Tobacco and Agribusiness Industry money

Re-post from The Center for Responsive Politics

Interest Groups

Which candidates is the computer industry giving to? What are the patterns in tobacco contributions over the past 10 years? Where is the political money coming from within the agribusiness industries? You can answer this kind of question effortlessly here, with OpenSecrets.org’s one-of-a-kind resource. 

For each interest group, we offer:  

Totals: A summary of political giving dating back to 1990 election cycle, including breakdowns by type of contribution and political party 

Top contributors: A list of organizations (usually U.S. companies) that have given the most from that industry through their employees and political action committees  

Top recipients: A list of candidates that have received the most from a particular industry 
Plus more!

Sector Totals, 2013-2014

Rank	Sector	Amount	Dems	Repubs	To DEMS  To REPUBS
1	Finance/Insur/RealEst	$86,807,627	34.5%	57.4%
2	Other	$53,170,301	49.8%	39.8%
3	Ideology/Single-Issue	$46,344,049	38.1%	40.8%
4	Misc Business	$45,601,415	37.2%	55.9%
5	Health	$33,501,701	41.0%	55.4%
6	Lawyers & Lobbyists	$32,538,353	63.5%	33.6%
7	Labor	$24,911,797	57.3%	8.3%
8	Communic/Electronics	$24,250,960	54.4%	38.3%
9	Energy/Nat Resource	$21,305,062	22.1%	75.4%
10	Agribusiness	$15,495,565	26.5%	70.3%
11	Construction	$14,577,176	24.8%	64.7%
12	Transportation	$14,047,545	27.3%	70.8%
13	Defense	$8,548,697	40.0%	59.8%

METHODOLOGY: The numbers on this page are based on contributions of $200 or more from PACs and individuals to federal candidates and from PACs, soft money (including directly from corporate and union treasuries) and individual donors to political parties and outside spending groups, as reported to the Federal Election Commission. Donations to Democrats, Donations to Republicans, and the associated percentages are based solely on contributions to candidates and parties. Independent expenditures and electioneering communications are not reflected in the breakdown by party. 

All donations took place during the 2013-2014 election cycle and were released by the Federal Election Commission on Monday, October 28, 2013.

TOP Contributors (DEEP POCKETS PEOPLE)

Top Individual Contributors

Here are the individuals who’ve dipped deepest into their own pockets for campaign contributions to federal candidates, parties, PACs and Carey Committees. Totals in the “To Other” column went to federal PACs not affiliated with any party or candidate, or to independent and third-party candidates. Only contributions to Democrats and Republicans are included in the “Partisan Tilt” graphic. Linked.

Open Secrets Sheds Light On Political Non Profits

What do Germany, Colombia, Ireland, Mexico, Georgia, Indonesia, Macedonia, and Serbia have in common? According to the nonprofit global governance watchdog Global Integrity, they all beat out the United States on regulating money in politics. – See more at: http://unitedrepublic.org/u-s-flunks-corruption-indexs-money-in-politics-test/#sthash.UYbFqZiX.dpuf

Do you recall the major issues surrounding the revelations of IRS scrutiny of non-profit 501(c)(4)s and 501(c)(6)? You recall, I am sure. An Open Secrets look at the issue is available (below).

While the revelations initially appeared and sounded like a nefarious plot against conservative organizations, the issue later fizzled like Benghazi, Fast and Furious and Issa’s embarrassment based on his failures as a GOP hit-man.  The unsettling revelations eventually proved to have been exaggerated. The director of the IRS field office responsible for investing initial request for non-profit tax status held a piece of information. Information that could be called a secret if the information been intentionally held. The man is a Republican appointed by George W. Bush!  Moreover, we have recent revelation liberal and progressive organizations received like investigations and were required to answer same or similar questions.

Now let’s “walk-the-plank” regarding alleged IRS heavy handed investigations of Right-wing non-profit groups. The Citizens United Decision was issued in 2010 certainly factored into the workload of the Cincinnati Ohio Field Office.

WIKI

“Citizens United” redirects here. For the political organization, see Citizens United (organization).

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 24, 2009 Reargued September 9, 2009 Decided January 21, 2010
Full case name	Citizens United, Appellant v. Federal Election Commission
Docket nos.	08-205
Citations	558 U.S. 310 (more) 130 S.Ct. 876
Prior history	denied appellants motion for a preliminary injunction 530 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D.D.C. 2008)[1] probable jurisdiction noted 128 S. Ct. 1471 (2008).
Argument	Oral argument
Reargument	Reargument
Opinion Announcement	Opinion announcement
Holding
A provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prohibiting unions, corporations and not-for-profit organizations from broadcasting electioneering communications within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. United States District Court for the District of Columbia reversed.
Court membership
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Associate Justices John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia Anthony Kennedy · Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor
Case opinions
Majority	Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Alito; Thomas (all but Part IV); Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor (only as to Part IV)
Concurrence	Roberts, joined by Alito
Concurrence	Scalia, joined by Alito; Thomas (in part)
Concur/dissent	Stevens, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor
Concur/dissent	Thomas
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a US constitutional law case, in which the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, orlabor unions. 

transparent
…..The decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).^[4]The Court, however, upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA §201 and §311). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.^[5]

The IRS field office was inundated with request. Since the Right has a tendency to label their PACs and contribution entities with what they perceive as patriot names, reports were the organizations drew early scrutiny. It should be noted, not one organization, progressive or conservative, was denied the desired tax status.

OpenSecrets.org published a quick view set of charts  related to nonprofits. (Don’t miss both links (Types and Viewpoint)

Political Nonprofits

Politically active nonprofits — principally 501(c)(4)s and 501(c)(6)s — have become a major force in federal elections over the last three cycles. The term “dark money” is often applied to this category of political spender because these groups do not have to disclose the sources of their funding — though a minority do disclose some or all of their donors, by choice or in response to specific circumstances.

These organizations can receive unlimited corporate, individual, or union contributions that they do not have to make public, and though their political activity is supposed to be limited, the IRS — which has jurisdiction over these groups — by and large has done little to enforce those limits. Partly as a result, spending by organizations that do not disclose their donors has increased from less than $5.2 million in 2006 to well over $300 million in the 2012 election.

View totals by: (See Charts by Type of Group and By Viewpoint) 

Special credit to and mention of the Center for Responsive Politics. 

The information is no surprise.  Citizens United was to be a gold mine for conservative paths to the White House. Actually, contributions to Democrats outpaced Conservative contributions.  But, what do conservatives hate more than President Obama? They detest paying taxes. They will contribute at gross levels, but do not ask them to pay taxes to support their desire for a plutocracy. 

Allegations Ron Paul’s 2008 Campaign Attempted to Buy Endorsements In Iowa!

Repost from Open Secrets.

Of course, everyone knows US politics is as full of money pandering and influence buying. For some reason GOP politics seems to carry shadowy fissures that end in disclosure well after the dirty deeds are done. It should not surprise that shadowy Ron Paul and his political operatives would be clear of (allegations of) wrong doing. 

 

The following report from Open Secrets is just that a report. It should be read as such. Yet, I am having a hard time not folding this one into my “I believe it bank.”

Ron Paul Campaign Accused of Trying to Buy Iowa Endorsements

by Russ Choma on August 7, 2013 12:00 PM 

The Ron Paul presidential campaign may have been involved with negotiations to offer financial compensation to an Iowa state senator in exchange for his endorsement and support in the 2012 Iowa caucuses, according to emails obtained by OpenSecrets.org. 

The negotiations appear to have involved several top Ron Paul 2012 officials, including Jesse Benton, pictured with Ron Paul at right, who was the campaign’s political director. Benton is married to Ron Paul’s granddaughter and is currently managing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s 2014 campaign. 

In an Oct. 29, 2011 email, a representative of Iowa state Sen. Kent Sorenson, a Republican, asks the Paul campaign to provide Sorenson with $8,000 per month in salary for him, $5,000 per month in salary for a Sorenson ally, as well as $100,000 in contributions for a newly created PAC that Sorenson planned to use to support conservative candidates for Iowa state office. 

In exchange, the email, which was allegedly written by Aaron Dorr, executive director of Iowa Gun Owners, says Sorenson would abandon his support for Rep. Michele Bachmann’s campaign, endorse Paul, campaign for him and provide access to an email list of Iowans who support homeschooling.

DOCUMENT

PAGES

Zoom

p. 1

p. 2

p. 3

«

Page 1 of  3

»

Bachmann had narrowly defeated Paul to win the Ames Straw Poll in August 2011, an early measure of support in the state. 

 

A top aide in the 2008 Ron Paul presidential bid, Dennis Fusaro, provided several emails to OpenSecrets.org. According to the address fields in the emails, Fusaro was copied on the messages, which all date from late 2011.

 

Five days before the caucus, in late 2011, Sorenson abruptly switched his support from Bachmann to Paul, and the Bachmann campaign at the time charged that he had done so for money.

 

Sorenson is currently under investigation by the Iowa Senate Ethics Committee after a former Bachmann campaign staffer filed a complaint against him alleging he was paid by that campaign as well. Similar complaints have been filed with the Federal Election Commission. He has denied any wrongdoing in that case. Sorenson and his lawyer did not respond to requests for comment, but he told the Des Moines Register that Fusaro had fabricated the story and that he never authorized anyone to negotiate with the Paul campaign for financial support.

 

The lengthy memo sent on Oct. 29, 2011, was addressed to John Tate, who was then the Ron Paul 2012 campaign manager, Dorr not only lays out Sorenson’s alleged requests for money and what he will do in return, but says that because of a major Iowa Senate leadership meeting coming up on Nov. 10, Sorenson couldn’t quit the Bachmann campaign until Nov. 11. In a second email chain Fusaro provided, Benton emails Dorr on Nov. 14, writing that, “with those meetings in the rear-view mirror, I though(sic) now might be a good time to revisit Kent and your brother joining our team.” 

 

On Nov. 21, Dorr replied to Benton and Tate that he was going to step out of the negotiations because Dimitri Kesari, a Ron Paul staffer, had gone to Sorenson’s house for dinner. 

 

“As I’m no longer needed to facilitate a conversation at this point, I’ll bow out and let you, John, Dimitri and Kent work this out,” Dorr wrote.

Kasari, Tate, Dorr and Benton did not return calls and emails for comment. Today, The Iowa Republican, a conservative blog in Iowa, published an audio recording of what is alleged to be a conversation between Fusaro and Sorenson in which the senator tells Fusaro that Kasari gave his wife a $30,000 check from an account belonging to a jewelry store Kasari’s wife owns. In the recording Sorenson said he did not cash the check. 

 

Fusaro, who worked on the Ron Paul 2008 campaign as national field director and was paid roughly $9,000 by the 2012 campaign for email lists, says the emails are authentic. He was not sure, he said, whether the deal had ever been carried out. According to a review of Iowa campaign finance records, the Iowa Conservatives Fund PAC, for which Dorr allegedly wanted $100,000, received no contributions from the Paul campaign or anyone affiliated with it. In fact, it has raised no funds at all and other than a $506 debt for bank account charges from Dec. 2011, appears to be dormant.

 

Fusaro said he thinks the emails speak for themselves.

 

“I sadly but firmly stand by the evidence that I have and I’ll let people draw their own conclusions,” Fusaro told OpenSecrets.org. “But I believe the conclusions about Sorenson are largely right.”

 

The Jan. 3, 2012 caucuses were the closest in Iowa history. While it initially appeared that Mitt Romney, the eventual Republican nominee, had won, voting irregularities were alleged, and when the officially certified results were released on Jan. 19, they showed Santorum edging out Romney by the thinnest of margins. Paul came in third, while Bachmann only managed sixth place and subsequently pulled out of the presidential race. 

 

Follow Russ: @russchoma

Open Secrets On The Money In Politics and Hilary Clinton PAC

Well, not really!

We are really “digging” the OpenSecrets.org: Tracking Money In Politics series. Our true excitement with the series is its balanced focus on “tracking the money” in politics.  We must never forget Democrats have deep pocket supporters who provided a foundation for our 2012 contributions to the Obama Campaign. 

The New York Times published a spread on the 2012 Money Race an information dashboard that is full of campaign contribution information.   Yes, the Obama Campaign raised more than the Romney Campaign $80 Million dollars and spent less than the Romney Campaign. We liberals have proven we can invigorate, energize and ‘step-up’. Since, money is so interlaced with winning office, we are forced to accept the less than ideal reality of he who ‘has the most dollars, has the greater opportunity to win.” 

Now, let’s visit Open Secrets and a huge Hillary Clinton PAC. 

Before we move to Open Secrets, I want to state for the record, I am not a full supporter of Hillary Clinton for President. It is unfortunate Hillary Clinton’s gender (and government experience), is working in her favor, but I feel she is missing the necessary “umph” to follow the prolific Barack Obama.  

She appeared to have been shielded in the Post Benghazi communication via Administration use of Ambassador Susan Rice as deliver “television” communication to the public.  There are counter arguments that Rice was being showcased for the pending Secretary of State nomination.  We posit a little of both contributed to a CIA/State Department Talking Points debacle. 

Last point, Hillary’s “go off” in response to a asinine accusation from the “digging” Ron Johnson (R)  Wisconsin was uncharacteristically outside the emotional quotient of one who aspires to President. Point of fact, we now know that Congress denied cut for US embassies and consulates across the globe. Moreover, we have recently learned that Ambassador Stevens refused three opportunities to have increased military support in Benghazi.  Why not fire such information back at Johnson Vs. losing one’s cool as shown in the link above? NOTE: I predict the clip above will be a GOP campaign ad in 2016, should Hilary secure the nomination.

I digress! Open secrets!

Ready for Hillary Super PAC Moves Forward With Big Funders

By David Steinbach on May 29, 2013 4:46 PM 

Although Election Day 2016 is still more than three years away, powerful funders within the Democratic Party have been moving to support the potential campaign of Hillary Clinton for the presidency.

The Ready for Hillary super PAC, which arrived on the scene in January, established its National Finance Council on Tuesday. Its founding members include Steve and Amber Mostyn, two lawyers based in Houston, Texas, who have contributed significant funds to political groups in recent years, along with Susie Tompkins Buell, a clothing entrepreneur who assisted Clinton’s fundraising efforts in 2008. The trio’s willingness to make financial commitments to liberal political groups in the past could be a good omen for Ready for Hillary’s future fundraising.

The Mostyn family was among the nation’s biggest political spenders in the 2012 election cycle. Over the course of the past two years, Steve and Amber Mostyn were the 10th biggest overall donors to super PACs, ranking fourth among liberal contributors with a total of nearly $4.3 million. Priorities USA Action, the pro-Obama super PAC, received significant funding from Steve Mostyn, who contributed $3 million to the group in the 2012 calendar year. Priorities devoted more than $65 million to his re-election campaign, all of which was spent targeting Mitt Romney. Mostyn Law Firm ranked as Priorities USA’s third highest contributor in the 2012 cycle.

Other liberal organizations also received support from the Mostyns in the months leading up to election day. Amber Mostyn contributed more than $1 million to House Majority PAC, a super PAC that helped Democratic House candidates. That made her the group’s seventh top donor. Mostyn also pledged $200,000 to Planned Parenthood Votes, another super PAC, which supported candidates favoring abortion rights.

Steve Mostyn recently showed his commitment to the pro-gun control group founded by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and her husband, Mark Kelly, by donating $1 million to Americans for Responsible Solutions. Mostyn is also listed as the group’s treasurer. Mostyn Law Firm is similarly associated with Texans for America’s Future, having contributed more than $400,000 — or nearly one-third of the total amount raised by the group in the last cycle. 

Rounding out the powerful trio of Ready for Hillary’s finance committee, Buell, too, has been a big supporter of liberal political groups. In the 2012 cycle, she gave $200,000 to American Bridge 21st Century, a super PAC that worked against Republicans. The Californian has also contributed more than $140,000 to Democratic campaign committees since 2007. However, she ceased contributing to President Barack Obama’s re-election effort last year, citing his lack of decisive action against climate change.

Buell also led Bay Area fundraising efforts for Clinton’s 2008 campaign for the Democratic nomination, and she appears to view Ready for Hillary as a key way to mobilize early support for the former Secretary of State and First Lady’s potential campaign. “Ready for Hillary is the wisest investment right now for anyone who wants Hillary Clinton to be the next president,” Buell said in a statement.

Information on how Ready for Hillary has spent its money so far will be revealed when its second quarterly report is submitted to the FEC in a few weeks. But the presence of three historically active liberal donors on the group’s masthead indicates that additional funding will likely be pouring into the super PAC in the months to come.

_____________________

You may have noticed that not one word above can be construed as The Progressive Influence will not support a Clinton Ticket.  Any Democrat will garner our support over ANY Republican for the presidency. 

A case for influence peddling: one of many?

Republican Senator John Hoeven (R) ND, one of 44 Senators, to challenge the U.S. Constitution

The Chattanoogan.com

Senators John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), David Vitter (R-La.) and a total of 44 senators, including Senators Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker, announced on Monday that they will introduce legislation to approve the Keystone XL pipeline project under Congress’ authority enumerated in the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8.

Senators Hoeven, Lugar and the other senators have been working with colleagues in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives to ensure that this vital project is advanced.

I have written much about the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline.   The lingering push for the pipeline recently drew a questions from many people, “what is the push from the Right all about?”.  Why would John Boehner invite managers from two Midwest refineries to the SOTU Speech as his guests?  Why is the GOP so fired-up about a pipeline that will cut in half  the transcontinental beauty of our nation with a man-made object that will undoubtedly sit large enough to be seen from Mars.  Of much mores significance, and during a week when BP was informed it cannot defray the legal damages off to other culpable organizations, we receive word a Republican Senator will propose legislation to usurp our president’s non-support for the pipeline.

Reuters is reporting on plans from the office of Senator John Hoeven (R) North Dakota to introduce pipeline legislation.

Here again, the GOP steps up with a big business, Big Oil, special interest issues while showing a willingness to attach such issues to human issues from the Left.  The following will not surprise you, but the it certainly speaks to the complete state of “Lost” from the GOP.

Reuters…..

Republicans have made the pipeline and its construction jobs a key political issue in the run-up to the 2012 presidential election.

Lawmakers in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives also are considering legislation to advance the project, and have not ruled out attaching it to payroll tax cut legislation that needs to pass Congress by the end of February.

The GOP continues use  ‘GOP doctrine items’ , as fodder for negotiations when it comes to issues that benefit the middle and lower income earners.  We hear their argument, about how the Keystone XL Pipeline will generate jobs. Yet, Cornell University’s Labor Study shows  results that directly contradicts the jobs estimates from the GOP.  Trans Canada predicts the project will provide 20,000 high-paying manufacturing jobs, the GOP quotes the same number.

I posit the GOP’s interest in the pipeline is far more related to lobbying and political contributions than the prospect of actual good for our nation.   The Guardian published the following list of top ranking members of Congress who receive (ed) large amounts of contribution from the Oil & Gas Industry.  Here is the Guardian link and the list.

Rank of Oil & Gas as a Contributing Interest Group

Name / Vote on HR 1938 [the act to “direct the president to expedite the consideration and approval of the construction and operation of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, and for other purposes”] / Total contributions from oil lobby ( July 1, 2009 – 30 June 30, 2011)

1 – Rep. Steven Pearce [Republican] / AYE / $370,020

2 – Rep. Mike Pompeo [R] / AYE / $333,156

3 – Rep. Bill Flores [R] / AYE / $266,184

4 – Rep. Cory Gardner [R] / AYE / $205,124

5 – Rep. Dan Boren [D] / AYE / $201,800

6 – Rep. John Sullivan [R] / AYE / $179,200

7 – Rep. Jeff Landry [R] / AYE / $176,050

8 – Rep. Tim Griffin [R] / AYE / $164,709

9 – Rep. James Lankford [R] / AYE / $156,760

10 – Rep. Rick Berg [R] / AYE / $151,561

11 – Rep. Michael Conaway [R] / AYE / $136,850

12 – Rep. Tim Murphy [R] / AYE / $133,700

13 – Rep. Dennis Rehberg [R] / AYE / $133,152

14 – Rep. Steve Scalise [R] / AYE / $125,335

15 – Rep. Francisco Canseco [R] / AYE / $121,767

16 – Rep. Pete Olson [R] – AYE – $106,400

17 – Rep. Tom Cole [R] / AYE / $103,400

Ah, but John Hoeven was one of the newly elected 2010 members of the House who came to office via the Tea party, the Kochs, Freedom Works, Dick Armey and others.  He is not on the list, you say?

Granted,  he is not on the list but let’s take a at Hoeven:

OpenSecrets.org

John Hoeven

First Elected : 2010

Assumed office:  January 3, 2011

Political party	Republican Party (2000–present)
Other political affiliations	Democratic Party (Before 2000)

What entities contribute to Senator Hoeven?

Top 5 Contributors, 2007-2012, Campaign Cmte

Contributor	Total	Indivs	PACs
Murray Energy	$36,431	$26,431	$10,000
Xcel Energy	$23,000	$15,500	$7,500
Hess Corp	$21,600	$21,600	$0
NorPAC	$19,700	$14,700	$5,000
Berkshire Hathaway	$19,000	$3,000	$16,000

view more data (You must click here)

Top 5 Industries, 2007-2012, Campaign Cmte

Industry	Total	Indivs	PACs
Oil & Gas	$263,289	$151,289	$112,000
Retired	$228,600	$228,600	$0
Leadership PACs	$147,900	$1,000	$146,900
Mining	$147,231	$84,481	$62,750
Insurance	$143,100	$41,050	$102,050

view more data (You must click here)

Total Raised vs. Average Raised

Cycle Source of Funds, 2007-2012, Campaign Cmte only

	Individual Contributions  – Small Individual Contributions – Large Individual Contributions	$2,339,929(60%)             $277,430  (7%)         $2,062,498 (53%)
	PAC Contributions	$1,288,203	(33%)
	Candidate self-financing	$130,626	(3%)
	Other	$128,293	(3%)

See OpenSecrets.org Note:  Information about posted data

Credit  for this data should go to the Center for Responsive Politics. 

The following information is reflected in the links above, but since some do not prefer to visit links, please take note of the following small individual contributions.  It seems Senator Hoeven receives support from the Koch Family.

Federal Election Commissions Filings and filing numbers.

KOCH, ANNA B

WICHITA KS 67214

10/18/2010

2400.00

WESLEY MEDICAL CENTER/NURSE

10021011887

KOCH, C CHASE

WICHITA KS 67201

09/13/2010

2400.00

KOCH NITROGEN COMPANY/VICE PRESIDE

10020704469

Of course, the tabled contributions are individual contributions that appears to be legal and maxed-out for individual contributions.  There is no question about legitimate contributions to candidates.  However, the names of the contributors are supportive of the prospect that more thousands (in contributions) could have been (and probably were ) contributed via the secretive world of Citizens United.  The following link from OpenSecrets.org sheds light on the shadowy Koch Empire.  The real question is, “do the names listed just about provide the basis for  syllogism about contributions which could provide impetus for politicians like Hoeven?”   Syllogism?  Yes, how could the depicted contributions impact a sitting representative?  Even though the picture is obvious and not new to US politics (nor politics world-wide) let’s take a quick run through the syllogism.

[A + B will then lead to “C”] 

A. Contributions to a particular member of Congress could lead to legislation favorable to the contributing person or organization.

B.  Contributions support prospects of re-election.

C. Contributions then could lead to representative placing the desires of the financial supporter over the good of the nation and possible against their better judgment.

If  the Oil  and Gas Industry provide significant capital for congressional campaign hoppers, would said contributions provide impetus,  support a particular member of Congress and his/her chances for re-election, and will that member of congress join-in sponsoring legislation against the Constitutional powers of the President of the United States of America?

The real tragedy about influence-peddling and contribution absorption is its benefits to special interest and how it impacts everyday citizens such as you and me.  Another shameful 1% influence over our legislatures, is the potential damage to the nation that could outlive anyone reading this piece or anyone  “on the take” in congress.

It is sad that legislators such as Hoeven could not spend their energy and effort in providing real jobs on a large and more permanent scale.  The answer lies in the Citizens United ‘open-door to remaining in office’ supreme Court decision.   People cannot and do not contribute to campaigns at the same level as special interest groups, lobbyist and Super PACs.

While it is impossible to say definitively that Hoeven is an influence buying recipient, but the data above should give ’cause for concern.

President Obama should continue  review of the Keystone Pipeline and its potential impact on the nation (good or bad) as long as it take to make a ” proper” decision.  He should also not allow the payroll tax and other programs to be used as fodder  in considerations/negotiation related to the Keystone XL Pipeline .

The 112th US Congress should do more to provide job opportunity for far more of the population than so much time and energy what appears to be an ‘influenced-peddled’ project.

Additional Resources:

The New Fuelist

The Keystone XL Influence Scandal

Keystone XL Pipeline

OPenSecrets.org Oil & Gas (Rick Perry and Mitch McConnell named as benefactors)

Theprogressivesinfluence.com (Cornell University review of Keystone jobs)

US House of Representatives Bill

Preview