By BEN FREEMAN and LYDIA DENNETT
$2,270. To some people, this number might represent a monthly paycheck. But to six House Members this is just the increase in daily fundraising dollars they received after being appointed to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (Super Committee).
POGO conducted an analysis of third quarter (July 1, 2011 to September 30, 2011) campaign filings reported to the Federal Election Commission and found that the six Super Committee Members from the House of Representatives received considerably more campaign contributions after being appointed to the Committee.
Prior to being appointed, these six Members combined received just over $660,000 (an average of $2,684 per Member per day) in itemized campaign contributions from Political Action Committees and individuals during the third quarter. From August 10, when the Members of the Super Committee were announced, through September 30, when the third quarter reporting period ended, these same six Members combined received more than $1.5 million in contributions (an average of $4,954 per Member per day).
Who Cashed in the Most?
While all six House Members of the Super Committee saw their fundraising increase after appointment to the committee, there were significant disparities in the level to which they cashed in on their pivotal roles.
Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) led the surge in fundraising. With $216,575 in contributions prior to appointment and $485,232 after, Camp increased his average daily fundraising intake by more than $4,200. His campaign received more than $700,000 in total contributions in the third quarter, the top total amongst House Super Committee Members.
Super Committee Co-Chair Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) raised the second highest amount of campaign contributions in the third quarter: $472,174. Yet, he appears to have cashed in the least on his Super Committee status. From pre to post-nomination, Hensarling increased his average daily fundraising total by $1,530, the lowest increase of all the House Super Committee Members.
On the other side of the aisle, Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC), was top among all Democratic House Representatives on the Super Committee in terms of both the amount received and increase in fundraising after nomination. He raised more than $300,000 during the third quarter. His average daily fundraising amount more than doubled from pre to post-nomination, increasing by more than $2,000 per day. Not to be outdone, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) enjoyed the largest percentage increase in fundraising dollars from pre to post-nomination, with a per day fundraising average that quadrupled after he was nominated to the Super Committee.
Contributions in Context
As Politico has reported, the total contributions made to these Super Committee Members in the third quarter is lower than what they received in the second quarter of 2011. However, the third quarter totals are significantly higher than the first quarter 2011 totals. Also, as Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has noted, for these six House Members together, the total contributed in the third quarter of 2011 is higher than their total haul from the third quarter of 2009 (the last non-election year), although two of the three House Democrats saw declines. Even if the baseline for comparison is the third quarter of 2010, the year in which all of these Members were last elected, their third quarter 2011 total is less than 5% below this high baseline.
Unfortunately, not all of the Senators appointed to the Super Committee have submitted their third quarter filings, so a full evaluation of all fundraising done by the Super Committee is not yet possible.
While the senators on the Super Committee may not feel the need to cash in on their status given that none will be seeking reelection until 2014 at the earliest, it’s clear that the House Members, with their 2012 reelection campaigns already underway, have cashed-in on their immense importance.
But will these contributions alter outcomes? Does money talk? Perhaps, but we will have to wait until the Super Committee votes on its plan to reduce the budget deficit by at least $1.2 trillion to find out.
Ben Freeman is POGO's National Security Fellow. Lydia Dennett is a POGO intern.
Image via Flickr user donkey hotey.
FEC data on Super Committee House Members...
Analysis of third quarter 2011 itemized contributions
Pre-Super | Post-Super | Total | Pre Per Day | Post Per Day | Difference | Increase | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Becerra | $43,400 | $159,600 | $203,000 | $1,059 | $3,129 | $2,071 | 196% |
Camp | $216,575 | $485,232 | $701,807 | $5,282 | $9,514 | $4,232 | 80% |
Clyburn | $83,700 | $215,637 | $299,337 | $2,041 | $4,228 | $2,187 | 107% |
Hensarling | $162,340 | $279,964 | $442,304 | $3,960 | $5,489 | $1,530 | 39% |
Upton | $135,015 | $259,940 | $394,955 | $3,293 | $5,097 | $1,804 | 55% |
Van Hollen | $19,250 | $115,839 | $135,089 | $470 | $2,271 | $1,802 | 384% |
Total | $660,280 | $1,516,212 | $2,176,492 | $16,104 | $29,730 | $13,625 | 85% |
Total (itemized and non-itemized) contributions by quarter
Q3 2009 | Q3 2010 | Q1 2011 | Q2 2011 | Q3 2011 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Becerra, Xavier (D) | $182,888 | $195,827 | $129,311 | $206,478 | $203,350 |
Camp, Dave (R) | $253,831 | $775,955 | $497,922 | $935,745 | $704,847 |
Clyburn, James E (D) | $424,214 | $427,923 | $176,463 | $522,128 | $306,362 |
Hensarling, Jeb (R) | $355,056 | $289,387 | $428,143 | $356,051 | $471,260 |
Upton, Fred (R) | $161,525 | $473,157 | $355,337 | $422,415 | $401,024 |
Van Hollen, Chris (D) | $170,927 | $169,954 | $74,058 | $72,606 | $153,279 |
Total | $1,548,439 | $2,332,203 | $1,661,233 | $2,515,423 | $2,240,122 |
power breeds corruption
more power breeds more corruption
if money can't buy happiness why are they all smiling
Posted by: jim freema | Oct 24, 2011 at 04:19 PM
That's right guys on the super committee never miss an opportunity to cash in on your position to do good for "others" and oh, by the way those "others" you are doing good for have lots of nice green cash to send your way....which we ordinary citizens do not have to send to you....WHY might you ask....BECAUSE YOU AND ALL YOUR FAT CAT BUDDIES HAVE FLEECED IT FROM US.
Posted by: Michael Iverson | Oct 22, 2011 at 09:00 PM
Ben, do hope you do the follow up. I fully understand the FEC rules that pretend that Senators: are not capable of filing electronically in the 21st century, shouldn't have their multi million dollar campaigns burdened by an additional expense of electronic bookkeeping by their expensive campaign Treasurers and wouldn't really be hiding anything. Since there is no penalty for filing incorrect reports (an alarmingly regular act) not hitting filing deadlines and the FEC allowing the public to be kept in the dark is something for which the specifics should be acknowledged. I've been working with FEC data since the 70's and it is stunning that as data becomes easier to analyze the FEC is still allowing transparency to be thwarted by the political actors behavior they are suppose to regulate.
If you won't tell us who hasn't filed electronically and why do replicate what you did to House members regardless of finding something amiss.
Posted by: Scott Brickner | Oct 22, 2011 at 02:50 PM
This is, ironically, good news. Given the hundreds of millions of dollars routinely spent to influence members of congress, and the billions at stake in the super committee's recommendations, amount of (relatively) small change reported here indicates either that most special interests don't thinks these folks can be bribed effectively through direct campaign contributions, or that campaign financing laws are actually, in this case, effective.
Posted by: David Mathiasen | Oct 22, 2011 at 12:27 PM
This is just the recycle of all news, I mean, really old, like a hundred years old. If this frail democracy of ours is a democracy, I would like to see what is behind the curtain. Reporting that special interests buy our elected representatives is like reporting that sands, dunes were discovered at the Sahara desert.
This super committee is like a fixed fight, where two sides go at each other, but in reality, they are going through the motions, to make believe that they are for, and by the people, but the check is already in the mail by this nation's true owners. In other words, this democracy of ours is up the creek w/o a paddle and the only thing that is going to save us is a second coming of Jesus, and He hasn't hinted when that might be.
Posted by: Emile Zola | Oct 22, 2011 at 12:19 PM
The Boston Globe reported Senator Kerry's - and he kept the promise he made to NOT raise money while on the committee. http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/10/john-kerry-keeps-word-fund-raising-while-budget-deficit-supercommittee/trXtNhwhtzjc3eLqfh3GfO/index.html
Posted by: Karen Corbman | Oct 21, 2011 at 05:00 PM
Surprise-surprise. Disgraceful! www.getmoneyout.com/ Sign up and get others to sign up.
Posted by: Angelo Onorato | Oct 21, 2011 at 03:52 PM
I do not understand why anyone would be surprised at this money issue. This is how DC works. Why do members keep secrets that are not secret and should be public? Because lobbyists do not want their handywork front page since it reveals how the pay to play works.
As long as there is a troff, there will be little pigs standing in line waithing for their share. Transparecy equals honestly, is why most members keep secrets that are not secrets
Posted by: brad giordani | Oct 21, 2011 at 08:37 AM
Scott, thanks for the comment. The Senators, unlike their colleagues in the House, do not have to file electronically. So, their filings often take longer for the FEC to process and post. Currently, they are not all available, hence our focus on just the House side. Rest assured that when all the Senate filings become available we'll conduct an analysis of them and write a follow-up to this if we find anything that looks amiss.
Posted by: Ben Freeman | Oct 20, 2011 at 05:09 PM
List who didn't file. Quit punishing those who do the right thing by being transparent because you then have data to talk about. (I lost my keys over there but I'm looking here because the light is better) Who gave the money? Who is financing this exercise in minority rule?
Posted by: Scott Brickner | Oct 20, 2011 at 04:58 PM