You are on page 1of 34

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………….1 Methodology………………………………………………………………………………………3 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

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

Funds for Favors 2: The Industry Strikes Back EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Campaign contributions follow power, and special interests aren’t 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. CREW’s 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 Favors report, 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 committee’s 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

Committee on Agriculture during the 111th Congress, saw his donations from the agriculture industry soar by 66% when he became the committee’s 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-related industries 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 Upton’s (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 by 86% to Rep. Waxman. CREW’s 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

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 clerk’s 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 CRP’s 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 CRP’s 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. These committees include: Education and the Workforce; Homeland Security; Judiciary; and Science, Space, and Technology. Campaign contribution data includes the total amount received by the member’s campaign committee and political action committee (PAC) for both the 2010 and the 2012 election cycle. In several cases, a member’s 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.
 

                                                            
1

Campaign finance data was collected from CRP’s database in March 2013 and does not reflect subsequent amendments.

3

REPRESENTATIVE FRANK LUCAS (R-OK) Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture Rep. Lucas’s 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 CREW’s 2011 Funds for Favors report, 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 $444,200 $1,088,725 2012 Election Cycle $735,742 $1,552,722 % Change 66% 43%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions  

During the 2012 election cycle, the agriculture industry accounted for 47% of the $1,552,722 in total contributions received by Rep. Lucas’ campaign committee and PAC. During the 2010 election cycle, the agriculture industry accounted for 41% of the $1,088,725 in 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 industry’s contributions to Rep. Lucas more than doubled from the 2010 election cycle to the 2012 election cycle, increasing from $155,300 to $321,792. The dairy industry’s contributions to Rep. Lucas nearly doubled from the 2010 election cycle to the 2012 election cycle, increasing from $45,450 to $78,250.

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

   
4

Votes on Agriculture Issues  From 2011-2012, Rep. Lucas voted in agreement with the interests regulated by the Agriculture Committee 94% of the time. The average Republican voted in agreement with the interests 87% of the time.

 

   
5

REPRESENTATIVE COLLIN PETERSON (D-MN) Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Agriculture Rep. Peterson’s 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 CREW’s 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 2010 Election Cycle $650,412 $1,380,382 2012 Election Cycle $522,318 $1,023,360 % Change -20% -26%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions  

During the 2012 election cycle, the agriculture industry accounted for 51% of the $1,023,360 in total contributions received by Rep. Peterson’s campaign committee and PAC. During the 2010 election cycle, the agriculture industry accounted for 47% of the $1,380,382 in total contributions received by Rep. Peterson’s campaign committee and PAC.

Campaign Contribution Highlights from Industries Regulated by the Committee2  The poultry and eggs industry contributed 2.8 times less money to Rep. Peterson during the 2012 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 2012 election 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 2012 election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, decreasing its contributions from $67,000 to $39,750.

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

   
6

Votes on Agriculture Issues  From 2011-2012, Rep. Peterson voted in agreement with the interests regulated by the Agriculture Committee 87% of the time. The average Democrat voted in agreement with those interests 32% of the time.

 

   
7

REPRESENTATIVE HOWARD “BUCK” MCKEON (R-CA) Chairman, House Committee on Armed Services Rep. McKeon’s 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 CREW’s 2011 Funds for Favors report, 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 2010 Election Cycle $469,900 $2,026,660 2012 Election Cycle $566,100 $1,883,417 % Change 20% -7%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions  

During the 2012 election cycle, the defense industry accounted for 30% of the $1,883,417 in total contributions received by Rep. McKeon’s campaign committee and PAC. During the 2010 election cycle, the defense industry accounted for 23% of the $2,026,660 in total contributions received by Rep. McKeon’s campaign committee and PAC.

Campaign Contribution Highlights from Industries Regulated by the Committee2

The defense electronics industry contributed 1.5 times more money to Rep. McKeon during the 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 during the 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 Armed Services Committee 91% of the time. The average Republican voted in agreement with those interests 79% of the time.

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

   
8

REPRESENTATIVE ADAM SMITH (D-WA) Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Armed Services Rep. Smith’s 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 CREW’s 2011 Funds for Favors report, 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 2010 Election Cycle $98,250 $948,533 2012 Election Cycle $201,000 $1,089,911 % Change 105% 15%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions  

During the 2012 election cycle, the defense industry accounted for 18% of the $1,089,911 in total contributions received by Rep. Smith’s campaign committee. During the 2010 election cycle, the defense industry accounted for 10% of the $948,533 in total contributions received by Rep. Smith’s campaign committee.

Campaign Contribution Highlights from Industries Regulated by the Committee2  The defense aerospace industry contributed 1.5 times more money to Rep. Smith during the 2012 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 the 2012 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 Armed Services Committee 82% of the time. The average Democrat voted in agreement with those interests 61% of the time.

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

   
9

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KLINE (R-MN) Chairman, House Committee on Education and the Workforce Rep. Kline’s 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 CREW’s 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 $119,600 $1,842,689 2012 Election Cycle $305,159 $2,122,672 % Change 155% 15%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions 

During the 2012 election cycle, education and the workforce-related industries accounted for 14% of the $2,122,672 in total contributions received by Rep. Kline’s campaign committee and PAC. During the 2010 election cycle, education and the workforce-related industries accounted for 6% of the $1,842,689 in total contributions received by Rep. Kline’s campaign committee and PAC.

Campaign Contribution Highlights from Industries Regulated by the Committee2  The education industry’s contributions to Rep. Kline more than tripled from the 2010 election 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 the Education and Workforce Committee 30% of the time. The average Republican voted in agreement with those interests 32% of the time.

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

   
10

REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE MILLER (D-CA) Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Education and the Workforce Rep. Miller’s 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 CREW’s 2011 Funds for Favors report, 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 2010 Election Cycle $457,946 $1,527,308 2012 Election Cycle $220,192 $671,253 % Change -52% -56%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions 

During the 2012 election cycle, education and the workforce-related industries accounted for 33% of the $671,253 in total contributions received by Rep. Miller’s campaign committee and PAC. During the 2010 election cycle, education and the workforce-related industries accounted for 30% of the $1,527,308 in total contributions received by Rep. Miller’s campaign committee and PAC.

Campaign Contribution Highlights from Industries Regulated by the Committee2  The education industry contributed 108 times less money to Rep. Miller during the 2012 election 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 2012 election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, decreasing their contributions from $59,500 to $31,500.

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

   
11

Public sector unions contributed 1.6 times less money to Rep. Miller during the 2012 election cycle 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 the Education and Workforce Committee 70% of the time. The average Democrat has voted in agreement with those interests 70% of the time.

 

   
12

REPRESENTATIVE FRED UPTON (R-MI) Chairman, House Committee on Energy and Commerce Rep. Upton’s 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 CREW’s 2011 Funds for Favors report, 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 $1,290,002 $2,482,921 2012 Election Cycle $1,873,723 $4,015,195 % Change 45% 62%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions 

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

Campaign Contribution Highlights from Industries Regulated by the Committee2  HMOs and the health services industry’s contributions to Rep. Upton almost quadrupled from the 2010 election cycle to the 2012 election cycle, increasing from $30,950 to $121,400. The mining industry’s contributions to Rep. Upton more than tripled from the 2010 election cycle 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 the 2012 election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, increasing their contributions from $37,150 to $66,300.

 

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

   
13

Votes on Energy and Commerce Issues  From 2011-2012, Rep. Upton voted in agreement with the interests regulated by the Energy and Commerce Committee 77% of the time. The average Republican voted in agreement with those interests 73% of the time.

 

   
14

REPRESENTATIVE HENRY WAXMAN (D-CA) Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Energy and Commerce Rep. Waxman’s 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 CREW’s 2011 Funds for Favors report, which found that between 1998 and 2010, contributions from energy and commercerelated 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 $935,921 $1,948,295 2012 Election Cycle $667,050 $1,813,053 % Change -29% -7%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions 

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

Campaign Contribution Highlights from Industries Regulated by the Committee2  HMOs and the health services industry contributed seven times less money to Rep. Waxman during 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 the 2012 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 during the 2012 election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, decreasing from $223,671 to $158,250.

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

   
15

Votes on Energy and Commerce Issues  From 2011-2012, Rep. Waxman voted in agreement with the interests regulated by the Energy and Commerce Committee 34% of the time. The average Democrat voted in agreement with those interests 42% of the time.

 

   
16

REPRESENTATIVE JEB HENSARLING (R-TX) Chairman, House Committee on Financial Services Rep. Hensarling’s contributions from the financial services industry jumped by threequarters 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 2010 Election Cycle $682,084 $1,574,331 2012 Election Cycle $1,190,006 $2,900,558 % Change 74% 84%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions 

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

Campaign Contribution Highlights from Industries Regulated by the Committee1   The insurance industry’s contributions to Rep. Hensarling more than doubled from the 2010 election 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 the 2012 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 during the 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 the Financial Services Committee 80% of the time. The average Republican voted in agreement with those interests 74% of the time.

                                                              
1

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

   
17

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 2010 Election Cycle $40,594 $304,970 2012 Election Cycle $152,050 $624,844 % Change 275% 105%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions  

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.

Campaign Contribution Highlights from Industries Regulated by the Committee1  The insurance industry contributed more than 16 times more money to Rep. Waters during the 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. Waters during the 2012 election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $2,200 to $27,800. Accountants contributed seven times more money to Rep. Waters during the 2012 election cycle 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 the Financial Services Committee 33% of the time. The average Democrat voted in agreement with those interests 44% of the time. 

                                                            
1

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

   
18

REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL (R-TX) Chairman, House Committee on Homeland Security Rep. McCaul’s 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 2010 Election Cycle $135,650 $1,430,770 2012 Election Cycle $135,700 $1,089,702 % Change 0% -24%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions 

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

Campaign Contribution Highlights from Industries Regulated by the Committee1   The defense electronics industry’s contributions to Rep. McCaul almost doubled from 2012 election 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 during the 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 the Homeland Security Committee 57% of the time. The average Republican voted in agreement with those interests 54% of the time.

                                                              
1

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

   
19

REPRESENTATIVE BENNIE THOMPSON (D-MS) Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Homeland Security Rep. Thompson’s 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 CREW’s 2011 Funds for Favors report, 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 2010 Election Cycle $406,650 $2,034,456 2012 Election Cycle $234,400 $1,130,462 % Change -42% -44%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions 

During the 2012 election cycle, homeland security-related industries accounted for 21% of the $1,130,462 in total contributions received by Rep. Thompson’s campaign committee and PAC. During the 2010 election cycle, homeland security-related industries accounted for 20% of the $2,034,456 in total contributions received by Rep. Thompson’s campaign committee and PAC.

Campaign Contribution Highlights from Industries Regulated by the Committee2  The defense electronics industry contributed 3.2 times less money to Rep. Thompson during the 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 2012 election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, decreasing their contributions from $117,000 to $69,500.

                                                            
1

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

   
20

The defense aerospace industry contributed 1.6 times less money to Rep. Thompson during the 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 the Homeland Security Committee 55% of the time. The average Democrat voted in agreement with those interests 53% of the time.

 

   
21

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERT GOODLATTE (R-VA) Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary Rep. Goodlatte’s 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 2010 Election Cycle $43,300 $891,929 2012 Election Cycle $88,793 $1,505,712 % Change 105% 69%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions 

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

Campaign Contribution Highlights from Industries Regulated by the Committee1  Lawyers and law firms’ contributions to Rep. Goodlatte more than doubled from the 2010 election 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 the Judiciary Committee 75% of the time. The average Republican voted in agreement with those interests 70% of the time.

 

                                                            
1

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

   
22

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 CREW’s 2011 Funds for Favors report, 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 2010 Election Cycle $147,602 $1,340,120 2012 Election Cycle $115,982 $963,843 % Change -22% -28%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions 

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.

Campaign Contribution Highlights from Industries Regulated by the Committee2  Lawyers and law firms contributed 1.2 times less money to Rep. Conyers during the 2012 election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, decreasing their contributions from $147,602 to $115,482.

Votes on Judiciary Issues

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

   
23

From 2011-2012, Rep. Conyers voted in agreement with the interests regulated by the Judiciary Committee 46% of the time. The average Democrat voted in agreement with those interests 64% of the time. 

   
24

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 CREW’s 2011 Funds for Favors report, 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 2010 Election Cycle $152,026 $1,056,576 2012 Election Cycle $309,771 $1,364,635 % Change 104% 29%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions  

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.

Campaign Contribution Highlights from Industries Regulated by the Committee3  The mining industry contributed more than six times more money to Rep. Hastings during the 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. Hastings during the 2012 election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, increasing their contributions from $2,000 to $9,000. The oil and gas industry contributed 1.4 times more money to Rep. Hastings during the 2012 election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $91,617 to $131,799.

                                                            
1 For more information, see Funds for Favors: Exposing Donors’ Influence on Committee Leaders, available at http://www.citizensforethics.org/pages/funds-for-favors. 2 Rep. Hastings’ PAC was formed in June 2011. See Roll on Columbia Political Action Committee, Statement of Organization, June 15, 2011. 3 This section highlights committee industries that significantly increased or decreased their donations to the committee leader between the 2010 and 2012 election cycles.

   
25

Votes on Natural Resources Issues  From 2011-2012, Rep. Hastings voted in agreement with the interests regulated by the Natural Resources Committee 44% of the time. The average Republican voted in agreement with those interests 53% of the time.

 

   
26

REPRESENTATIVE EDWARD MARKEY (D-MA)1 Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Natural Resources Rep. Markey’s contributions from natural resources-related industries dropped by twofifths between the 2010 and 2012 cycles, a decrease that tracked his 2011 move from committee member to ranking member. He was included in CREW’s 2011 Funds for Favors report, which found that between 1998 and 2010, contributions from natural resources-related industries to Rep. Markey increased at a rate far outpacing his total contributions.2 During the 112th Congress, after becoming the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee, Rep. Markey voted in agreement with the interests overseen by the Natural Resources Committee on par with the average Democrat. Campaign Contributions from the Natural Resources Sector 2010 Election Cycle $47,400 $1,535,340 2012 Election Cycle $27,500 $902,512 % Change -42% -41%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions  

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

Campaign Contribution Highlights from Industries Regulated by the Committee3  The oil and gas industry contributed 4.2 times less money to Rep. Markey during the 2012 election 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 the Natural Resources Committee 47% of the time. The average Democrat voted in agreement with those interests 49% of the time.

                                                                
Rep. Markey was elected to the Senate in June 2013. Rep. Peter DeFazio is now the ranking member of the House Committee on Natural Resources. See Michael 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. 2 For more information, see Funds for Favors: Exposing Donors’ Influence on Committee Leaders, available at http://www.citizensforethics.org/pages/funds-for-favors. 3 This section highlights committee industries that significantly increased or decreased their donations to the committee leader between the 2010 and 2012 election cycles.
1

   
27

REPRESENTATIVE LAMAR SMITH (R-TX) Chairman, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Rep. Smith’s 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 2010 Election Cycle $74,400 $1,183,556 2012 Election Cycle $120,150 $1,631,996 % Change 61% 38%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions 

During the 2012 election cycle, science, space, and technology industries-related industries accounted 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 accounted for 6% of the $1,183,556 in total contributions received by Rep. Smith’s campaign committee and PAC.

Campaign Contribution Highlights from Industries Regulated by the Committee1   The air transport industry’s contributions to Rep. Smith more than doubled from the 2010 election cycle to the 2012 election cycle, increasing from $9,750 to $23,400. The oil and gas industry’s contributions to Rep. Smith almost doubled from the 2010 election cycle 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.

   

                                                            
1

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

   
28

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (D-TX) Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Rep. Johnson’s 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 CREW’s 2011 Funds for Favors report, 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 2010 Election Cycle $40,886 $613,624 2012 Election Cycle $80,449 $760,162 % Change 97% 24%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions 

During the 2012 election cycle, science, space, and technology-related industries accounted for 11% of the $760,162 in total contributions received by Rep. Johnson’s campaign committee. During the 2010 election cycle, science, space, and technology industries-related accounted for 7% of the $613,624 in total contributions received by Rep. Johnson’s campaign committee.

Campaign Contribution Highlights from Industries Regulated by the Committee2   The air transport industry’s contributions to Rep. Johnson almost doubled from the 2010 election 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 cycle to 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 the Science, Space, and Technology Committee 42% of the time. The average Democrat voted in agreement with those interests 24% of the time of the time. 

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

   
29

REPRESENTATIVE BILL SHUSTER (R-PA) Chairman, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Rep. Shuster’s 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 2010 Election Cycle $200,100 $823,669 2012 Election Cycle $502,016 $1,647,557 % Change 151% 100%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions 

During the 2012 election cycle, transportation and infrastructure-related industries accounted for 30% of the $1,647,557 in total contributions received by Rep. Shuster’s campaign committee and PAC. During the 2010 election cycle, transportation and infrastructure-related industries accounted for 24% of the $823,669 in total contributions received by Rep. Shuster’s campaign committee and PAC.

Campaign Contribution Highlights from Industries Regulated by the Committee1   The construction services industry’s contributions to Rep. Shuster tripled from the 2010 election 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 2012 election 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 2012 election 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 the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 74% of the time. In contrast, the average Republican has voted in agreement with those interests 68% of the time. 

                                                            
1

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

   
30

REPRESENTATIVE NICK RAHALL II (D-WV) Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Rep. Rahall’s 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 CREW’s 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.1 During 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 2010 Election Cycle $236,400 $1,280,682 2012 Election Cycle $496,548 $1,334,822 % Change 110% 4%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions 

During the 2012 election cycle, transportation and infrastructure-related industries accounted for 37% of the $1,334,822 in total contributions received by Rep. Rahall’s campaign committee and PAC. During the 2010 election cycle, transportation and infrastructure industries-related accounted for 18% of the $1,280,682 in total contributions received by Rep. Rahall’s campaign committee and PAC.

Campaign Contribution Highlights from Industries Regulated by the Committee2  The trucking industry contributed more than five times more money to Rep. Rahall during the 2012 election cycle than during the 2010 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $6,000 to $33,500. The air transport industry’s contributions to Rep. Rahall almost tripled from the 2010 election 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 cycle to the 2012 election cycle, increasing from $16,900 to $44,150.

 

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

   
31

Votes on Transportation and Infrastructure Issues  From 2011-2012, Rep. Rahall voted in agreement with the interests regulated by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 61% of the time. The average Democrat voted in agreement with those interests 41% of the time.

 

   
32