money so far has gone to House races; his Independence USA PAC, a super PAC that can raise and spend unlimited money, has spent more than $11 million on six such races, mostly in 2012, with victories in half. In February, the PAC scored a major victory when it spent $2.8 million in Illinois to defeat NRA-endorsed former Rep. Deborah Halvorson and elect Robin Kelly, both Democrats, in a race to fill the vacant seat of former Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. Halvorson had an “A” rating from the NRA during her one term in Congress. Independence USA PAC also scored a victory in California where it spent $3.3 million to defeat an NRA A-rated Republican, Joe Baca, for a House seat; and it helped unseat A-rated and NRA-endorsed Republican Ann Marie Buerkle in New York. In Orlando, Fla., Bloomberg’s super PAC spent $2 million in an unsuccessful effort to unseat Republican Daniel Webster. Webster had an A rating from the NRA, which endorsed his candidacy. His opponent, Val Demings, was rated F. In Illinois, Bloomberg spent nearly $1 million in a failed bid to keep Republican Robert Dold (NRA rating of D) in the House. Dold lost by less than 3000 votes. Bloomberg has also spent nearly $60,000 of his own money on 16 Senate candidates since 2007, and Bloomberg also contributed $500,000 to a political action committee supporting the 2012 Senate election of Maine Independent Angus King.

Bloomberg has said he’s prepared to tap his personal fortune to support gun control — or what he prefers to call “anti-crime” — candidates and defeat those aligned with the NRA. And he recently announced that the mayors’ group will publish its own NRA-style ratings of senators on the gun issue. He hasn’t said how much he’s willing to spend, but if the races he’s gotten involved in so far are any indication, it’s going to be a lot. Stefan Friedman, the spokesman for Bloomberg’s Independence USA PAC, said the NRA has had “a wide open playing field for decades” and that’s no longer the case. “The Mayor’s been relatively clear in the wake of last [month’s] decisions in Washington and in other comments that this is an issue he cares passionately about.” So far, Bloomerg’s Independence USA PAC may only be batting 50 percent, but no one seriously doubts that a few million dollars thrown at a race for a House seat or a state legislative contest could have a huge effect. If Bloomberg is serious about staying in this game, he will undoubtedly make a difference. Says NRA President David Keene, “We can’t outspend Bloomberg.”

Complex calculus

That remains to be seen. But a closer look at the background check vote — and NRA influence generally — reveals that there’s more at play than just cash. A lot more. The backgrounds and histories of the two sponsors of the background check amendment — Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat and Pat Toomey, a Pennsylvania Republican — illustrate some of those complexities.

Both Manchin and Toomey have “A” ratings from the NRA — or at least they did until last month. Both represent states with large numbers of gun owners. Pennsylvania has more NRA members than any other state, and sells more hunting licenses each year (2.5 million in 2012) than any state except Wisconsin. And Toomey has been the Senate’s leading beneficiary of NRA largesse. In 2010 the NRA spent more than $1.79 million to elect him and an additional $1.15 million on negative advertising to defeat his Democratic opponent Joe Sestak Jr. Thanks in part to those court decisions that loosened campaign finance limits, the nearly $3 million the NRA spent on the Toomey race was more than three times the total amount spent by the NRA for all of Toomey’s Senate colleagues combined between 2000 and 2010.

Asked about its spending on Toomey — the most the NRA has ever spent on any candidate — NRA President Keene joked, “It just shows what money can do for you.” The reality, however, as Keene acknowledged, is that the NRA’s spending on that particular race — in which Toomey spent a total of $17 million against his opponent’s $12 million — may have very well made a critical difference. Toomey won by only two percent of the vote.

But when it came to Toomey’s vote on expanded background checks, other factors were at play. “The Manchin-Toomey proposal,” says G. Terry Madonna, a political scientist and pollster at Franklin & Marshall College, “is very similar to a Pennsylvania law which was approved by a legislature that was Republican controlled, and signed into law by Republican Governor Tom Ridge with the support of the NRA.” According to Madonna, Pennsylvania’s expanded background checks, first approved in 1995 and amended in 1998, were non-controversial.

Defending his proposal on the Senate floor, Toomey was careful to affirm his pro-gun credentials, insisting that “there is absolutely no way that this can be construed as an infringement on Second Amendment rights.” He argued that his proposal was a modest effort “to make it a little bit more difficult for criminals and the dangerously mentally ill to purchase handguns.” Toomey noted that under current Pennsylvania law, “anyone who buys a handgun anywhere at any time has a background check.” Having lived with such checks for more than a decade, Toomey apparently agrees with Madonna that they have been a non-issue for most of his constituents.

Nevertheless, the history of the background check issue still speaks to the power of the NRA. The organization knows it can’t win every race or every vote. But it can turn what was once a total non-issue — expanded background checks — into a matter of existential concern for senators. Making that case at the national level was particularly audacious because the NRA not only endorsed background checks for Pennsylvania back in 1995, in 1999 it supported them for the nation at large. Testifying before Congress following the Columbine High School shooting in Colorado, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre testified that “it’s reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone.”

Asked about the contradiction at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in January, LaPierre equivocated, but said the NRA believes the current law is not being enforced and therefore should not be expanded. “I think the National Instant [Criminal Background] Check System the way it’s working now is a failure because this administration is not prosecuting the people that they catch” when they fail a background check.

A multi-pronged approach

Whatever the reasoning, clearly the NRA’s gifts were not a key factor for Toomey in deciding to sponsor the background check amendment. A total of 14 other senators who have benefited from gun lobby money also supported his amendment. On the other hand, three senators who never received a single dollar from gun rights interests — Begich and Heitkamp, the two Democrats mentioned earlier, as well as Republican Dan Coats of Indiana — nonetheless voted against expanded background checks last month. Overall, at least 60 of the Senate’s 100 members have benefited from at least $1,000 from the gun lobby during their careers.

Of course the background check amendment was not the only gun control proposal NRA supporters helped defeat. Senators also voted down a ban on assault weapons (40-60), a limit on large capacity magazines (46-54), and what might have seemed a thoroughly noncontroversial measure to make gun trafficking a crime (58-42). On top of that, they nearly passed (57-43) what is probably the NRA’s top legislative priority, a “reciprocity” measure that would have allowed citizens holding concealed weapons permits from any state to legally carry them in any other state that allows for concealed carry, even those with much tougher rules.

NRA President Keene says claims that his organization simply buys votes with campaign contributions completely misunderstand the way the lobby works. The NRA, he says, is active in every state on a wide range of gun issues, and uses a broad range of tactics. “In a typical state we represent 10 percent of the persuadable Second Amendment voters” on any given gun issue, Keene says. Those voters, he says, include Democrats, independents and union members who are not only passionate about gun rights, but who rely on NRA ratings of members and endorsements of candidates at the ballot box. Keene says these gun owners are willing to pick up a phone and make a call when asked and cited one senator who he said got 5,000 phone calls opposing expanded background checks prior to the Senate vote. “It isn’t the money but the endorsements” that motivate lawmakers, Keene said. And those endorsements come from voting the NRA line.

Among the 42 Republicans who voted against stronger background checks, 40 are rated A or A+ by the NRA, meaning they virtually always vote with the NRA. Among the 41 Democrats who voted in favor of stronger background checks, 35 received ratings of D or F from the gun organization.

Gregg Lee Carter, a professor of sociology at Bryant College in Rhode Island and the editor of Guns in American Society, generally agrees with Keene’s view on the role of money, although he states the case differently. “The issue is not so much how much the NRA gives any senator or member of the House, it’s how they can make their lives miserable. And how they make their lives miserable is they e-mail ’em, they call ’em, they fax ’em, they show up at meetings. The typical person who is for gun control is very different from the [pro-gun] person calling you or being right there, being an annoyance, hassling you personally. They’re much more activist than the other side and that’s what really produces their gains.”

Yet when it comes to campaign contributions, Carter says that the amount contributed by the NRA is most often a minuscule percentage of a House or Senate candidate’s overall campaign budget. “Money is important,” he says, “but that’s not what it’s really about.”

It is difficult to say with any precision how often lawmakers are swayed by the gun lobby’s money or its endorsements. But there’s no question some fear the NRA’s ability to make their lives miserable. Suffice to say that at least two Democrats who are up for reelection in 2014 and voted with the NRA against tighter background checks — Begich of Alaska and Pryor of Arkansas — were probably unwilling to test their luck.

There are 26 senators up for reelection in 2014. Since none of these lawmakers have run since the Citizens United decision, the amounts they’ve received from both sides have been modest. In reality, the number of those who are actually vulnerable to pressure from either pro- or anti-gun money and lobbying is probably relatively small, and neither the NRA nor Bloomberg can be expected to throw large amounts of money at either Senate or House races where they have little chance of winning. What makes an incumbent fearful of pressure on gun issues is an inexact science, but a recent analysis by New York Times data guru Nate Silver suggests that a key factor to look at is the rate of gun ownership in a given state. Silver found that among the 26 senators up next year, there was a “near perfect” correlation between gun ownership in their states and how those senators voted on the background check amendment. Where gun ownership in a state was 42 percent or above, 13 of 14 senators voted “No”; where ownership was below 42 percent, 11 of 12 voted yes.

Wins and losses

But not all fear — even fear of the NRA — is rational. And it is by no means evident from the record that the average senator or congressman should fear the NRA anywhere as much as many apparently do. In 2012, the NRA invested $4.3 million in 16 senate races, but won in only 3. It endorsed 20 candidates, but only nine of them were victorious. In 15 Senate races during 2010 and 2012 in which the NRA made its largest contributions — $200,000 or more either to support a candidate it favored or to defeat one it opposed — it won only six times. The NRA also spent $13.6 million last year to elect Mitt Romney and to convince voters, as LaPierre told a conservative audience in 2011, that President Obama, once re-elected, planned to “get busy dismantling and destroying our firearms freedom — erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights and exorcise it from the U.S. Constitution.” Most Americans were unconvinced.

The NRA may be losing a lot of elections but, as it noted in a statement last November, “both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House will continue to have pro-gun majorities.” The NRA’s genius for convincing a substantial number of gun owners that they are at Armageddon’s doorstep at any given moment has also been terrific for the group’s bottom line. Although its critics have long challenged the NRA’s claim to four million members, Keene now says the NRA has added an additional million since President Obama pleaded for new gun laws in the wake of the Newtown murders.

Meanwhile the NRA’s most recent lobbying report shows that the organization and its legislative affiliate spent at least $800,000 lobbying the federal government during the first three months of 2013. In the previous year, the NRA spent $2.5 million on lobbying, 62 times as much money as the $40,000 spent by the leading pro-gun control advocacy organization, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Regardless of which side you’re on, it hardly seems like a fair fight. But it is a decisive fight. The NRA was victorious on every gun vote cast in the recent Senate debate and may have buried the chances for any gun control this year. It was by almost any measure an impressive performance — whatever the reason.

Internet ammunition sales draw scrutiny

2013-01-31T17:16:44-05:00

Proposed legislation to regulate online purchases of ammunition and high-capacity magazines is bringing new attention to a growing cyberspace ammo market that has operated with little government oversight.

Under federal law, firearms dealers must obtain a federal license and keep records of their transactions, but there’s virtually no federal regulation of ammunition suppliers or sales —though there was prior to 1986. Adults who currently want to stockpile large amounts of ammo—say 1,000 rounds of rifle fire or more— can buy it from dozens of web sites that specialize in bulk sales, often at low prices. Some sites also hawk magazines that fire up to 100 rounds without reloading, which critics argue have repeatedly been tied to deadly mass shootings and should be outlawed.

Some of the online sellers list no names of their owners, give only a post office box as their address and ship merchandise to customers using overnight couriers. Buyers can access a special search engine to compare inventory and prices at more than 30 dealers.

Nima Samadi, who follows the $3 billion- a-year small arms industry for the market research firm IBISWorld, said online ammo sales have been gaining in popularity “due to convenience and lower prices consumers can get by buying in bulk online.”

Legislative efforts

But some gun control advocates in Congress hope public outrage over the recent Newtown, Conn., massacre, in which 20 elementary school children and six school employees were killed, will prompt a closer look at these businesses and the firepower they can unleash.

Earlier this month, U.S. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., re-filed a bill from last summer that would put an end to online and mail-order sales by requiring that ammo transactions take place “face to face.”

The bill also would license ammo dealers and require them to report purchases of 1,000 rounds or more, which McCarthy has said would bring ammunition sales “out of the shadows and into the light, where criminals can’t hide and responsible dealers can act as a line of defense against the planning and stockpiling of a potential mass killer.”

In a separate action, U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. on Jan. 8 said he would push for instant background checks to prevent ammo from being sold to felons, the mentally ill and others prohibited from buying firearms. Blumenthal, in a prepared statement, called ammo sales “the black hole in gun violence prevention.”

Also this month, McCarthy re-filed a bill—first introduced last summer in the wake of the Aurora, Colo., movie theater shootings—that would ban the manufacture and sale of magazines carrying more than 10 rounds. These magazines have been used in 15 mass shootings since 2000, according to the Violence Policy Center, a gun control advocacy group in Washington.

“These devices are used to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time possible and we owe it to innocent Americans everywhere to keep them out of the hands of dangerous people,” McCarthy said in a statement.

In addition, a White House panel on gun violence led by Vice-President Biden is considering a range of proposals, including universal background checks for gun buyers and tougher penalties for carrying firearms near schools. Biden is expected to present recommendations this week. President Obama has already called for new laws to ban the sale of assault weapons and large-size magazines. An assault weapon ban in effect from 1994 to 2004 also banned new high-capacity magazines.

Attempts to ban or restrict ammo sales could prove to be among the most contentious measures under review, with nobody fully confident they can predict the outcome.

Tighter regulation “is certainly a possibility,” said Samadi, the arms industry analyst. But he noted that public opinion is fickle and said “it’s hard to accurately predict what will happen.”

The online sale of ammo “is a somewhat new and developing industry and there isn’t too much information out there,” he added.

Fervent opposition

The National Rifle Association strongly opposes ammunition regulation. The NRA argues that banning online ammo sales “would turn back the clock to the days when ammunition was only available in person at licensed stores, driving up prices and making less popular cartridges nearly unobtainable for millions of lawful gun owners.”

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the industry trade group, would not comment. In the past, however, the group has said regulations “would not affect criminals or their ability to obtain ammunition.”

Retail interstate shipments of ammunition were made legal by the 1986 Firearm Owners’ Protection Act. The law allowed ammunition to be shipped to individuals through the mail and eliminated existing record-keeping requirements.

The NRA notes that officials of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives had concluded by the 1980s that licensing ammo dealers for nearly two decades provided “no substantial law enforcement value” in keeping bullets out of the wrong hands. Officials supported loosening regulation at that time. ATF spokesman Mike Campbell said in an interview that the agency no longer comments on pending legislation.

Marc Gallagher, a co-owner of ammoseek.com, the search engine that helps buyers find the best prices, agrees. He said it “appears that the lawmakers proposing such laws are merely attempting to capitalize on horrible tragedies to further their agenda and disdain for the Second Amendment.”

Such legislation “would do nothing to prevent criminals and crazy people from doing horrible things with guns,” Gallagher wrote in an email. “It would only prevent honest and law-abiding citizens from being able to freely purchase ammunition online,”

Gun control forces have thus far made limited political headway against that argument—and concerns that an online ban would infringe on private business. A 2009 California law that required all handgun ammo sales to be face-to-face was struck down by the courts, though supporters of the law are trying to reinstate it this year. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo also said this month that he favors a ban on online ammo shipments. While a few other states and some localities have restricted shipments of ammo or large-capacity magazines to residents, efforts at federal regulation have stalled.

That was the case last July when U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and McCarthy introduced S. 3458 and H.R. 6241, called the “Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act” on the heels of the Aurora movie theater shootings in which 12 people died and dozens more were wounded. Police found an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle magazine capable of firing 100 rounds at the scene. Authorities said at the time that the shooter, James Holmes, 24, bought four guns at local gun stores and more than 6,000 rounds of ammo online. One of the firms authorities tied to these sales is bulkammo.com , according to media reports.

The company’s lawyer, Oliver Adams, of Knoxville, Tenn., did not respond to requests for comment from the Center for Public Integrity. In the past, he has said that the company was “actively assisting in the investigation.”

The firm maintains a St. Louis post office box and takes orders by phone or email 24 hours a day, with a promise to ship merchandise promptly. Federally licensed firearms dealers must have a “premises address,” where transactions take place and inventories and records can be inspected by federal agents.

Bulkammo.com says on its website that it was set up to provide “serious shooters and training professionals with a reliable, economically priced source for bulk ammunition.”

The website doesn’t name the proprietors, except to say an employee named “Steven,” a former Marine, is a member of a staff that is “experienced and well-prepared to become your private armorer.” The firm passes muster on Angie’s List and has many favorable comments from satisfied customers on gun enthusiast websites and blogs.

“We shoot a lot of rounds (just like you) and we understand the frustrations and inconveniences of finding good suppliers who consistently have what is needed at good prices,” according to the website.

The company requires buyers to certify, among other things, that they are at least 21 years old, have never been convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence charge or other crime and have “not been adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to any mental institution.” (Under federal law, people over 18 years of age can purchase rifle ammunition, 21 years old for handgun ammo .)

Other firms list a wide range of ammo for sale, though several say they are having a tough time filling rising demand, presumably from customers concerned that Congress might impose new restrictions in light of the Newtown slayings. Calls and emails to several of the online dealers were not returned.

The price for .223 bullets, the size fired by the semiautomatic rifle used in the Newtown shootings, can be bought for as little as $400 for 1,000-rounds. High-capacity magazines start at about $28, though they can cost much more depending on the manufacturer and the number of rounds they hold. Some sellers throw in free shipping and offer other discounts and promotions.

Although the online dealers don’t appear to have their own lobbying organization in Washington, some have been contributing to an NRA fund called the National Endowment for the Protection of the Second Amendment .

MidwayUSA, a Missouri company, began a program in 1992 that asks customers to “round up” the total of each order to the nearest dollar or higher. Other dealers signed on and together have funneled some $9.5 million to the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, a lobbying arm, according to the company’s website. MidwayUSA did not respond to requests for comment.

In December, MidwayUSA announced that contributions topped $1 million for 2012, the most since the round-up program started. That drew a note of thanks from NRA official Chris Cox, according to the company’s website.

“With the reelection of President Obama, America can bank on more attempts to diminish our freedom and constant legal challenges to the Second Amendment,” said Cox. “This significant support is coming at a time of great need.”

Lure of lobbying still strong for House staffers

2013-01-23T13:01:05-05:00

A new study finds that nearly 400 House staffers have moved from Capitol Hill to K Street in recent years, suggesting that recent efforts to curb the revolving door between lawmaking and lobbying are having limited effect.

At least 378 of the 5,710 staffers working on the House side of the Hill at the end of 2009 have since left to become registered lobbyists, according to a report from the Sunlight Foundation, a government accountability group.

Corporate America was the biggest beneficiary of this exodus, Sunlight found. Fully 80 percent of the 378 House staffers-turned-lobbyists are working for corporations, industry groups, or Washington lobbying firms with mostly business clients.

On the other hand, nonprofits advocacy groups are only represented by 37 of these recent ex-staffers, the report noted. Only one works directly for a union group, although on K Street some lobbyists have labor clients.

Regardless of which special interest is signing their checks, Sunlight thinks this steady migration from public to private pay is a cause for concern.

“Congress continues to act as a farm team for future lobbyists,” said Lee Drutman, the senior fellow who authored the report released Wednesday. “Staff build up contacts and policy and political experience. Then they often go ‘downtown’ and cash in, taking their expertise and networks with them.”

State and local governments were heavy users of House staffers’ knowledge and contacts, a circumstance that most likely reflects the tradition of relying on personal connections to obtain earmarks for public works projects. They had 295 lobbying contracts associated with the newly-hired congressional staffers, the most of any single group, followed closely by pharmaceutical and medical device companies (263 contacts), education groups (261), computer and internet companies (226), and electric utilities (196).

Business associations were the top spending group; even though they had only 86 contracts with the new hires, they spent a total of $343 million on lobbying since 2009. Other big spenders were phone companies ($253 million) and computer and internet companies ($202 million).

Two-thirds of the staffers snatched up by K Street came from members’ personal offices. The migration was bipartisan, but more of those who left in period studied worked for Democratic lawmakers — 147, compared to 96 from GOP offices — a ratio that likely had to do with the 63 seats House Democrats lost in the 2010 mid-term elections.

Serving as a lawmaker's counsel was the most likely launchpad for a downtown job — 11.2 percent of staffers with that job title have left the House to lobby since 2009, Sunlight found. Legislative director positions (8.9 percent became lobbyists) and legislative counsels (8.8 percent) were the other in-demand titles.

Certain committees were particularly likely to spawn lobbyists. More than 12 percent of staffers who were on the House Financial Services Committee are now lobbyists working to steer the implementation of the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill they helped craft, according to the Sunlight study. The Judiciary Committee, where seven of its 78 staffers went to K Street, and the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, where 8.7 percent of aides became lobbyists, were the next two with the highest turnover rates.

The newly-hired lobbyists were competing in 2011 for a share of an estimated $3.27 billion in fees paid by private companies and others for such work. That amount was down from $3.51 billion in 2010, the first decrease in a decade, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics last month.

The reason for the decline in declared expenditures is unclear. Many former lobbyists have de-listed, but are still engaged part-time in lobbying activities that fall just short of the thresholds set by the Lobbying Disclosure Act. As a result, their payments don’t count towards the 2011 total spent on registered federal lobbyists.

Others have sought to avoid registering as lobbyist in the first place, watchdogs say. In the wake of new ethics rules imposed by the Obama administration, having lobbying on one’s resume could make an executive branch position hard to come by.

Complicating any reform is the fact that the revolving door separating lobbyists from lawmakers spins both ways. A CRP study in July found that 128 former lobbyists were employed working for the 112^th Congress, a 130 percent increase from the last session.

Not surprisingly, a recent effort to impose new transparency on lobbyists has stalled in the legislature.

The Lobbying Disclosure Enhancement Act, a bill supported by Sunlight that would force lobbyists to disclose who they met with and when, was introduced in June by Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.). It has since languished in the Judiciary Committee.

K Street, Wall Street line up behind Sen. Scott Brown in his race against Elizabeth Warren

2011-12-08T11:08:03-05:00

Sen. Scott Brown’s campaign and his political action committee are hustling for millions of dollars from K Street lobbyists and Wall Street interests to keep the Massachusetts seat of iconic Democrat Edward M. Kennedy in Republican hands.

Whether the freshman senator can win re-election in the predominantly Democratic state could be a critical factor in GOP efforts to wrest control of the Senate.

Next week, Brown backers are slated to hold at least two fundraisers to fill the coffers of Scott PAC and his campaign. On Dec. 7, his campaign is hosting a money bash at the National Theater, where the play “Jersey Boys” is currently running. And on Dec. 11, Scott PAC is holding a fundraiser at Fed Ex Field when the Washington Redskins take on the New England Patriots.

Financial service lobbyists and other K Street advocates have for weeks been working hard to help the freshman senator win his high-stakes battle for re-election against Elizabeth Warren, a liberal Harvard law professor. Warren is anathema for many finance-sector lobbyists and Wall Street leaders who abhor the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau— a centerpiece of the financial services overhaul—of which Warren was the intellectual architect.

Even though Brown’s campaign had over $10.5 million in the bank as of Sept. 30, lobbyists are in overdrive to raise millions more because Warren’s campaign is off to a fast start and a new poll shows her with a slight edge over Brown.

Deep-pocketed GOP allies such as Crossroads GPS, the Karl Rove-founded group backed by secret donors, have sought to help Brown with negative TV spots against Warren. Last month, Crossroads GPS spent about $600,000 on an ad that said “Elizabeth Warren sides with extreme left protesters,” a reference to the Occupy Wall Street movement.

In response, Warren was blunt: “It’s fair to say that I’ve been protesting Wall Street for years and years,” she said in a TV interview with a Boston station. But when pressed about the tactics of the protesters, Warren said, “Everybody has to follow the law. There’s no exception on that.”

Other advertising firepower on Brown’s behalf is expected to come from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The business behemoth will be engaged early and heavily in Massachusetts with ads as the Chamber did, to the tune of about $1 million, when Brown won his special election in early 2010.

Inside the Beltway, fundraising has been heating up too. On Nov. 30, veteran financial services lobbyist Dan Crowley, a partner at K & L Gates, hosted a breakfast fundraiser for the senator that drew about a dozen other lobbyists. “There is no Senate race that more clearly reflects the choice for the future direction of the country,” Crowley said, pitting the role of government versus the role of the private sector.

Other GOP lobbyists are also in high gear to boost Brown.

“Sen. Brown’s politics are tailor made for New York Republicans who tend to be very concerned about economic growth and fiscally conservative, but more libertarian on social issues,” Wayne Berman, vice chairman of Ogilvy & Mather, told iWatch News.

Berman, whose lobbying clients include financial heavyweights like the Blackstone Group and Carlyle Group, co-hosted an early November breakfast fundraiser for Brown at New York’s tony Lever House.

In his two Senate races, Brown’s top five contributors included four financial giants: Fidelity Investments, Goldman Sachs, Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co., and Liberty Mutual Insurance, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The most generous donor has been FMR Corp., the parent of Fidelity Investments, chipping in at least $97,000 to his campaign committees from executives and the firm’s PAC.

Executives and PACs affiliated with Goldman Sachs pumped at least $60,500 into Brown’s coffers; at least $51,000 from Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance; and at least $46,000 from Liberty Mutual Insurance.

This largess underscores Brown’s role as a solid, but hardly perfect, ally of financial service interests since he took office last year. The Bay State senator has helped big local companies like Fidelity Investments and Wall Street giants by pushing for changes in the financial services legislation last year that met some key concerns. One example: Brown helped eliminate a proposed $19 billion tax on banks.

Nevertheless, Brown’s was the vital 60^th vote that smoothed passage of the financial reform bill last year.

The importance of the Brown-Warren race was underscored in early November at an annual retreat held by the National Republican Senatorial Committee for its big donors at a Sea Island, Ga., resort. Brown was the NRSC’s featured candidate at the retreat, and a morning pep talk/campaign update that the senator delivered drew dozens of GOP lobbyists eager for news about his prospects.

Campaign finance analyst Sheila Krumholz, the executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, predicts a deluge of money from both sides. “This will be a showcase race in 2012. There’s big money from Wall Street lining up behind Brown and more lining up against Warren because she’s such a controversial figure. Outside groups supporting Warren will draw a lot of money from wealthy liberals and small donors to attack Brown.”

Already, Democrats and Warren’s nascent campaign are mobilizing to mount a well-funded challenge and some recent polls show her running even.

In less than a quarter of fundraising, the Warren campaign had raised over $3 million, according to its Sept. 30 filing at the Federal Election Commission. Her biggest PAC contributors included the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, the United Steelworkers and former Sen. Russ Feingold’s group, Progressives United.

Outside Democratic groups including a few Super PACs are providing crucial advertising backing and other support.

American Bridge 21^st Century, a Super PAC that does opposition research, was an early ally. This fall, the group was credited by the Boston Globe with uncovering a personal values statement of Brown’s on his website that was almost identical to a passage in Elizabeth Dole’s autobiography. Rodell Mollineau, the president of American Bridge, told iWatch News that Warren’s “race is important to Democrats because we want a fighter for the middle class in the seat.”

One of Warren’s heftiest allies is likely to be Majority PAC, a Super PAC set up this year to help Senate Democrats keep control of the chamber. Majority PAC, which can accept unlimited sums but must disclose donor’s names, has been busy hitting up wealthy allies who would like to defeat Brown.

The PAC is hoping to raise millions of dollars for ads to assist Warren’s cause. “There’s a lot of excitement in the donor community for Majority PAC’s plans to support Elizabeth Warren,” said Monica Dixon, the executive director of the PAC.

Other outside Democratic allies are already producing ads attacking Brown’s credentials. In mid November, the League of Conservation Voters launched a month-long almost $2 million ad blitz. An early spot stated that “Brown took $152,000 from Big Oil.”

Another new Super PAC, dubbed Rethink PAC, was started earlier this year expressly to help defeat Brown. The PAC boasts considerable union support in the state: 1199 SEIU and the Massachusetts Teachers Association are two of its financial backers.

15 Tea Party Caucus freshmen rake in $3.5 million in first 9 months in Washington

2011-11-21T13:22:48-05:00

On her website, Rep. Diane Black asks constituents to join advisory panels in her Tennessee district. “I believe the best ideas to solve our nation’s problems will come from people like you,” Black writes, “not Washington bureaucrats and special interest groups.”

Black is one of the new Republicans who rode a wave of anti-Washington sentiment into town in 2011, a self-identified member of the tea party wing that has been cast as a new kind of conservative— fiery, unwilling to compromise and determined to downsize the government. But while many say Black and her companions have created a split in the Republican Party, it is not visible among the companies and interest groups that are donating to members of Congress.

A joint analysis by iWatch News and the Center for Responsive Politics has found that the 15 freshmen members of the Tea Party Caucus have embraced many of the same special interests that have supported Republicans for years. The fifteen combined have received over $3,450,000 during the first three quarters of this year from almost 700 different PACs.

It’s an impressive haul for a group of newly elected House members. But it shouldn’t be surprising that these fresh faces found new friends in Washington.

“Business as usual,” says Mary Boyle of good-government group Common Cause. “The lobbyists and other traditional Washington powers know that the newbies will learn fast that they need them, and their rolodexes.”

It may well be, but some of the freshmen appear to have their eyes wide open.

Rep. Dennis Ross, R-Fla., has received more than $252,000 from PACs, accounting for about two-thirds of the money he has raised this year. His chief of staff, Fred Piccolo, was unapologetic for the donations the congressman has received. “One person's ‘special interest’ is another person's ‘personal interest,’” he said.

Among the biggest PAC donors to the tea party freshmen are familiar Washington faces, including Honeywell International, which led the way both in number of donations and overall money given. The top five corporate PACs that donated to these freshmen:

Honeywell International, a Fortune 100 company best known for its defense manufacturing, made 52 donations worth at least $105,000
The American Bankers Association, one of the major trade associations for the financial sector, made 31 donations worth at least $53,000
Lockheed Martin, one of the biggest defense contractors in the country, with 30 donations for at least $28,000
Koch Industries, the company run by conservative billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, made 29 donations worth at least $38,000
The National Association of Realtors, a major trade group for real estate agents, with 29 donations worth $34,000

The fifteen members also took a significant amount of money from ideological groups, including at least $100,000 from the PAC of Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor, at least $55,000 from the Boehner-affiliated Freedom Project, and at least $42,000 from the Republican Majority Committee PAC. Groups in this category were critical to the financial success of many of these candidates in 2010. Since their victories, however, these members are finding financial support for their campaigns from a much wider selection of interests in Washington.

Black, one of the richest members of Congress, seems to have quickly learned her way around town. She leads the way as the most successful fundraiser in the bunch, having raised at least $418,000 from PACs alone through the first three quarters.

Overall, this group of freshmen representatives has become just as reliant on PAC money as their counterparts who have been in the House longer. The median Tea Party Caucus freshman brought in roughly 44 percent of their money from PACs, 43 percent from large individual donors, and 4 percent from small donors who gave less than $200 each. Comparatively, the median House Republican got 46 percent from PACs, 45 percent from large individuals and 4 percent from small individual donors.

One freshman caucus member who stands out among his peers is Rep. Allen West, who represents Florida’s 22^nd district. Early on in the 2010 election West became a phenomenon, one who was able to raise massive amounts from small contributions around the country as if he were a national figure. And the influx of contributions has not slowed. While he has raised at least $210,000 from PACs through the first nine months of this year, the percentage of money he has received in from individual donations of $200 or less has actually increased since his election, something rarely seen among politicians.

The Bankers Association is another notable, given the full throated support of the financial system raised by some members of the Tea Party Caucus. Freshman Joe Walsh recently screamed at a constituent who asked about big banks’ role in the financial collapse, "Don't blame the banks ... that pisses me off.” In fact, over 17 percent of the money brought in by the Tea Party Caucus freshmen came from the financial institution, according to CRP numbers.

Ross, the Florida congressman, was somewhat surprised by how much fundraising a freshman member has to do, Chief of Staff Piccolo said. “It has definitely been more than anticipated, but in the end, many of these folks represent organizations with tens of thousands of employees and a direct impact on the district…. [Ross’] willingness to stand against feeding at the DC spending trough have endeared him to some and angered others.”

“For every ‘special interest’ that writes a check, there are an equal number that would write one to an opponent.”

“Newcomers quickly realize that if they want to stay in Congress, they must immediately begin raising lots of money” says Common Cause’s Boyle. “So they go to the people and interests who are more than happy to give it – those who want something from Congress.”

“Sadly, it’s what you have to do to survive in this system, and that’s why it must be changed, so that lawmakers don’t take office owing favors to their biggest campaign donors. “

The Tea Party Caucus is an official house caucus founded by Rep. Michelle Bachmann, R-Minn., in 2010. Although many conservative Republicans have been identified as being tea party supporters, there are only 60 official members of the caucus. When asked if there was a freshman representative to the caucus, spokeswoman Becky Rogness said that the only official is Rep. Bachmann. And because the caucus is an official government entity, “it is not involved in political campaigning or fundraising.”

In response to questions for this article, Honeywell spokesman Rob Ferris said “Honeywell's Political Action Committee supports those who support the policies that are most important to our company and are in the best interest of growing the American economy and creating American jobs.” He declined to answer follow up questions, as did Lockheed spokesman Jeff Adams after stating that “Lockheed Martin supports a wide range of political leaders based on their level of interest and commitment in national security, homeland security, and other issues of importance to the corporation including education and technology.”

Sara Wiskerchen, a spokeswoman for the National Association of Realtors, said that “NAR is the most bipartisan PAC in the country” and bases it’s giving on candidates with “have strong records of support for homeownership and private property rights.” When asked if members of the Tea Party Caucus were more sympathetic to the concerns of the NAR, Wiskerchen said “No, support for homeownership issues we consider important varies across all political parties and depends strongly on the issue.”

Request for comments were not returned from the American Bankers Association or Koch Industries. All 15 of the freshmen mentioned were contacted. Anyone not quoted here did not respond to a request for comment.

Aaron Mehta is a staff writer with the Center for Public Integrity. Bob Biersack is a senior fellow at the Center for Responsive Politics.

Half the members of Congress are millionaires

2011-11-23T17:17:09-05:00

Half the members of Congress enjoys “1 percent” status as millionaires, according to a new study by the Center for Responsive Politics.

While the economy at home and abroad has limped along since 2008, Congress’ estimated median net worth remains robust — up about 7.6 percent from 2009 and about 13 percent from 2008.

Although members of the Senate boast bigger bank accounts on average over their counterparts in the House of Representatives, Republican Rep. Darrell Issa of California bucks the trend. His average net worth of $448 million makes him the wealthiest member of the 112th Congress, according to the Center's analysis. Issa owes his fortune in part to his business Directed Electronics, an automobile security company best known for its Viper alarm system. The congressman’s own voice warned potential car thieves who got too close to his products, “Protected by Viper, stand back.”

Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., heads the House Democratic list for personal wealth with an estimated net worth of $143 million.

With a $230 million estimated net worth, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., heads the Senate (nearly $40 million more than the next wealthiest senator, Mark Warner, D-Va.) Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee is the Senate’s wealthiest Republican with an estimated average $59 million.

The Center’s report also identified a handful of lawmakers who appear to be in debt. They include Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), John Conyers (D-Mich.), Louis Gohmert (R-Texas), Steve Fincher (R-Tenn.) and Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.).

To determine congressional wealth, the Center looked at the personal financial disclosure lawmakers must file annually. The forms only require assets to be disclosed within a broad range so the Center's analysis tallies the median values listed.

Special interests woo Super Congress members with campaign cash

2011-10-27T07:54:11-04:00

The 12 members of the deficit-cutting Super Congress might be the most popular people in Washington. As they deliberate how to identify more than $1 trillion in spending cuts, special interests are determined to protect their pet programs — and one way to do so is with campaign contributions.

The committee held a rare public meeting Wednesday, and the debate centered on potential savings from the Defense Department budget, given President Obama’s decision to withdraw all troops from Iraq by year’s end. Any cuts to defense spending won’t sit well with defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Honeywell, who — among others — have been trying to bullet-proof themselves with campaign contributions.

In just six weeks after the committee members were named, political action committees for almost 100 special interests ponied up more than $300,000 in contributions to the lawmakers. The donations will continue to pour in until the committee has finished its work shortly before Thanksgiving.

Formed as part of a compromise in late July between Republicans and Democrats in Congress, the committee must come up with $1.5 trillion or more in budget savings, enough to match increases in the government's ability to borrow enough money to pay its bills through the beginning of 2013. The whole Congress is required to take an up-or-down vote on the committee’s recommendations by Dec. 23.

Super Congress hauls in super donations as special interests try to influence budget cuts

2011-10-26T10:34:23-04:00

Members of the congressional Super Committee have received more than $300,000 from 93 special interests in just six weeks since they were appointed, according to an analysis of FEC data by iWatch News. More than a third of the money came from health-related interests as the committee of 12 debates serious cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.

The donations from political action committees slightly favored the Republicans on the panel (officially titled the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction; unofficially dubbed the Super Congress). Republicans got 84 donations for $181,000; Democrats received 63 donations totaling $121,000.

The analysis covered Aug. 11, the day the committee was formally announced, through Sept. 30, the end of the third quarter reporting period. And those dollar amounts will likely increase when the Senate contributions, which are not filed electronically, are submitted to the FEC.

Formed as part of a compromise in late July between Republicans and Democrats in Congress, the committee faces a serious uphill task: they must come up with $1.5 trillion or more in budget savings, enough to match increases in the government's ability to borrow enough money to pay its bills through the beginning of 2013. It requires a bipartisan majority of at least seven of the committee's 12 members to recommend legislation to be presented to the whole Congress for an up-or-down vote by Dec. 23.

The select panel has until the day before Thanksgiving to finish its work.

As the committee seeks trillion-dollar spending cuts, interest groups have weighed in heavily with letters, lobbying efforts and, of course, campaign cash.

Of the 93 special interest groups who donated via their PACs to the members during this period, seven gave at least $10,000. They were:

FedEx, the shipping giant — $10,500
Pfizer, the pharmaceutical manufacturer — $10,000
The National Beer Wholesalers Association, a trade association for beer companies — $10,000
The American Dental Association, the trade association for dentists around the nation — $10,000
Walt Disney Productions, the entertainment conglomerate — $10,000
Chevron, the oil giant — $10,000
The Associated General Contractors of America, the trade association of the construction industry — $10,000
Fresenius Medical, a major dialysis provider— $10,000

A mix of health and pharmaceutical companies made up at least $111,500 of the donations, by far the biggest business sector. One focus of the Super Committee is to find ways to save money on health care, which many have speculated means potential cuts into Medicare and Medicaid.

Fresenius Medical provides a good example for how companies may be attempting to influence the Super Committee members. Fresenius is one of the largest dialysis providers in the world, operating over 1,800 clinics in the U.S. alone.

With the number of Medicare patients receiving dialysis (and, accordingly, the Medicare expenses for renal disease treatment) going up in recent years, the reimbursement rules and procedures for these treatments have already been a hot topic among those seeking to improve Medicare. A CMS rulemaking process is already under way for a quality incentive program. Should the Super Committee propose changes to Medicare, Fresenius and other dialysis companies could see a major impact to their bottom lines.

In the six weeks since the committee was announced, Fresenius made three donations to committee members Reps. Chris Van Hollen ($1,000) and Jim Clyburn ($5,000), along with Sen. Max Baucus ($4,000). The last time the company had donated to either Van Hollen or Clyburn was in June of 2008; in January of this year the company gave $5,000 to Baucus’ Glacier PAC.

Fresenius is a member of the Kidney Care Partners trade group and donated $5,000 in June to the group. Abbott Laboratories, another member in the kidney association, made six donations for $7,500 to Super Committee members during this time period.

Shortly after the Super Committee was launched, Kidney Care Partners wrote a letter to the committee, urging Congress to allow kidney patients enrolled in the new health exchanges to have their dialysis paid for by private, primary insurance for up to 30 months. Currently, when a patient is diagnosed with kidney failure, they are automatically enrolled in Medicare, regardless of age. “It is incumbent upon all Americans to work towards a more cost efficient and intelligent health care system,” reads the letter. “Public health care dollars are precious and should be wisely and efficiently spent.”

Kidney Care Partners spokesman John Jonas said Medicare cuts affect the dialysis industry more than other areas because upwards of 80 percent of its business is from Medicare. "We feel Medicare cuts very strongly. We're particularly vulnerable, and there's no alternative."

Jane Kramer, vice president for public affairs and communications at Fresenius, told iWatch News in a statement that the company “frequently engages members of Congress and Administration representatives to ensure that they understand the unique nature of dialysis and the various issues that impact the treatment of individuals with end stage renal disease.”

“By engaging with policy makers directly, we are able to provide them with a perspective to which they may not otherwise have access. In turn, this helps better inform their decisions on critical issues such as access to quality care for all Americans, including those with chronic kidney disease,” the statement said.

Not all members of the committee are raising big bucks around their committee membership. Sen. John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, promised last month that he would raise no money until the committee’s work is completed in late November. Meanwhile, Sen. Jon Kyl announced in February that he will not seek re-election when his term ends in 2012.

Total received from PACs to Super Committee members, 8/11-9/30:

Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich. — $90,000
Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif. — $38, 500
Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C. — $36,500
Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich. — $36,150
Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont. — $29,000*
Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas — $22,500
Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa. — $18,000*
Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md. — $17,500
Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio — $10,000*
Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz. — $5,000*
Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. — $0*
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. — $0**

*Senate numbers still coming in

**Promised not to raise money while on Committee; returned two donations made during that time

The perils of a highway bill

2012-08-07T13:02:59-04:00

The latest idea for jump-starting the economy? A new highway spending bill. But as iWatch News reported in 2009, such efforts have traditionally been loaded up with pork and loaded down by thousands of lobbyists.

According to POLITICO, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has directed his staff to work with the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on a new six-year bill to rebuild the nation’s highway system. Such bills are traditionally multi-year affairs worth hundreds of billions of dollars, but the nation’s been without such legislation since the previous bill — a four-year measure worth $286 billion — expired in late 2009. Since then, highway spending has inched forward in a series of stopgap measures that have infuriated highway-backers in Congress and frustrated Washington’s considerable road-building lobby.

There’s no doubt a new highway bill would create thousands of construction jobs. Trouble is, such efforts have traditionally been disorganized free-for-alls that have sometimes revealed the worst of Washington. The iWatch News investigation noted that the previous bill contained 6,371 overt earmarks and further found that at least 2,100 lobbyists were engaged in trying to influence Congress as it attempted to shape a new transportation measure.

FACT CHECK: Did Rep. Darrell Issa run 'political interference?'

California,United States — 2012-01-06T15:52:09-05:00

Rep. Darrell Issa, who has accused the administration of “political interference” to benefit a solar energy company, has falsely claimed that a letter he wrote to the Energy Department on behalf of a California car maker merely requested a decision — “yes or no” — on the company’s loan application. In fact, the California Republican wrote to “express support” for the company’s loan to develop an electric car. He wrote that approval of the loan would “greatly assist a leading developer of electric vehicles in my district” and “promote domestic job creation throughout California as well as in other states.”

Issa, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, is leading the congressional investigation of the Department of Energy’s decision to provide a $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra, a now-defunct California solar company. We wrote about Solyndra last week. Issa appeared Oct. 9 on “Fox News Sunday,” telling host Chris Wallace that “Solyndra is a story of political interference.” Wallace asked about letters Issa wrote to the Energy Department on behalf of companies seeking government loans — specifically one on behalf of Aptera Motors Inc., which is within Issa’s district.

Wallace: "You are saying — you were saying in the case of Aptera, which is one of the companies, you’re saying to the federal Energy Department, 'Give them a federal loan guarantee.' "
Issa: "Not give them a loan guarantee. Our letter actually recognized, and by the way, their loan has never processed. It expired without them getting it. What we were..."
Wallace: "I’m not saying you were successful. I’m just saying you tried."
Issa: "But the request was, they have a loan application and would you please give them a yes or no — and that’s a big difference. A lot of loans went in and these people spent money processing and they never heard."

In the case of Aptera, Issa did not merely ask the Energy Department to “please give them a yes or no.” On Sept. 21, Bloomberg News wrote that Issa urged approval of the loan, and the Washington Post published a copy of the letter.

Issa, Jan. 14, 2010: I write to express my support of Aptera Motors’ application for a loan under the Department of Energy’s 136 Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive Program (ATVMIP). Funding will allow Aptera to establish U.S. manufacturing facilities for the commercial production of its plug-in and hybrid electric cars. … Awarding this opportunity to Aptera Motors will greatly assist a leading developer of electric vehicles in my district. …
Aptera’s project will also promote domestic job creation throughout California as well as in other states. …
I urge you to give Aptera Motors’ Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive Program funding application full consideration.

A day after those stories appeared, Issa chaired a committee hearing titled, “How Obama’s Green Energy Agenda is Killing Jobs.” At the hearing, Rep. John Tierney, a Massachusetts Democrat, quoted from Issa’s letter.

Tierney, Sept. 22, 2011: I noticed that our chairman, Mr. Issa, who talks about this being a job killer and backdoor corruption, himself wrote a letter to the secretary of the department. I’ll just quote from the first part. “I write to express my support of Aptera Motors’ application for a loan under the Department of Energy’s 136 Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive Program (ATVMIP).” Later on there he says, “Aptera’s project will also promote domestic job creation.”

Issa did not respond to Tierney’s comment. We sent an email to Issa’s spokesman, but Columbus Day is a federal holiday and we did not hear back. If we do, we will update this item.

– Eugene Kiely