Funds for Favors II: Exposing Donors' Influence on Committee Leaders

8/13/2019 Funds for Favors II: Exposing Donors' Influence on Committee Leaders

1/34

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary.1

Methodology3

House Committee on Agriculture

Chairman: Frank Lucas (R-OK)..4

Ranking Member: Collin Peterson (D-MN)6

House Committee on Armed Services

Chairman: Howard Buck McKeon (R-CA)..8

Ranking Member: Adam Smith (D-WA)9

House Committee on Education and the Workforce

Chairman: John Kline (R-MN)..10

Ranking Member: George Miller (D-CA).11

House Committee on Energy and Commerce

Chairman: Fred Upton (R-MI)...13

Ranking Member: Henry Waxman (D-CA)..15

House Committee on Financial Services

Chairman: Jeb Hensarling (R-TX).17


2/34

Ranking Member: Maxine Waters (D-CA)...18

House Committee on Homeland Security

Chairman: Michael McCaul (R-TX)..19

Ranking Member: Bennie Thompson (D-MS)..20

House Committee on the Judiciary

Chairman: Robert Goodlatte (R-VA).22

Ranking Member: John Conyers Jr. (D-MI)..23

House Committee on Natural Resources

Chairman: Doc Hastings (R-WA)..25

Ranking Member: Edward Markey (D-MA).27

House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

Chairman: Lamar Smith (R-TX)28

Ranking Member: Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX)...29

House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

Chairman: Bill Shuster (R-PA)..30

Ranking Member: Nick Rahall II (D-WV)31


3/34

Funds for Favors 2: The Industry Strikes Back

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Campaign contributions follow power, and special interests arent subtle about currying

favor with the powerful. New research by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

(CREW) shows after control of the House flipped in 2010 Democratic committee chairmen

demoted to ranking members saw campaign contributions plummet from industries their

committees oversee. Conversely, Republican ranking members who assumed House committee

chairmanships in the wake of the shift saw a corresponding increase in contributions.

CREWs analysis also found 80% of the chairs and ranking members included in our

study reported receiving a growing share of their campaign contributions from industries

overseen by their committees. This trend raises questions about whether committee leaders are

overly dependent on the campaign contributions of those over which they have regulatory

authority.

In 2011, CREW released its first Funds for Favorsreport, which analyzed campaign

contributions to the chairmen and ranking members of ten House committees. Our analysis,

which included data from the 1998 through the 2010 election cycles, revealed that as members

power and seniority increased, the industries they were responsible for regulating steered more

and more money into their campaign coffers. This new edition of the report compares campaign

finance data from the 2010 election cycle to the 2012 election cycle, and shows industries are

continuing to shower campaign cash on lawmakers who oversee them. Both editions of the

report rely on federal campaign contribution data provided by MapLight.

During the 2012 election cycle, the industries examined by CREW donated almost $8.3

million to the chairmen and ranking members of committees responsible for overseeing them,

compared to almost $6.7 million to the same members during the 2010 election cycle. In all,

contributions from relevant industries to committee leaders increased by 24% between 2010 and

2012, far more than the 10% growth in those lawmakers total contributions.

The trends cut across party affiliation and committees. For instance, Rep. Collin Peterson

(D-MN), chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture during the 111th Congress, saw his

donations from the agriculture industry drop by 20% when he became the committees ranking

member. Despite that, agriculture industry contributions still made up 51% of his total

contributions during the 2012 election cycle, up from 47% of his total contributions during the

2010 election cycle. Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK), who served as the ranking member of the House


4/34

Committee on Agriculture during the 111th Congress, saw his donations from the agriculture

industry soar by 66% when he became the committees chairman. They now make up more than

47% of his total contributions, compared to 41% during the 2010 election cycle.

Rep. John Kline (R-MN), who took over the House Committee on Education and the

Workforce in 2011, saw a 155% increase in contributions from education and workforce-relatedindustries while his demoted counterpart, Rep. George Miller (D-CA), saw his industry

contributions drop by 52%. Much of the shift was driven by the education industry, which more

than tripled campaign contributions to Rep. Kline while essentially ending contributions to Rep.

Miller.

Rep. Fred Uptons (R-MI) campaign contributions from interests regulated by the House

Energy and Commerce Committee increased by 45% after he became chairman in 2011, while

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), who shifted from chairman to ranking member at the same time,

reported a 29% drop in contributions from the same interests. A major factor in the shift was

contributions from health services and HMOs, which nearly quadrupled to Rep. Upton but fell by86% to Rep. Waxman.

CREWs latest findings show House committee chairmen and ranking members continue

to lean heavily on the industries they oversee for campaign contributions. The pattern should

prompt closer scrutiny of whether the most powerful members of the House are serving the

interests of the industries pouring money into their campaign coffers rather than the public.

2


5/34

METHODOLOGY

CREW examined campaign contributions to standing House committee chairmen and

ranking members from industries under the jurisdictions of their committees. CREW used the

list of standing committees published by the House clerks office, as well as individual

committee websites, to identify committee leaders.

CREW used a MapLight analysis of campaign contribution data from the Center for

Responsive Politics (CRP), which identifies and categorizes individual contributions based on

industry.1

CREW relied on CRPs list of committee-related industries for the six committees it

tracks: Agriculture; Armed Services; Energy and Commerce; Financial Services; Natural

Resources; and Transportation and Infrastructure. For the committees CRP does not track,

CREW relied on CRPs industry definitions and matched those industries with the committees

that regulate them as outlined by House Rule 10 of the Rules for the 113th Congress. Thesecommittees include: Education and the Workforce; Homeland Security; Judiciary; and Science,

Space, and Technology.

Campaign contribution data includes the total amount received by the members

campaign committee and political action committee (PAC) for both the 2010 and the 2012

election cycle. In several cases, a members PAC was initially formed sometime during that

period and CREW noted the date of formation.

CREW used voting data provided by MapLight, which maintains records of how each

member of Congress voted during floor votes and uses public records to categorize which

interest groups, companies, and organizations support and oppose key bills in Congress.

Congressional voting data is included for the 112th Congress.

1Campaign finance data was collected from CRPs database in March 2013 and does not reflect subsequentamendments.

3


6/34

REPRESENTATIVE FRANK LUCAS (R-OK)

Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture

Rep. Lucass contributions from the agriculture industry jumped by two-thirds between

the 2010 and 2012 cycles, an increase that tracked his 2011 elevation from ranking member to

committee chair. He was included in CREWs 2011 Funds for Favorsreport, which found that

between 1998 and 2010, contributions from the agriculture industry to Rep. Lucas increased at a

rate far outpacing his total contributions.1 During the 112th Congress, after becoming chair of

the Agriculture Committee, Rep. Lucas voted in agreement with the interests regulated by the

Agriculture Committee slightly more frequently than the average Republican.

Campaign Contributions from the Agriculture Sector

2010 Election Cycle 2012 Election Cycle % Change

Industry Contributions $444,200 $735,742 66%Total Contributions $1,088,725 $1,552,722 43%

During the 2012 election cycle, the agriculture industry accounted for 47% of the $1,552,722in total contributions received by Rep. Lucas campaign committee and PAC.

During the 2010 election cycle, the agriculture industry accounted for 41% of the $1,088,725in total contributions received by Rep. Lucas campaign committee and PAC.

Campaign Contribution Highlights from Industries Regulated by the Committee2

The agricultural services and products industry contributed 1.4 times more money to Rep.Lucas during the 2012 election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, increasing its

contributions from $118,750 to $172,000.

The crop production and basic processing industrys contributions to Rep. Lucas more thandoubled from the 2010 election cycle to the 2012 election cycle, increasing from $155,300 to

$321,792.

The dairy industrys contributions to Rep. Lucas nearly doubled from the 2010 election cycleto the 2012 election cycle, increasing from $45,450 to $78,250.

1For more information, see Funds for Favors: Exposing Donors Influence on Committee Leaders, available athttp://www.citizensforethics.org/pages/funds-for-favors.2This section highlights committee industries that significantly increased or decreased their donations to thecommittee leader between the 2010 and 2012 election cycles.

4


7/34

Votes on Agriculture Issues

From 2011-2012, Rep. Lucas voted in agreement with the interests regulated by theAgriculture Committee 94% of the time. The average Republican voted in agreement with

the interests 87% of the time.

5


8/34

REPRESENTATIVE COLLIN PETERSON (D-MN)

Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Agriculture

Rep. Petersons contributions from the agriculture industry dropped by one-fifth between

the 2010 and 2012 cycles, a decrease that tracked his 2011 move from committee chair to

ranking member. Though agriculture businesses cut back their contributions to Rep. Peterson,

his overall contributions declined at a sharper rate, making contributions from interests overseen

by his committee a larger percentage of his total campaign contributions during the 2012 election

cycle than during the 2010 election cycle. He was included in CREWs 2011 Funds for Favors

report, which found that between 1998 and 2010, contributions from the agriculture industry to

Rep. Peterson increased at a rate far outpacing his total contributions.1 During the 112th

Congress, after becoming the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, Rep. Peterson

voted in agreement with the interests regulated by the Agriculture Committee much more

frequently than the average Democrat.

Campaign Contributions from the Agriculture Sector


Industry Contributions $650,412 $522,318 -20%

Total Contributions $1,380,382 $1,023,360 -26%

During the 2012 election cycle, the agriculture industry accounted for 51% of the $1,023,360in total contributions received by Rep. Petersons campaign committee and PAC.

During the 2010 election cycle, the agriculture industry accounted for 47% of the $1,380,382in total contributions received by Rep. Petersons campaign committee and PAC.


The poultry and eggs industry contributed 2.8 times less money to Rep. Peterson during the2012 election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, decreasing its contributions from

$37,000 to $13,000.

The livestock industry contributed 1.8 times less money to Rep. Peterson during the 2012election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, decreasing its contributions from $31,731

to $17,250.

The dairy industry contributed 1.7 times less money to Rep. Peterson during the 2012election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, decreasing its contributions from $67,000

to $39,750.


6


9/34

Votes on Agriculture Issues

From 2011-2012, Rep. Peterson voted in agreement with the interests regulated by theAgriculture Committee 87% of the time. The average Democrat voted in agreement with

those interests 32% of the time.

7


10/34

REPRESENTATIVE HOWARD BUCK MCKEON (R-CA)

Chairman, House Committee on Armed Services

Rep. McKeons contributions from the defense industry jumped by one-fifth between the

2010 and 2012 cycles, an increase that tracked his 2011 elevation from ranking member to

committee chair. He was included in CREWs 2011 Funds for Favorsreport, which found that

between 1998 and 2010, contributions from the defense industry to Rep. McKeon increased at a

rate far outpacing his total contributions.1 During the 112th Congress, after becoming chair of

the Armed Services Committee, Rep. McKeon voted in agreement with the interests regulated by

the Armed Services Committee more frequently than the average Republican.

Campaign Contributions from the Defense Sector


Industry Contributions $469,900 $566,100 20%Total Contributions $2,026,660 $1,883,417 -7%

During the 2012 election cycle, the defense industry accounted for 30% of the $1,883,417 intotal contributions received by Rep. McKeons campaign committee and PAC.

During the 2010 election cycle, the defense industry accounted for 23% of the $2,026,660 intotal contributions received by Rep. McKeons campaign committee and PAC.


The defense electronics industry contributed 1.5 times more money to Rep. McKeon duringthe 2012 election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, increasing its contributions from

$107,500 to $160,500.

The defense aerospace industry contributed 1.1 times more money to Rep. McKeon duringthe 2012 election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, increasing its contributions from

$217,000 to $241,250.

Votes on Armed Services Issues

From 2011-2012, Rep. McKeon voted in agreement with interests regulated by the ArmedServices Committee 91% of the time. The average Republican voted in agreement with



8


11/34

REPRESENTATIVE ADAM SMITH (D-WA)

Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Armed Services

Rep. Smiths contributions from the defense industry doubled between the 2010 and 2012

cycles, an increase that tracked his 2011 elevation from committee member to ranking member.

He was included in CREWs 2011 Funds for Favorsreport, which found that between 1998 and

2010, contributions from the defense industry to Rep. Smith increased at a rate far outpacing his

total contributions.1 During the 112th Congress, after becoming the ranking member of the

Armed Services Committee, Rep. Smith voted in agreement with the interests regulated by the

Armed Services Committee significantly more frequently than the average Democrat.

Campaign Contributions from the Defense Sector


Industry Contributions $98,250 $201,000 105%Total Contributions $948,533 $1,089,911 15%

During the 2012 election cycle, the defense industry accounted for 18% of the $1,089,911 intotal contributions received by Rep. Smiths campaign committee.

During the 2010 election cycle, the defense industry accounted for 10% of the $948,533 intotal contributions received by Rep. Smiths campaign committee.


The defense aerospace industry contributed 1.5 times more money to Rep. Smith during the2012 election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, increasing its contributions from$55,000 to $84,000.

The defense electronics industry contributed 1.5 times more money to Rep. Smith during the2012 election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, increasing its contributions from

$34,500 to $52,500.

Votes on Armed Services Issues

From 2011-2012, Rep. Smith voted in agreement with the interests regulated by the ArmedServices Committee 82% of the time. The average Democrat voted in agreement with those

interests 61% of the time.


9


12/34

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KLINE (R-MN)

Chairman, House Committee on Education and the Workforce

Rep. Klines contributions from education and the workforce-related industries more than

doubled between the 2010 and 2012 cycles, an increase that tracked his 2011 elevation from

ranking member to committee chair. He was included in CREWs 2011 Funds for Favors

report, which found that between 1998 and 2010, contributions from education and the

workforce-related industries to Rep. Kline increased at a rate far outpacing his total

contributions.1 During the 112th Congress, after becoming chair of the Education and the

Workforce Committee, Rep. Kline voted in agreement with the interests overseen by the

Education and the Workforce Committee on par with the average Republican.

Campaign Contributions from the Education and Workforce Sector

2010 Election Cycle 2012 Election Cycle % ChangeIndustry Contributions $119,600 $305,159 155%

Total Contributions $1,842,689 $2,122,672 15%

During the 2012 election cycle, education and the workforce-related industries accounted for14% of the $2,122,672 in total contributions received by Rep. Klines campaign committee

and PAC.

During the 2010 election cycle, education and the workforce-related industries accounted for6% of the $1,842,689 in total contributions received by Rep. Klines campaign committee

and PAC.


The education industrys contributions to Rep. Kline more than tripled from the 2010election cycle to the 2012 election cycle, increasing from $76,700 to $267,059.

Votes on Education and Workforce Issues

From 2011-2012, Rep. Kline voted in agreement with the interests regulated by theEducation and Workforce Committee 30% of the time. The average Republican voted in

agreement with those interests 32% of the time.


10


13/34

REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE MILLER (D-CA)

Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Education and the Workforce

Rep. Millers contributions from education and the workforce-related industries dropped

by half between the 2010 and the 2012 cycles, a decrease that tracked his 2011 move from

committee chair to ranking member. Though those industries cut back their contributions to

Rep. Miller, his overall contributions declined at a sharper rate, making contributions from

interests overseen by his committee a larger percentage of his total campaign contributions

during the 2012 election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle. He was included in CREWs

2011 Funds for Favorsreport, which found that between 1998 and 2010, contributions from

education and the workforce-related industries to Rep. Miller increased at a rate far outpacing his

total contributions.1 During the 112th Congress, after becoming the ranking member of the

Education and the Workforce Committee, Rep. Miller voted in agreement with the interests

overseen by the Education and the Workforce Committee on par with the average Democrat.

Campaign Contributions from the Education and Workforce Sector



Total Contributions $1,527,308 $671,253 -56%

During the 2012 election cycle, education and the workforce-related industries accounted for33% of the $671,253 in total contributions received by Rep. Millers campaign committee

and PAC.

During the 2010 election cycle, education and the workforce-related industries accounted for30% of the $1,527,308 in total contributions received by Rep. Millers campaign committee

and PAC.


The education industry contributed 108 times less money to Rep. Miller during the 2012election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, decreasing its contributions from

$135,461 to $1,250.

Health professionals contributed almost two times less money to Rep. Miller during the 2012election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, decreasing their contributions from

$59,500 to $31,500.


11


14/34

Public sector unions contributed 1.6 times less money to Rep. Miller during the 2012 electioncycle than during the 2010 election cycle, decreasing their contributions from $99,665 to

$60,517.

Votes on Education and Workforce Issues

From 2011-2012, Rep. Miller voted in agreement with the interests regulated by theEducation and Workforce Committee 70% of the time. The average Democrat has voted in


12


15/34

REPRESENTATIVE FRED UPTON (R-MI)

Chairman, House Committee on Energy and Commerce

Rep. Uptons contributions from energy and commerce-related industries jumped by

more than two-fifths between the 2010 and 2012 cycles, an increase that tracked his 2011

elevation from committee member to committee chair. He was included in CREWs 2011 Funds

for Favorsreport, which found that between 1998 and 2010, contributions from energy and

commerce-related industries to Rep. Upton increased at a rate far outpacing his total

contributions.1 During the 112th Congress, after becoming chair of the Energy and Commerce

Committee, Rep. Upton voted in agreement with the interests regulated by the Energy and

Commerce Committee slightly more frequently than the average Republican.

Campaign Contributions from the Energy and Commerce Sector

2010 Election Cycle 2012 Election Cycle % ChangeIndustry Contributions $1,290,002 $1,873,723 45%


During the 2012 election cycle, energy and commerce-related industries accounted for 47%of the $4,015,195 in total contributions received by Rep. Uptons campaign committee and

PAC.

During the 2010 election cycle, energy and commerce-related industries accounted for 52%of the $2,482,921 in total contributions received by Rep. Uptons campaign committee and

PAC.


HMOs and the health services industrys contributions to Rep. Upton almost quadrupledfrom the 2010 election cycle to the 2012 election cycle, increasing from $30,950 to

$121,400.

The mining industrys contributions to Rep. Upton more than tripled from the 2010 electioncycle to the 2012 election cycle, increasing from $32,000 to $104,908.

Hospitals and nursing homes contributed 1.7 times more money to Rep. Upton during the2012 election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, increasing their contributions from

$37,150 to $66,300.


13


16/34

Votes on Energy and Commerce Issues

From 2011-2012, Rep. Upton voted in agreement with the interests regulated by the Energyand Commerce Committee 77% of the time. The average Republican voted in agreement

with those interests 73% of the time.

14


17/34

REPRESENTATIVE HENRY WAXMAN (D-CA)

Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Energy and Commerce

Rep. Waxmans contributions from energy and commerce-related industries dropped by

almost a third between the 2010 and 2012 cycles, a decrease that tracked his 2011 move from

committee chair to ranking member. He was included in CREWs 2011 Funds for Favors

report, which found that between 1998 and 2010, contributions from energy and commerce-

related industries to Rep. Waxman increased at a slower rate than his total contributions.1

During the 112th Congress, after becoming the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce

Committee, Rep. Waxman voted in agreement with the interests overseen by the Energy and

Commerce Committee less frequently than the average Democrat.

Campaign Contributions from the Energy and Commerce Sector

2010 Election Cycle 2012 Election Cycle % ChangeIndustry Contributions $935,921 $667,050 -29%


During the 2012 election cycle, energy and commerce-related industries accounted for 37%of the $1,813,053 in total contributions received by Rep. Waxmans campaign committee

and PAC.

During the 2010 election cycle, energy and commerce-related industries accounted for 48%of the $1,948,295 in total contributions received by Rep. Waxmans campaign committee

and PAC.


HMOs and the health services industry contributed seven times less money to Rep. Waxmanduring the 2012 election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, decreasing from $122,850

to $17,300.

Hospitals and nursing homes contributed 1.5 times less money to Rep. Waxman during the2012 election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, decreasing from $123,000 to

$79,250.

The TV, movies, and music industry donated 1.4 times less money to Rep. Waxman duringthe 2012 election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, decreasing from $223,671 to

$158,250.


15


18/34

Votes on Energy and Commerce Issues

From 2011-2012, Rep. Waxman voted in agreement with the interests regulated by theEnergy and Commerce Committee 34% of the time. The average Democrat voted in


16


19/34

REPRESENTATIVE JEB HENSARLING (R-TX)

Chairman, House Committee on Financial Services

Rep. Hensarlings contributions from the financial services industry jumped by three-

quarters between the 2010 and 2012 cycles, an increase immediately preceding his 2013

elevation from committee member to committee chair. During the 112th Congress, Rep.

Hensarling voted in agreement with the interests regulated by the Financial Services Committee

slightly more frequently than the average Republican.

Campaign Contributions from the Financial Services Sector


Industry Contributions $682,084 $1,190,006 74%


During the 2012 election cycle, the financial services industry accounted for 41% of the$2,900,558 in total contributions received by Rep. Hensarlings campaign committee and

PAC.

During the 2010 election cycle, the financial services industry accounted for 43% of the$1,574,331 in total contributions received by Rep. Hensarlings campaign committee andPAC.


The insurance industrys contributions to Rep. Hensarling more than doubled from the 2010election cycle to the 2012 election cycle, increasing from $146,134 to $295,897.

Home builders contributed almost nine times more money to Rep. Hensarling during the2012 election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, increasing their contributions from

$2,550 to $22,550.

The banking and credit industry contributed 1.5 times more money to Rep. Hensarling duringthe 2012 election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, increasing its contributions from

$229,250 to $343,909.

Votes on Financial Services Issues

From 2011-2012, Rep. Hensarling voted in agreement with the interests regulated by theFinancial Services Committee 80% of the time. The average Republican voted in agreement


1This section highlights committee industries that significantly increased or decreased their donations to thecommittee leader between the 2010 and 2012 election cycles.

17


20/34

REPRESENTATIVE MAXINE WATERS (D-CA)

Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Financial Services

Rep. Waters contributions from the financial services industry nearly quadrupled

between the 2010 and 2012 election cycles, an increase immediately preceding her 2013

elevation from committee member to ranking member. During the 112th Congress, Rep. Waters

voted in agreement with the interests regulated by the Financial Services Committee less

frequently than the average Democrat.

Campaign Contributions from the Financial Services Sector


Industry Contributions $40,594 $152,050 275%

Total Contributions $304,970 $624,844 105%

During the 2012 election cycle, the financial services industry accounted for 24% of the$624,844 in total contributions received by Rep. Waters campaign committee and PAC.

During the 2010 election cycle, the financial services industry accounted for 13% of the$304,970 in total contributions received by Rep. Waters campaign committee and PAC.


The insurance industry contributed more than 16 times more money to Rep. Waters duringthe 2012 election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, increasing its contributions from

$1,000 to $16,500.

The banking and credit industry contributed more than 12 times more money to Rep. Watersduring the 2012 election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, increasing its


Accountants contributed seven times more money to Rep. Waters during the 2012 electioncycle than during the 2010 election cycle, increasing their contributions from $1,500 to

$10,500.

Votes on Financial Services Issues

From 2011-2012, Rep. Waters voted in agreement with the interests regulated by theFinancial Services Committee 33% of the time. The average Democrat voted in agreement



18


21/34

REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL (R-TX)

Chairman, House Committee on Homeland Security

Rep. McCauls contributions from homeland security-related industries did not change

significantly between the 2010 and 2012 cycles, the period immediately preceding his 2013

elevation from committee member to committee chair. During the 112th Congress, Rep. McCaul

voted in agreement with the interests regulated by the Homeland Security Committee on par with

the average Republican.

Campaign Contributions from the Homeland Security Sector




During the 2012 election cycle, homeland security-related industries accounted for 12% ofthe $1,089,702 in total contributions received by Rep. McCauls campaign committee and

PAC.

During the 2010 election cycle, homeland security-related industries accounted for 9% of the$1,430,770 in total contributions received by Rep. McCauls campaign committee and PAC.


The defense electronics industrys contributions to Rep. McCaul almost doubled from 2012election cycle to the 2010 election cycle, increasing from $10,000 to $17,000.

The defense aerospace industry contributed 1.1 times more money to Rep. McCaul duringthe 2012 election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, increasing its contributions from

$27,250 to $31,250.

Votes on Homeland Security Issues

From 2011-2012, Rep. McCaul voted in agreement with the interests regulated by theHomeland Security Committee 57% of the time. The average Republican voted in agreement


1This section highlights committee industries that significantly increased their donations to the committee leaderbetween the 2010 and 2012 election cycles.

19


22/34

REPRESENTATIVE BENNIE THOMPSON (D-MS)

Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Homeland Security

Rep. Thompsons contributions from homeland security-related industries dropped by

two-fifths between the 2010 and 2012 cycles, a decrease that tracked his 2011 move from

committee chair to ranking member. Though homeland security-related industries cut back their

contributions to Rep. Thompson, his overall contributions declined at a slightly sharper rate,

making contributions from interests overseen by his committee a larger percentage of his total

campaign contributions during the 2012 election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle. He

was included in CREWs 2011 Funds for Favorsreport, which found that between 1998 and

2010, contributions from homeland security-related industries to Rep. Thompson increased at a

rate outpacing his total contributions.1 During the 112th Congress, after becoming the ranking

member of the Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Thompson voted in agreement with the

interests overseen by the Homeland Security committee on par with the average Democrat.

Campaign Contributions from the Homeland Security Sector




During the 2012 election cycle, homeland security-related industries accounted for 21% ofthe $1,130,462 in total contributions received by Rep. Thompsons campaign committee and

PAC.

During the 2010 election cycle, homeland security-related industries accounted for 20% ofthe $2,034,456 in total contributions received by Rep. Thompsons campaign committee and

PAC.


The defense electronics industry contributed 3.2 times less money to Rep. Thompson duringthe 2012 election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, decreasing its contributions from

$71,600 to $22,500.

Transportation unions contributed 1.7 times less money to Rep. Thompson during the 2012election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, decreasing their contributions from

$117,000 to $69,500.

1For more information, seeFunds for Favors: Exposing Donors Influence on Committee Leaders available athttp://www.citizensforethics.org/pages/funds-for-favors.2This section highlights committee industries that significantly decreased their donations to the committee leaderbetween the 2010 and 2012 election cycles.

20


23/34

The defense aerospace industry contributed 1.6 times less money to Rep. Thompson duringthe 2012 election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, decreasing its contributions from

$47,900 to $29,500.

Votes on Homeland Security Issues

From 2011-2012, Rep. Thompson voted in agreement with the interests regulated by theHomeland Security Committee 55% of the time. The average Democrat voted in agreement


21


24/34

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERT GOODLATTE (R-VA)

Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary

Rep. Goodlattes contributions from industries with interests before the Judiciary

Committee doubled between the 2010 and 2012 cycles, an increase immediately preceding his

2013 move from committee member to committee chair. During the 112th Congress, Rep.

Goodlatte voted in agreement with the interests regulated by the Judiciary Committee slightly

more frequently than the average Republican.

Campaign Contributions from the Judiciary Sector



Total Contributions $891,929 $1,505,712 69%

During the 2012 election cycle, Judiciary Committee governed businesses accounted for 6%of the $1,505,712 in total contributions received by Rep. Goodlattes campaign committee

and PAC.

During the 2010 election cycle, Judiciary Committee governed businesses accounted for 5%of the $891,929 in total contributions received by Rep. Goodlattes campaign committee and

PAC.


Lawyers and law firms contributions to Rep. Goodlatte more than doubled from the 2010election cycle to the 2012 election, increasing from $26,050 to $62,793.

Votes on Judiciary Issues

From 2011-2012, Rep. Goodlatte voted in agreement with the interests regulated by theJudiciary Committee 75% of the time. The average Republican voted in agreement with



22


25/34

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN CONYERS JR. (D-MI)

Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Judiciary

Rep. Conyers contributions from industries with interests before the Judiciary

Committee dropped by one-fifth between the 2010 and 2012 cycles, a decrease that tracked his

2011 move from committee chair to ranking member. Though these industries cut back their

contributions to Rep. Conyers, his overall contributions declined at a sharper rate, making

contributions from interests overseen by his committee a larger total percentage of his total

campaign contributions during the 2012 election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle. He

was included in CREWs 2011 Funds for Favorsreport, which found that between 1998 and

2010, contributions from judiciary-related industries to Rep. Conyers increased at a rate

outpacing his total.1 During the 112th Congress, after becoming the ranking member of the

Judiciary Committee, Rep. Conyers voted in agreement with the interests regulated by the

Judiciary Committee less frequently than the average Democrat.

Campaign Contributions from the Judiciary Sector




During the 2012 election cycle, Judiciary Committee governed businesses accounted for 12%of the $963,843 in total contributions received by Rep. Conyers campaign committee and

PAC.

During the 2010 election cycle, Judiciary Committee governed businesses accounted for 11%of the $1,340,120 in total contributions received by Rep. Conyers campaign committee and

PAC.


Lawyers and law firms contributed 1.2 times less money to Rep. Conyers during the 2012election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, decreasing their contributions from

$147,602 to $115,482.

Votes on Judiciary Issues


23


26/34

From 2011-2012, Rep. Conyers voted in agreement with the interests regulated by theJudiciary Committee 46% of the time. The average Democrat voted in agreement with those

interests 64% of the time.

24


27/34

REPRESENTATIVE DOC HASTINGS (R-WA)

Chairman, House Committee on Natural Resources

Rep. Hastings contributions from natural resources-related industries more than doubled

between the 2010 and 2012 cycles, an increase that tracked his 2011 elevation from ranking

member to committee chair. He was included in CREWs 2011 Funds for Favorsreport, which

found that between 1998 and 2010, contributions from natural resources-related industries to

Rep. Hastings increased at a rate far outpacing his total contributions.1 During the 112th

Congress, after becoming chair of the Natural Resources Committee, Rep. Hastings voted in

agreement with the interests regulated by the Natural Resources Committee slightly less

frequently than the average Republican.

Campaign Contributions from the Natural Resources Sector



During the 2012 election cycle, natural resources-related industries accounted for 23% of the$1,364,635 in total contributions received by Rep. Hastings campaign committee and PAC.2

During the 2010 election cycle, natural resources-related industries accounted for 14% of the$1,056,576 in total contributions received by Rep. Hastings campaign committee.


The mining industry contributed more than six times more money to Rep. Hastings duringthe 2012 election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, increasing its contributions from

$17,250 to $112,628.

Environmental interests contributed more than four times more money to Rep. Hastingsduring the 2012 election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, increasing their


The oil and gas industry contributed 1.4 times more money to Rep. Hastings during the 2012election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $91,617

to $131,799.

1For more information, see Funds for Favors: Exposing Donors Influence on Committee Leaders, available athttp://www.citizensforethics.org/pages/funds-for-favors.2Rep. Hastings PAC was formed in June 2011. SeeRoll on Columbia Political Action Committee, Statement ofOrganization, June 15, 2011.3This section highlights committee industries that significantly increased or decreased their donations to thecommittee leader between the 2010 and 2012 election cycles.

25


28/34

Votes on Natural Resources Issues

From 2011-2012, Rep. Hastings voted in agreement with the interests regulated by theNatural Resources Committee 44% of the time. The average Republican voted in agreement


26


29/34

REPRESENTATIVE EDWARD MARKEY (D-MA)1

Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Natural Resources

Rep. Markeys contributions from natural resources-related industries dropped by two-fifths between the 2010 and 2012 cycles, a decrease that tracked his 2011 move from committee

member to ranking member. He was included in CREWs 2011 Funds for Favorsreport, whichfound that between 1998 and 2010, contributions from natural resources-related industries toRep. Markey increased at a rate far outpacing his total contributions.2 During the 112thCongress, after becoming the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee, Rep.Markey voted in agreement with the interests overseen by the Natural Resources Committee onpar with the average Democrat.

Campaign Contributions from the Natural Resources Sector




During the 2012 election cycle, natural resources-related industries accounted for 3% of the$902,512 in total contributions received by Rep. Markeys campaign committee.

During the 2010 election cycle, natural resources-related industries accounted for 3% of the$1,535,340 in total contributions received by Rep. Markeys campaign committee.


The oil and gas industry contributed 4.2 times less money to Rep. Markey during the 2012election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, decreasing its contributions from $34,250

to $8,000.

Votes on Natural Resources Issues

From 2011-2012, Rep. Markey voted in agreement with the interests regulated by theNatural Resources Committee 47% of the time. The average Democrat voted in agreementwith those interests 49% of the time.

1Rep. Markey was elected to the Senate in June 2013. Rep. Peter DeFazio is now the ranking member of the HouseCommittee on Natural Resources. SeeMichael Levenson, Frank Philips and Martin Finucane, US Rep Edward J.Markey Beats Gabriel E. Gomez in US Senate Special Election in Mass.,Boston Globe, June 25, 2013.2For more information, see Funds for Favors: Exposing Donors Influence on Committee Leaders, available athttp://www.citizensforethics.org/pages/funds-for-favors.3This section highlights committee industries that significantly increased or decreased their donations to thecommittee leader between the 2010 and 2012 election cycles.

27


30/34

REPRESENTATIVE LAMAR SMITH (R-TX)

Chairman, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

Rep. Smiths contributions from science, space, and technology-related industries jumped

by almost two-thirds between the 2010 and 2012 cycles, an increase immediately preceding his

2013 elevation from committee member to committee chair. During the 112th Congress, Rep.

Smith voted in agreement with the interests regulated by the Science, Space, and Technology

Committee slightly more frequently than the average Republican.

Campaign Contributions from the Science, Space and Technology Sector




During the 2012 election cycle, science, space, and technology industries-related industriesaccounted for 7% of the $1,631,996 in total contributions received by Rep. Smith campaign

committee and PAC.

During the 2010 election cycle, science, space, and technology-related industries accountedfor 6% of the $1,183,556 in total contributions received by Rep. Smiths campaign

committee and PAC.


The air transport industrys contributions to Rep. Smith more than doubled from the 2010election cycle to the 2012 election cycle, increasing from $9,750 to $23,400.

The oil and gas industrys contributions to Rep. Smith almost doubled from the 2010 electioncycle to the 2012 election cycle, increasing from $50,650 to $83,750.

Votes on Science, Space and Technology Issues

From 2011-2012, Rep. Smith voted in agreement with the interests regulated by the Science,Space, and Technology Committee 95% of the time. In contrast, the average Republican

voted in agreement with those interests 90% of the time.


28


31/34

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (D-TX)

Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

Rep. Johnsons contributions from science, space, and technology-related industries

almost doubled between the 2010 and 2012 cycles, an increase that tracked her 2011 elevation

from committee member to ranking member. She was included in CREWs 2011 Funds for

Favorsreport, which found that between 1998 and 2010, contributions to Rep. Johnson from

science, space and technology-related industries increased, but at a slower rate than her total

contributions.1 During the 112th Congress, after becoming the ranking member of the Science,

Space, and Technology Committee, Rep. Johnson voted in agreement with the interests regulated

by the Science, Space and Technology Committee more frequently than the average Democrat.

Campaign Contributions from the Science, Space and Technology Sector


Total Contributions $613,624 $760,162 24%

During the 2012 election cycle, science, space, and technology-related industries accountedfor 11% of the $760,162 in total contributions received by Rep. Johnsons campaign

committee.

During the 2010 election cycle, science, space, and technology industries-related accountedfor 7% of the $613,624 in total contributions received by Rep. Johnsons campaign

committee.


The air transport industrys contributions to Rep. Johnson almost doubled from the 2010election cycle to the 2012 election cycle, increasing from $25,138 to $48,249.

Electric utilities contributions to Rep. Johnson almost doubled from the 2010 election cycleto the 2012 election cycle, increasing from $10,748 to $18,200.

Votes on Science, Space, and Technology Issues

From 2011-2012, Rep. Johnson voted in agreement with the interests regulated by theScience, Space, and Technology Committee 42% of the time. The average Democrat voted

in agreement with those interests 24% of the time of the time.1For more information, see Funds for Favors: Exposing Donors Influence on Committee Leaders, available athttp://www.citizensforethics.org/pages/funds-for-favors.2This section highlights committee industries that significantly increased or decreased their donations to thecommittee leader between the 2010 and 2012 election cycles.

29


32/34

REPRESENTATIVE BILL SHUSTER (R-PA)

Chairman, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

Rep. Shusters contributions from transportation and infrastructure-related industries

jumped by 151% between the 2010 and 2012 cycles, an increase immediately preceding his 2013

elevation from committee member to committee chair. During the 112th Congress, Rep. Shuster

voted in agreement with the interests regulated by the Transportation and Infrastructure

Committee slightly more frequently than the average Republican.

Campaign Contributions from the Transportation and Infrastructure Sector



Total Contributions $823,669 $1,647,557 100%

During the 2012 election cycle, transportation and infrastructure-related industries accountedfor 30% of the $1,647,557 in total contributions received by Rep. Shusters campaign

committee and PAC.

During the 2010 election cycle, transportation and infrastructure-related industries accountedfor 24% of the $823,669 in total contributions received by Rep. Shusters campaign

committee and PAC.


The construction services industrys contributions to Rep. Shuster tripled from the 2010election cycle to the 2012 election cycle, increasing from $35,250 to $106,650.

The air transport industry contributed five times more money to Rep. Shuster during the 2012election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $18,500

to $97,500.

The trucking industry contributed four times more money to Rep. Shuster during the 2012election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $15,500

to $59,500.

Votes on Transportation and Infrastructure Issues

From 2011-2012, Rep. Shuster voted in agreement with the interests regulated by theTransportation and Infrastructure Committee 74% of the time. In contrast, the average

Republican has voted in agreement with those interests 68% of the time. 1This section highlights committee industries that significantly increased or decreased their donations to thecommittee leader between the 2010 and 2012 election cycles.

30


33/34

REPRESENTATIVE NICK RAHALL II (D-WV)

Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

Rep. Rahalls contributions from transportation and infrastructure-related industries more

than doubled between the 2010 and 2012 cycles, an increase that tracked his 2011 elevation from

committee member to ranking member. He was included in CREWs 2011 Funds for Favors

report, which found that between 1998 and 2010, contributions from transportation and

infrastructure-related industries to Rep. Rahall increased at a slower rate than his total

contributions.1During the 112th Congress, Rep. Rahall has voted in agreement with interests

regulated by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee much more frequently than the

average Democrat.

Campaign Contributions from the Transportation and Infrastructure Sector



During the 2012 election cycle, transportation and infrastructure-related industries accountedfor 37% of the $1,334,822 in total contributions received by Rep. Rahalls campaign

committee and PAC.

During the 2010 election cycle, transportation and infrastructure industries-related accountedfor 18% of the $1,280,682 in total contributions received by Rep. Rahalls campaign

committee and PAC.


The trucking industry contributed more than five times more money to Rep. Rahall duringthe 2012 election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, increasing its contributions from

$6,000 to $33,500.

The air transport industrys contributions to Rep. Rahall almost tripled from the 2010election cycle to the 2012 election cycle, increasing from $46,500 to $126,867.

General contractors contributions to Rep. Rahall almost tripled from the 2010 election cycleto the 2012 election cycle, increasing from $16,900 to $44,150.


31


34/34

Votes on Transportation and Infrastructure Issues

From 2011-2012, Rep. Rahall voted in agreement with the interests regulated by theTransportation and Infrastructure Committee 61% of the time. The average Democrat voted

in agreement with those interests 41% of the time.

Funds for Favors II: Exposing Donors' Influence on Committee Leaders

Documents

Transcript of Funds for Favors II: Exposing Donors' Influence on Committee Leaders