Author: Cassandra LaRussa

Female bloggers owe a lot to Ada Lovelace, the imaginative and intelligent “enchantress of numbers.”

As the first person to envision the use of computers for purposes beyond mathematical computations — and considered by many to be the first computer programmer — Lovelace not only paved the way for all those who use the Internet to communicate and educate, but continues to serve as a hero for women and girls involved in math, science and technology. That’s why we celebrate her contributions today on Ada Lovelace Day. 

I joined the Center for Responsive Politics in early January as a communications intern. Since then, I have made my contributions to cyberspace on a regular basis, reporting on a variety of money-in-politics stories for the Center’s Capital Eye blog.

There is no doubt that the Internet allows methods of communication — from Twitter to the minute-by-minute updates on news blogs — that make the entire world more closely intertwined and more quickly informed.

But the Internet does not just improve the speed of communication. More importantly, it helps better inform and engage the public. I have been lucky enough to intern at several organizations that promote transparency and accountability in government, at both the state and federal level. Although I doubt Thomas Jefferson envisioned a “tweeting” Congress, it’s all but impossible to deny that the Internet has made information about the government more available to the public than ever before. And this is changing politics in America.

Blogs such as CRP’s Capital Eye make facts and data about the government easily accessible to the public in a fair and straightforward way, so that citizens may educate themselves and make their own decisions about politics. The valuable resources highlighted and used on Capital Eye, such as CRP’s lobbying database, enhance the democratic process by making the government more transparent and accountable to its constituents. 

In honor of Lovelace and her pioneering vision in the field of computer technology, take a moment to appreciate the power of the modern computer in the communication of news and ideas, and the power that it has in American democracy. Celebrate Ada Lovelace Day!

Cassandra LaRussa is a communications intern for the Center for Responsive Politics, where she writes for Capital Eye. She is a sophomore at The George Washington University in Washington, D.C.

Last week, the Center for Responsive Politics announced the winners of the money-in-politics Oscars, which named the top political donors from a list of Oscar nominees in the categories of best lead actor, best lead actress, best supporting actor, best supporting actress, best director and best picture.
 
The cash totaled at more than $400,000 with the vast majority going to Democratic candidates and organizations.
 
Now, after a night of accolades and touching thank-you speeches, the real question: Does a movie star’s political contributions correlate with them winning an Oscar?
 
Hopefully, you didn’t place your Oscar bets based on our report, because the answer is a resounding, “not really.”

The only time that the recipient of the Center for Responsive Politics’ award was the same as recipient of the real Oscar was in the category of best lead actor. The winner of both, Jeff Bridges, has donated about $64,800 to various Democratic candidates, political parties and political action committees.
 
In the category of best supporting actor, the money-in-politics Oscar went to Matt Damon. The winner of the real Oscar was Christoph Waltz. He has not donated to a federal-level political cause during the past two decades.
 
In the category of best supporting actress, the money-in-politics Oscar went to Maggie Gyllenhaal. The winner of the real Oscar was Mo’Nique. She has not donated to a political cause in the past two decades.

In the category of best leading actress, there was no money-in-politics Oscar given.
The winner of the real Oscar was Sandra Bullock. She, too, has not donated to a political cause in the past two decades.

In the category of best director, the money-in-politics Oscar went to James Cameron. The winner of the real Oscar was Kathryn Bigelow, Cameron’s ex-wife. Bigelow gave $550 to federal political interests, split between a Democratic candidate and the Democratic National Committee.

In the category of best picture, the money-in-politics Oscar went to Lawrence Bender. The winner of the real Oscar was Kathryn Bigelow, Mark Boal, Nicolas Chartier and Greg Shapiro for “The Hurt Locker.” Bigelow was the only one of the four to make a political donation.

Maybe the red carpet should turn green.

On Sunday, movie lovers and fashion enthusiasts will tune in to watch the 82nd annual Academy Awards. The glamorous gowns and handsome suits cost a pretty penny, but most do not realize that a portion of celebrities’ paychecks aren’t destined for their own silk-lined pockets — but rather politicians’ pockets.

The relationship between Hollywood and Washington has a longstanding, albeit rocky, history; actors have been among the most vocal political activists. Though these popular figures often use their high national profiles to lead seemingly populist protests against the federal government, a behind-the-scenes analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics reveals that film celebrities are perhaps more closely intertwined with Washington, D.C.’s elite than their activist image might suggest. 

In all, 15 of this year’s nominees within the top six Academy Awards categories — best picture, best director, best lead actor, best lead actress, best supporting actor and best supporting actress — donated money to federal candidates, parties and political action committees at some point during the past two decades.

The cash totaled at more than $400,000, with 87 percent of this money going to identifiably Democratic candidates and political committees, and 2 percent going to Republican candidates and political committees.

So with that, the Center for Responsive Politics is pleased to announce the first-ever money-in-politics Oscars!

LEAD ACTOR

The nominees in this category are: Jeff Bridges, George Clooney, Colin Firth, Morgan Freeman and Jeremy Renner.
 
And the money-in-politics Oscar goes to … Jeff Bridges!

Bridges and his wife have given about $64,800 in federal campaign contributions and party contributions since 1990. The couple gave $2,300 to President Barack Obama and the rest was split among 18 Democratic candidates; party committees such as the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Democratic National Committee; and political action committee Moveon.org.

Bridges, who appeared in “Crazy Heart,” faced stiff competition in this category: George Clooney has donated $57,000 to recipients that include Obama, seven other Democrats, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic National Committee. Morgan Freeman placed third, with $7,400 in campaign cash going to Obama and four other Democrats.

LEAD ACTRESS

The nominees are Sandra Bullock, Helen Mirren, Carey Mulligan, Gabourey Sidibe and Meryl Streep, but none of them have made political donations in the past two decades. While they certainly know their way to Santa Monica Boulevard, don’t ask them for directions to Pennsylvania Avenue.

SUPPORTING ACTOR

The nominees in this category are: Matt Damon, Woody Harrelson, Christopher Plummer, Stanley Tucci and Christoph Waltz.

And the money-in-politics Oscar goes to … Matt Damon!

Over the past two decades, Matt Damon and his wife made $106,000 in federal political contributions. The “Invictus” star and his wife donated $9,200 to Obama’s presidential campaign and supported the candidacies of three other Democrats. However, almost 80 percent of Damon’s political cash — a cool $83,000 — has gone to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. This was not a competitive category; the only other contender was Stanley Tucci, who donated $250 this year to John Hall, a representative from New York’s 19th congressional district.

SUPPORTING ACTRESS

The nominees in this category are: Penelope Cruz, Vera Farmiga, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Anna Kendrick and Mo’Nique.

And the money-in-politics Oscar goes to … Maggie Gyllenhaal!

The only political contributor in this category, Gyllenhaal won by default.

However, her donated cash is no small sum. Gyllenhaal, who starred in “Crazy Heart,” has sent $11,000 east to Washington. She donated $3,300 to Obama’s presidential campaign and another $1,000 to John Kerry’s 2004 campaign.

The rest of her political greenbacks are in the hands of the Democratic National Committee.

DIRECTOR

The nominees in this category are: James Cameron, Kathryn Bigelow, Quentin Tarantino, Lee Daniels and Jason Reitman.
 
And the money-in-politics Oscar goes to … James Cameron!

Cameron and his wife, who logged $14,000 worth of political contributions, are the only bipartisan donors in the field. Of their contributions, $9,000 went to the campaigns of four Democratic candidates. The rest of the money, however, went to the Republican Party of California. Cameron, who directed “Avatar,” competed in this category against Daniels, who gave $3,000 to Harold Ford, Jr. during the former U.S. representative’s failed 2006 campaign in Tennessee for U.S. Senate, and Kathryn Bigelow, who split $550 between John Kerry and the Democratic National Committee.

BEST PICTURE

The nominees in this category are James Cameron and John Landau for “Avatar”; Gil Netter, Andrew A. Kosove and Broderick Johnson for “The Blind Side”; Peter Jackson and Carolynne Cunningham for District 9; Finola Dwyer and Amanda Posey for “An Education”; Kathryn Bigelow, Mark Boal, Nicolas Chartier and Greg Shapiro for “The Hurt Locker”; Lawrence Bender for “Inglourious Basterds”; Lee Daniels, Sarah Siegel-Magness and Gary Magness for “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire”; Joel Coen and Ethan Coen for “A Serious Man”; Jonas Rivera for “Up” and Daniel Dubiecki, Ivan Reitman and Jason Reitman for “Up in the Air”.

And the money-in-politics Oscar goes to … Lawrence Bender!

Lawrence Bender gave the second highest amount of money out of all the nominees: $65,100. Out of his donations to 19 politicians, the highest amount, $5,000, was given to John Edwards’ leadership PAC, the One America Committee. Bender also donated to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and the Democratic National Committee.

Competition here was abundant. Bender was one of 10 directors and producers in this category who made political contributions over the course of the past two decades. In the order of the amount given, they are: Ivan Reitman ($47,907), Cameron ($14,000), Landau ($10,600), Johnson ($5,950), Kosove ($3,200), Daniels ($3,000), Siegel-Magness ($2,800), and Bigelow ($550). Kosove was the only nominee to donate exclusively to a Republican cause; he and his wife gave their $3,200 donation to John McCain.

Special Money-in Politics Awards:

Most Popular Party Committee:
Democratic National Committee, which received $57,950 among eight nominees. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which only received donations from four nominees, received more money — $91,745 — largely because of Damon’s mammoth contributions.

Most Popular PAC:
Hollywood Women’s Political Committee, which received $14,162 between two nominees, Reitman and Bridges

Most Popular Politician:
Barack Obama, who received $35,650 from nine nominees

The “I Love Obama” Award:
Matt Damon, who along with his wife, gave the legal maximum of $9,200 to Obama

The “I Loved Obama First” Award:
George Clooney, who gave a donation of $2,000 to Obama in 2004

Top Nominee:
Matt Damon, with $106,000 in political contributions

Top Category:
Best Picture, with $140,507 in political contributions

Top Movie:
“Invictus”. The nominees associated with this movie, Matt Damon and Morgan Freeman, gave a combined $113,400. Runner-up: “Up in the Air”. The nominees associated with this movie, George Clooney and Ivan Reitman, gave a combined $104,907. 

Center for Responsive Politics researchers Douglas Weber and Carolyn Sharpe contributed to this report. Graphic design by CRP webmaster Hector Rivera.

Your daily dose of news and tidbits from the world of money in politics:

CHARLIE RANGEL TO VACATE CHAIRMANSHIP: Last night, upon leaving a meeting with House majority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) confidently told reporters that he would be keeping his position as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

“And I don’t lie to the press,” Rangel added.

Today, at 9 a.m., Rangel announced that he would temporarily step down from this leadership role until the House Ethics Committee completes its investigation of his allegedly unethical activity. This included his use of corporate funds for travel, incomplete disclosure forms regarding personal finances and failure to pay federal taxes on rental income from his villa in the Dominican Republic.

According to an article from the New York Times, Rangel has been increasingly preoccupied with this investigation, perhaps taking away from his duties as chairman of this powerful committee. The Ways and Means Committee is particularly notable because of its responsibility for creating tax policy – policy that, most recently, is an integral component of the high-profile health care reform and jobs bills.

Rangel has been a fixture in the House since he was first elected in 1970. He is also a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

The controversy surrounding Rangel had become another headache for Democrats, who, with their eyes on the November congressional elections, were split between supporting the influential representative and admonishing his activities. Many Democrats had pledged to vote with Republicans in their quest to remove Rangel by force. Rangel explained that he was temporarily stepping down so that he would not have to put fellow Democrats through that uncomfortable vote.  

A TRUE AMERICAN: Following his first medical check-up since taking office, doctors advised President Barack Obama to eat more fruits and veggies in order to combat an increase in cholesterol levels. Doctors also ordered the commander in chief to drop his smoking habit.

The report of high cholesterol is a sort of strange political victory for the president.

Throughout his presidential campaign, Obama was frequently defensive about his eating habits. The New York Times Caucus Blog reports that Obama’s usual “healthy plate of sea bass and steamed vegetables” was often traded for a burger and fries on the campaign trail in an effort to appeal to the “common man.” The medical examination was flaunted by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, who was almost proud to report a lack of “carrots and celery” in the White House. But are healthy eating habits really something to be ashamed of?

This message from the White House is surely disapproved of by first lady Michelle Obama, who has made it her personal mission to cut down on childhood obesity, even attending the opening last year of a farmers market near Pennsylvania Avenue If high cholesterol is a way for her husband to identify with his constituency, she clearly has a lot on her plate, so to speak.

According to another New York Times piece, the first lady is also critical of her husband’s smoking habit, and she encouraged him to quit before he became president — a role that inevitably involves becoming a role model to children across the nation. Despite the president’s acknowledged “lapses” in an effort to end the habit, it’s clear that the tobacco industry does not count the president among its biggest fans. In the 2008 election cycle, Obama, despite raising more money than any other U.S. politician, wasn’t even in the top 10 federal candidates to receive campaign contributions from the tobacco industry, which includes “heavy hitters” Altria Group, Reynolds American, and UST Inc.

CALIFORNIA PROSPECTS: As 2010 congressional election discourse grows more heated, Republicans turn their attention to the Golden State, where the seat of Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer is seen as one of the more vulnerable to GOP takeover. A Republican win in this often left-leaning state come in November is key for the party’s overall goal of a congressional majority. Because of what is at stake, the pressure is on to choose the best Republican to take on the task of challenging Boxer.

First elected in 1992, Boxer knows that she is entering a tough re-election campaign. But a New York Times article reports divisions between her potential opponents that reflect nationwide discord between the Republican Party’s moderate and conservative factions. These opponents in the race for the coveted Senate seat include wealthy businesswoman Carly Fiorina, moderate Tom Campbell and Charles S. DeVore, a self-described tea party candidate.  

Currently, Boxer’s campaign finance war chest is significantly larger than any of the Republicans’, and 76 percent of the $11.8 million that Boxer has raised is from individual contributions. Fiorina comes in second place in the race for the biggest campaign war chest, but her $3.6 million raised is actually 70 percent self-financed thus far.

Have a news tip or link to pass along? We want to hear from you! E-mail us at [email protected].

As Democrats try not to let political turbulence slim their ranks and Republicans focus on winning back the majority, money continues to pour into campaign coffers. Big-money congressional races are often in competitive states or districts that could wind up flipping for Republican or Democratic, a Center for Responsive Politics review of campaign finance reports through the end of 2009 shows.

In the Senate, where several seats are expected to be an uphill push for incumbent Democrats, sitting senators have amassed massive war chests.

In Arkansas, Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln has $5.1 million and counting to use in her race against a to-be-determined Republican (and fend off a primary challenge from Democratic Lieutenant Gov. Bill Halter). Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer raised $7.3 million through the end of 2009 for her face off against a Republican in November. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has had a trying year, but ended 2009 with $8.7 million for his reelection bid. And freshman Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) may also have a tough road ahead, but had $3.5 million in the bank at the end of 2009 for his race.

In the House, vulnerable Democrats include freshmen like Rep. Betsy Markey (D-Colo.) and Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.). Markey ended the year with almost $800,000 in the bank, and Grayson ended the year with a little more than $900,000 in cash on hand. Vulnerable Republicans include freshmen Rep. Joseph Cao (R-La.), who ended the year with about $316,000 in his campaign war chest.

Below are several other congressional races to watch that involve the biggest money-in-politics numbers.   

House: South Carolina 2

Two words were all it took to turn on the spigot for record amounts of campaign cash to flow into this central-south district of South Carolina that includes the state capital, Columbia.

When Republican Rep. Joe Wilson voiced his infamous “You lie!” at President Barack Obama’s speech to Congress regarding health care in September 2009, little did he know that the ensuing national attention would bring massive contributions for his 2010 congressional reelection race, and also draw in hefty contributions in favor of his opponent, Democratic challenger Rob Miller.

The high-profile outburst — and subsequent attention that it drew to a district that has been held by a Republican since 1965 — has helped the candidates retain their third-quarter status as the most expensive race in the country. Currently, Wilson and Miller have raised a total of $5.4 million. They ended 2009 with a combined $4 million in cash on hand combined. This is the second time that the two men have faced off; Miller ran against Wilson in 2008 and lost by eight percentage points.

Although some believed that Miller would out-raise Wilson through his affiliation with ActBlue, Wilson also embraced the Internet as a vehicle for donations and wound up raising more money than he did over the course of his entire 2008 race in just one quarter.

There is no significant self-financing by either candidate; the majority of the cash — 97 percent for Miller and 92 percent for Wilson — has come from individual contributions.

Although Wilson, who serves on the Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, Education and Labor committees, leads with $3.4 million raised, Miller has raked in a healthy $2 million.

House: Florida 22

Democratic incumbent Ron Klein confronts Republican challenger Allen West in this money-saturated election in the 22nd district, located on the southeastern coast of the Sunshine State. Combined, the candidates have hauled in slightly more than $1 million over the course of the fourth quarter as they vie for the seat.

The two are neck and neck in terms of cash raised, but Klein has more than $1 million left over from last year’s race, which leaves him with $2.4 million in cash on hand, as opposed to West’s $700,000.

The vast majority, 98 percent, of West’s money is from individual contributions, while that number for Klein is only 71 percent; he gets 28 percent of his contributions from political action committees, including financial industry and labor interests.

Klein was originally elected by a very small margin in 2006, and was first challenged by West in 2008. In the 2008 election cycle, Klein greatly out-raised West and won with 55 percent of the vote.

Klein, who serves on the Financial Services and Foreign Affairs committees, is a member of the New Democrat Coalition. This organization of approximately 70 House Democrats has moderate views and an agenda that emphasizes issues of “economic growth, national security, personal responsibility and technological development,” according to their website. Klein is co-chair of the NDC’s energy task force.

West, on the other hand, is one of the National Republican Campaign Committee’s “Young Guns,” one of the candidates they hope will be most likely to help the GOP regain control of the House in November. A retired American Army officer, West spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference last month.

This heated race has led to more than $2.6 million raised between the two candidates so far.  

House: Minnesota 6

Two Democratic challengers are vying to face off against Republican incumbent Rep. Michele Bachmann in Minnesota’s 6th district. Located in the central-eastern part of the state, this district’s race has generated a large amount of campaign cash. However, most of it is concentrated in the pockets of Bachmann, a rising star among conservatives.

First elected in 2006, Bachmann is the first Republican female representative from Minnesota. She serves on the Financial Services Committee and has recently garnered national attention for her appearance at last month’s Conservative Political Action Conference. She is also active in the ever-growing Tea Party movement.

So far, she has raised $1.5 million for her campaign. Expenditures have left her with just over $1 million in her campaign coffers. The majority of this money, 87 percent, is from individual donations, with 12 percent coming from political action committees, including financial industry interests and conservative ideological groups.

Democrats Tarryl Clark and Maureen Reed, have collected approximately $600,00 and $575,000, respectively, as they compete to run against Bachmann in November. After expenditures, they each have slightly less than $400,000 on hand.  Neither of these challengers are self-financed.

The entire race saw more than $1 million raised in the fourth quarter, bringing the candidates’ total fundraising to $2.7 million. The candidates have spent slightly less than $1 million on their campaigns so far, which leaves them with $1.8 million currently on hand.

Senate: Florida

The most expensive Senate race in the country currently is the competition to fill the seat from which Republican Mel Martinez resigned in August 2009. Republican George LeMieux, who was appointed by governor Charlie Crist after the resignation of Martinez, currently occupies the seat.

Now, the race with no incumbent has already brought more than $17 million, $4 million of which was raised in the fourth quarter. Total expenditures so far for the seat totaled $4.8 million at the end of last year.

Crist, a Republican, is leading the pack in terms of fund-raising numbers, with almost $9 million raised, and 95 percent of that total from individual donations. He was elected governor of Florida in 2006, after previously serving as Florida’s attorney general. After spending $1.4 million on his senate bid, he ended 2009 with $7.6 million on hand.

Marco Rubio, another Republican vying for the spot who is the former speaker of the Florida legislature and is favored among some conservatives, has raised $3.4 million, with 98 percent from individual contributions. He has the least cash left, $2 million.

On the Democratic side, Rep. Kendrick Meek raised almost $4.7 million in 2009, 80 percent from individual donations. Meek has spent $1.7 million, slightly more than either Crist or Rubio thus far, but still has $3.4 million in his campaign reserves.

Control of this seat has alternated back and forth between Democrats and Republicans since the 1950s, and the stage is set for intense competition. In addition to Crist, Rubio and Meeks, there is a group of at least ten other Democrats, Republicans and independents whose campaign funds contribute to the overall numbers for the race as well.

Senate: Ohio

In Ohio, Republican George Voinovich’s decision to not seek re-election in 2010 has opened the seat up to an expensive competition.

Republican Rob Portman, who has previously served Ohio as a U.S. Representative and has also occupied numerous federal positions, including director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Bush administration, is on top from the money-in-politics angle. He has only spent $1.7 million of the $6.2 million he raised, and he ended 2009 with more than $6 million in cash on hand.

Portman is being challenged in the primary by the largely self-financed Thomas Ganley. Of the $1.6 million Ganley raised, 96 percent is his own money, with only $60,000 in individual campaign donations. He ended 2009 with about $1.3 million in his campaign war chest.

Democrat Lee Irwin Fisher, the current lieutenant governor raised $3.3 million in 2009, spent more than $1.5 million and ended the year with $1.8 million. Another Democratic player, although one with minimal money, is Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner. Last year, she only raised about $678,000 and had just $61,000 in her war chest after expenditures.

A handful of other candidates have filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission, mostly as independents, and reported small reserves that are mostly self-financing.

Together, the candidates in this race have raised a total of $11.8 million, spent a total of $4.1 million and ended 2009 with $9.2 million in cash on hand combined.

Senate: Pennsylvania

The Senate race of incumbent Arlen Specter against both a Republican and a Democratic challenger has resulted in the second most expensive Senate race nationwide.

Specter was first elected to the Senate in 1980. He represented his Pennsylvanian constituents as a Republican until an announcement in April of 2009 that he was would run for reelection in 2010 as a Democrat.

As the incumbent, Specter has the access to the most cash, and accounts for the majority of the money in this race. Specter has raised $13.9 million, 73 percent of which are from individual donations and 20 percent of which is PAC money. He ended the year with $8.6 million in his war chest after expenditures.

Republican challenger Pat Toomey has not raised the same staggering amounts that Specter has, but polls show that he is giving Specter a run for his money, so to speak. Toomey raised $4.9 million over in 2009, and ended the year with $2.9 million left in his war chest. His money is 93 percent individual donations.

The conservative Club for Growth, the organization formerly headed by Toomey, has also sought to diminish Specter’s war chest by reminding donors of his Specter’s promise to refund contributions made prior to his decision to become a Democrat.

Specter’s Democratic challenger, Joseph Sestak, raised $652,000 during the fourth quarter and ended the year with $5.1 million in cash on hand. Democratic-leaning groups and liberal ideological donors top the list of Sestak’s supporters as he tries to unseat Specter in a Democratic primary from the left

All together, all candidates in this race raised slightly less than $15 million in 2009 and their expenditures totaled $7 million. They finished the year with a combined $16.7 million in cash on hand.

CRP Senior Researcher Douglas Weber contributed to this report.

Your daily dose of news and tidbits from the world of money in politics:

DEAR NANCY: Several top political donors have written an open letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in support of legislation that will curb the effects of the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case. In the wake of the Court’s ruling last month, predictions abound about the likelihood of unprecedented amounts of campaign spending in future elections, and that possibility troubles a group of wealthy Americans who are often counted on to supply federal campaign cash. According to a New York Times article, the campaign financiers are concerned that the increased pressure to fund-raise will cause candidates to focus on making phone calls to finance their campaigns instead of doing their job of representing their constituents in Congress. The signers have first-hand experience regarding the fund-raising pressures that the congressmen face; they are the recipients of numerous phone calls soliciting campaign funds. In the letter, almost 60 big-time donors ask for Pelosi’s help in passing the Fair Elections Now Act, which would reform the campaign finance system to rely on smaller donations and public funds to run campaigns.

DCCC TO SUE GRIFFITH?: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is trying to use public pressure to get Rep. Parker Griffith (R-Ala.) to refund money that the organization spent on him before he became a Republican in December. But DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) has threatened to take legal action if Griffith does not comply with their strongly worded requests to return the $500,000 that the DCCC spent to get Griffith elected in 2008. Griffith has responded that he cannot return this money because it has already been spent, but he will return money donated in 2009. According to an article in The Hill, experts in campaign finance law say that legal action will be difficult, as the law does not aim to protect donors. But Van Hollen is adamant, stating, “Mr. Griffith, failing to honor our commitment to him, has a duty and responsibility to return to Democratic members and the DCCC the financial resources that were invested in him.”

CLIMATE COOPERATION BREAK-UP: The Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of environmental organizations and energy industry companies, has announced that several members are leaving the Washington-based group due to increasingly unaligned interests. The unlikely collaboration between conservationists and corporations has persevered since 2007 in an effort to advocate for national legislation that will simultaneously protect the environment and promote economic growth. However, the New York Times reports that BP America, ConocoPhillips, and Caterpillar Inc. are pulling out of the alliance, citing differences between the group’s lobbying objectives and their own, and disenchantment with the way that the potential climate change legislation is being handled in Congress. All three companies have decided to lobby separately on the bill, believing that they will have more influence individually. And there is no doubt about the strength of their lobbying resources. The energy and natural resources sector spent more than $400 million on lobbying in 2009, with the oil and gas industry making up more than $168 million of that total. On the other hand, the environmental industry spent only $22.5 million on lobbying in 2009.

Have a news tip or link to pass along? We want to hear from you! E-mail us at [email protected].

Your daily dose of news and tidbits from the world of money in politics,

OBAMA NAMES FAVORITES: In an interview with Bloomberg BusinessWeek on Tuesday, President Barack Obama named several CEOs that he admires. None of them work on Wall Street. Some of the lucky few to make Obama’s list: FedEx CEO Fred Smith, Honeywell CEO David Cote, Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg and John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. In the interview, Obama emphasized the action that his administration is taking to help American businesses across the country, while working to reform those on Wall Street. Interestingly enough, employees of Honeywell, Verizon and Kleiner Perkins Caufiled & Byers all favored Obama during the 2008 election cycle, but FedEx employees gave Obama only about a third as much as they gave to Republican candidate Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz). Moreover, of these CEOs, some have favored Obama and his party, while others have not, the Center for Responsive Politics has found. Doerr gave Obama the legal maximum of $4,600, as did his wife, during the 2008 presidential campaign, while Smith gave the maximum to McCain. Seidenberg, meanwhile, contributed $28,500 to the McCain’s joint fund-raising account with the Republican National Committee, while his wife contributed $30,800 to Obama’s joint fund-raising account with the Democratic National Committee. (Cote did not contribute to any federal politicians.)

BATTLE OF THE BRANCHES: On Thursday, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) announced a legislative attempt to dull the Supreme Court’s recent decision in favor of corporate independent expenditures in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. An outline of the proposed bill includes restrictions on corporate ads– especially those by foreign-controlled companies, federal contractors and recipients of bailout money– and increased disclosure. The 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court in January overturned laws that limited independent political spending by corporations. Some campaign finance reform supporters immediately called for a Constitutional amendment to explicitly state that corporations are not entitled to the same free speech rights as individuals. However, Schumer and Van Hollen rejected this approach, saying the amendment process — and the necessary approval by two-thirds of state legislatures — would take too long. They argued that this is a time-sensitive issue, and that if they do not take action, the 2010 elections will bring unprecedented amounts of money in politics.

REID GOES ROGUE: On the edge of a much-anticipated bipartisan breakthrough, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pulled support for the $85 billion jobs bill on Thursday in favor of a smaller $15 billion version. Reid originally stood behind the $85 billion package and worked to promote congressional cooperation in an effort to deliver a jobs bill that President Barack Obama has promised. The bill, written by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), was also predicated on massive tax cuts for rich Americans — in the form of estate and gift tax reform. Amid genuine surprise from the White House and many senators, there is speculation that Reid backed out because of concerns regarding expenses caused by senators’ pet projects. “Grassley and three to four Republicans would have voted for it, but all the other Republicans would have beaten the living s-t out of us [during the 2010 midterms], claiming the bill was too bloated,” an unnamed Democrat who supported Reid’s decision told Politico. Reid now hopes to garner support for the less costly version, and the White House has responded that it is still hopeful for a bipartisan Senate bill.

Have a news tip or link to pass along? We want to hear from you! E-mail us at [email protected].

MONEY IN MIAMI: Democratic senators and K Street lobbyists hit the beach over the weekend at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee retreat at the Ritz-Carlton South Beach Resort, an event with the purpose of raising money for Democratic Senate candidates in the 2010 election. Twelve Democratic senators in attendance conducted receptions and were available for “informal conversations” with the 108 lobbyists who joined them. Interestingly, the lobbyists there were representing industries that Democrats have typically been in conflict with regarding recent legislation. Interests present included, according to Politico, the American Bankers Association, Altria (tobacco), Marathon Oil, Lockheed Martin (defense contractor), McDonald’s, Ford and the Human Rights Campaign. Reports of the Miami fund-raiser are inconsistent with the rhetoric of congressional Democrats, who regularly attack corporate interests and their political influence. Even Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), was getting some sun. The office of Sanders, who prides himself on fighting special interests, was quick to emphasize that in addition to large corporations, civil liberty organizations and trade unions also attended the event. During the 2008 election cycle, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee raised $162 million.
 
DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL DEVELOPMENTS: Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen have given Congress the green light on repealing the1993 law “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” which bans gays and lesbians from serving openly in the U.S. military. In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama reiterated his campaign promise to repeal this policy. On Tuesday, Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee, “I fully support the president’s decision.” But Republicans aren’t necessarily convinced by Mullen’s announcement that a congressional appeal is “the right thing to do.” Republicans have historically opposed lifting the ban, but the GOP’s position is weakened now that the Pentagon is on board with the change. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is currently under fire for flip-flopping. In the past, he stated that he would advocate repeal only when top military leaders approve. However, McCain has responded to the go-ahead from Gates and Mullen with an announcement that he still does not yet support a repeal and is waiting for additional statements from military leadership detailing an official, not personal, position. In the meantime, Gates and Mullen have recommended a special investigation on how to go about implementing the potential policy change, which is expected to take at least a year. A decision will follow a concerted political effort by the gay and lesbian rights and issues lobby, led by the Human Rights Campaign, which spent $1.6 million in lobbying expenditures in 2009.
 
DEMAND QUESTION TIME: It isn’t often that the red states and blue states come together with a common goal. But make no mistake: The latest campaign for government accountability has some level of bipartisan support across the country. Sparked by the exchange between Obama and Republican House leaders at a GOP retreat last week in Baltimore, Americans are calling for open dialogue sessions to become tradition. A collection of media commentators, bloggers and political consultants and have partnered to launch the online petition “Demand Question Time,” which asks the administration to make candid conversation a regular feature of government to be broadcast on the Web and on television. However, the administration does not seem especially keen on the proposal to make “Question Time” routine. “The thing that made Friday interesting was the spontaneity,” White House senior adviser David Axelrod explained to Politico. “If you slip into a kind of convention, then conventionality will overtake the freshness of that.” As of 6:45 p.m. Wednesday, the petition had 4,702 signatures.

Former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards made headlines during his 2008
presidential campaign for gaining the confidence – and the cash — of women’s rights advocates across the country. Now, attention focuses on his new admission of personal transgressions; Edwards fathered a child with his former mistress and campaign videographer.

The women’s issues lobby, which consists of individuals and organizations committed to promoting women’s rights and interests, contributed $352,000 to Edwards’ campaign during the 2008 election cycle, according to a Center for Responsive Politics analysis.

This ranked Edwards among the top five recipients of federal political contributions from the women’s issues lobby during that time frame, the Center has found. Only presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — who kept running long after Edwards dropped out — as well as U.S. Senate candidates Jeanne Shaheen and Kay Hagan, eclipsed Edwards’ total.

As a result, these copious donations solidified the women’s issues lobby among Edwards’ top 10 contributing industries during his 2008 campaign — the Center for Responsive Politics tracks the contributions of 121 separate industries and special interest areas.

Frances Kissling, founding president of the National Abortion Federation and instrumental in the women’s rights movement, is just one of many woman who chose to back Edwards both publicly and in the form of political donations.

“I’m a lifelong feminist activist. In this crucial election, I am supporting John Edwards, whose economic policies I think will best serve women” she stated in an article for Salon.com in January 2008.

Now, she believes his “behavior and lying is so egregious” that she would not support
him for public office.

“The denial of the affair is disturbing. The denial of pregnancy is disturbing,” Kissling told Capital Eye in a phone interview. “[The affair] definitely affects women’s views of him as a person and as someone they could support in politics.”

Kissling remembers how before his run for the presidency, women’s rights activists supported Edwards for his record on women’s issues as a U.S. senator. Now, she says, “I would consider him to have serious flaws in terms of moral behavior and honesty.”

Throughout his campaign, Edwards gained the confidence of women’s rights activists who supported him over Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

For example, Kate Michelman, former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, was one of those women attracted to Edwards’ campaign positions. Instead of supporting Clinton, Michelman became Edwards’ senior adviser.

“I believe in John’s deep and profound commitment to the issues that matter most in women’s lives,” Michelman, who could not be reached for comment, said in a statement during the presidential campaign. “[I] know John is the most effective national messenger for the values we share and I have complete confidence that — with our help — he will win the White House and improve the lives of women everywhere.”

And Edwards’ wife, Elizabeth, was instrumental in creating a “Women for Edwards” movement. This group organized and mobilized women won over by his “Agenda for American Women,” which focused on promoting women’s equality, health and economic security.

Edwards also appealed to women who agreed with his emphasis on moral values.

“All of us need to send an unambiguous message to the young people in our communities. We need to clearly say that it is wrong when young men father children but do not support them,” Edwards wrote in 2007 book “Ending Poverty in America.”

Additionally, Edwards, along with dozens of other leading Democrats, was a signatory to the Hyde Park Declaration in 2000. The declaration stated in part that in order “to strengthen families, we must redouble efforts to reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies.”

Edwards first acknowledged an extramarital affair with campaign videographer Rielle Hunter in the summer of 2008, months after he pulled out of the presidential race.

Then in January, after publicly denying it for months, Edwards confirmed that he is the father of Hunter’s young daughter, Quinn. Edwards and his wife Elizabeth, a breast cancer patient who stayed by her husband’s side when he originally acknowledged the affair, have since separated in the wake of this newest development.

Rumors, from the debatable to the downright absurd, have surrounded Edwards since his announcement.

Former aide Andrew Young recently published “The Politician: An Insider’s Account of John Edwards’s Pursuit of the Presidency and the Scandal That Brought Him Down,” a book chronicling Edwards’ private life now made public.

Edwards, a lawyer, is also accused of using campaign contributions from individuals and organizations to pay Hunter for her campaign work. A federal investigation is underway.

If it is found that Edwards used campaign contributions for personal purposes, he could be charged with a federal crime.

Your daily dose of news and tidbits from the world of money in politics:

THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS: In his State of the Union address on Wednesday, President Barack Obama acknowledged the anger and frustration of many unemployed Americans and called job creation a high priority in the coming months. One component of the pending jobs bill, passed by the House and currently being considered by the Senate, is $8 billion in grants to build high-speed train lines across 31 states. However, critics say that the amount proposed will be only a tiny fraction of the cost associated with such an ambitious infrastructure development project. With Vice President Joe Biden as second-in-command, it is no surprise that trains are getting attention: his love of Amtrak is legendary. Speaking of relationships, the railroad industry donated $111,000 to Obama’s campaign in the 2008 election cycle, and spent more than $44 million on lobbying in 2009.

DEEP FREEZE: President Barack Obama and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) aren’t seeing eye-to-eye on the president’s new plan for a three-year spending freeze to start in 2011 as part of his efforts to promote fiscal responsibility. In his State of the Union address, Obama highlighted the administration’s efforts to tighten its belt along with the America people; but clarified that certain areas would be exempt from the freeze. Pelosi disagrees with Obama’s exclusion of the Defense budget, arguing that Pentagon spending needs to be examined, and that unnecessary expenditures need to be eliminated. The defense sector spent more than $128 million to influence federal legislation and policies in 2009 — a year in which the Obama administration called for increased money for the Pentagon but also advocated cutting several high-profile defense programs, such as the F-22 fighter jet.

BERNANKE BACK IN BUSINESS: The White House breathed a sigh of relief yesterday as Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke was approved for a second term by a 70-30 vote in the Senate. But this isn’t the end of criticism from Congress and the public; all eyes will be fixed on the intersection of Wall Street and Washington as Congress tries to pass financial reform measures. Some Senators hope that the rocky road to Bernanke’s confirmation sent a message about the need to protect the interests of Main Street instead of the interests of wealthy CEOs — and about the importance of transparency in the Federal Reserve. Sen. James DeMint (R-S.C.), for instance, said “Americans want a new Fed chairman who is willing to provide transparency into the Fed’s actions, who is willing to accept responsibility for the Fed’s mistakes, and who is willing to support true monetary reform that guarantees the soundness of our money.”

Have a news tip or link to pass along? We want to hear from you! E-mail us at [email protected].