SHORT-CHANGEDcloudfront-files-1.publicintegrity.org/legacy... · award-winning investigative journalist who has written extensively about campaign finance issues, Hogan formerly was

SHORT-CHANGED

How Congressand Special Interests

Benefit at the Expenseof the American People

CTHE CENTER FOR r UBLIC INTEGRITY

SHORT-CHANGEDHow Congress and Special Interests

Benefit at the Expense of the American People

By Jean Cobb

THE CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY1910 K Street N.W., Suite 802

Washington, D.C. 20006(202) 223-0299

The Center for Public Integrity is an independent, nonprofit organization that examines public serviceand ethics-related issues. The Center's studies combine the substantive study of government within-depth journalism. The Center is funded by foundations, corporations, labor unions, individuals,and revenue from news organizations.

This Center study and the views expressed herein are those of the author. What is written here doesnot necessarily reflect the views of individual members of the Board of Directors or the AdvisoryBoard of The Center for Public Integrity.

Copyright © 1991 The Center for Public Integrity. All rights reserved. No part of this publicationmay be reproduced or used in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, includingphotocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without the writtenpermission of The Center for Public Integrity.

ISBN 0-962-90122-9

"The object of government is the welfare of the people. Thematerial progress and prosperity of a nation are desirable chiefly sofar as they lead to the moral and material welfare of all goodcitizens."

Theodore Roosevelt

Jean Cobb is Senior Editor at The Center for Public Integrity. Before joining the Center, Cobb wasAssociate Editor of Common Cause Magazine. In 1988, she won the Investigative Reporters andEditors Award for outstanding investigative journalism. In 1989, articles on campaign finance byCobb and others at the magazine earned the Sigma Delta Chi Award for public service in journalism.

The author would like to acknowledge those whose research and editing contributed to this study:

Cari Costanza is a recent graduate at the University of Southern California, where she majored injournalism.

Catherine Flynn will be a senior at Notre Dame in the fall, majoring in economics.

Spencer Freedman will be a sophomore at Brown University in the fall, majoring in political science.

Betsy LaRoche was a student at Emerson University majoring in communications. She plans onreturning to school in the fall.

Sandra Litsinger graduated from Tulane University where she received a B.A. degree in historySince last fall, she has worked as a Research Assistant at the Center and a freelance writer.

Bill Hogan, who edited this study, is currently a managing editor of the National Journal. Anaward-winning investigative journalist who has written extensively about campaign finance issues,Hogan formerly was the Senior Editor of Regardie 's magazine.

Charles Lewis is the founder and Executive Director of the Center for Public Integrity. For 11 years,he did investigative reporting at ABC News and CBS News, most recently as a producer for theprogram, "60 Minutes."

This study was made possible by a grant from the Philip M. Stem Family Fund.

Special thanks to Phil Stern, whose editorial guidance and insights contributed enormouslyto this report.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Summary

3 Introduction

4 Methodology

5 The Sugar Price Support Program

8 Fuel Efficiency Standards

10 Utility Customer Rebate

12 Insurance Industry Exemption from Federal Antitrust Laws

16 The Savings and Loan Debacle

20 The Tobacco Price Support Program

24 Appendices

24 House and Senate Sugar Votes and Sugar PAC Contributions

28 Senate Vote on Fuel Efficiency Standards and Auto PAC Contributions

30 House Vote on Tobacco Price Support Program and Tobacco PAC Contributions

33 House Vote on the Unsoeld Amendment and NRA Contributions

36 Utility Industry PACs Included in this Report

39 Insurance Industry PACs Included in this Report

SUMMARY

When the Constitution was written more than 200 years ago, the founding fathers sought to createa participatory democracy, based on the ideal of one man, one vote, and equal representation ingovernment for all. Today, however, that ideal is being subverted by the system of financingcongressional campaigns. With the costs of campaigns skyrocketing, members of Congress arebecoming increasingly dependent on special interest campaign contributions for their politicalsurvival. Monied special interests are taking advantage of this dependency by pouring millions ofdollars each year into congressional campaign coffers, largely through political action committeedonations. These contributions are often targeted to incumbents who, through committee assignmentsor other powerful positions, have a direct influence over legislation affecting those interests.

Today, the public's voice is being lost in the halls of Congress. The norm has become not oneman, one vote, but rather one dollar, one vote. And when special interests buy access to and influenceover the legislative process, taxpayers and consumers lose out, whether it be through tax breaks,subsidies or other legislative favors for special interests.

It is virtually impossible to document why members of Congress vote the way they do on anynumber of bills, and even harder to prove that money was a factor in their decision. And it isimpossible to know why a particular interest group —be it sugar growers, the insurance industry, orthe gun lobby —chooses to give to an incumbent's reelection campaign. It may be "repayment" forpast favorable votes, hopes for future favorable votes, or simply a kind of insurance payment.

While motivations are difficult to measure, patterns do emerge when votes are compared withcampaign contributions. This Center REPORT documents a number of cases in which it appears thatmoney was a factor in the way members voted on specific pieces of legislation or amendments. Inaddition, it illustrates how these votes are hurting taxpayers and consumers through lost revenue andhigher prices.

For example:

• The federal government's generous sugar price support program costs consumers $3 billioneach year in higher sugar prices. Eighty-five percent of senators who received $ 15,000 or more fromsugar interests voted against curtailing the price support program. Senators who received nocontributions from the sugar industry all voted to reduce the program.

• After receiving an average of more than $56,000 in campaign contributions from insuranceinterests, two House incumbents switched to the industry's side on a key committee vote on a billthat would take away the current exemption the industry enjoys from federal antitrust laws, thuslowering insurance premiums because of increased competition. The average industry contributionto individual committee members voting in favor of the industry was $44,030, with those votingagainst the industry taking in an average of just $16,300.

• In an 11-day period last September between two key Senate votes on a bill that would haveraised auto efficiency standards — and saved consumers $40 billion a year at the gas pumps — asingle auto industry PAC gave more than $30,000 to key incumbents, while other auto interestshanded out another $9,000. Two of them later sided with the industry on a close vote in which theindustry won by just three votes.

• After utility interests gave more than $300,000 in campaign contributions to members of theHouse Ways and Means Committee, a bill which would have required utility companies to quicklyrebate $19 billion in overcharges to consumers was defeated. The number of members who received$10,000 or more from utility PACs was nearly twice as likely to vote in favor of the industry.

These are just a few examples of the kind of wheeling and dealing that goes on in Congress everyday. However, there are proposals being considered which would change the system and make itmore difficult for special interests to buy influence in the legislative arena. Among the ideas beingdebated on Capitol Hill include a system of partial or full public financing of campaigns, similar tothe presidential system. Some proposals would tax political action committees to pay for publicfinancing. Others suggest spending limits on campaigns; banning political action committeecontributions, or establishing an aggregate limit on special interest contributions; banningcontributions from special interests that have a direct interest in legislation before a member'scommittee; and setting term limits. There are also proposals which would limit campaign time toperhaps 30 or 60 days, thus cutting down on exorbitant costs of campaigns.

Whatever reforms are ultimately implemented, it is quite clear that the current system needs tobe changed. By pouring huge sums of money into the campaign coffers of incumbents who sit onthe relevant House and Senate committees, various special interests effectively control thosecommittees and thus Congress. If we expect future legislation to benefit the public at large, thenCongress and those committees must declare their independence.

Only then will this nation begin to return to a system of government which is truly of the people,by the people and for the people.

INTRODUCTION

Perhaps more than any other scandal in American history, the Watergate scandal of the early1970s exposed the corrupting influence of money in the political process. After lengthy congressionalinvestigations and public hearings, numerous examples were uncovered of big money, in the formof legal and illegal campaign contributions, buying influence in the Nixon White House. In 1974,following those revelations, Congress passed legislation that instituted a system of partial publicfinancing for presidential elections. By having taxpayers foot part of the bill for presidential elections,Congress hoped to stem the influence of special interests in the political and legislative arenas.

However, Congress refused to clean its own house. That same year Congress opened the doorfor special interests to establish political action committees (PACs), greatly increasing specialinterest contributions to congressional campaigns and influence over the legislative process. Since1974, PAC spending has increased 12-fold, from $12.5 million to $150 million in 1990. Numerousstudies have shown a connection between campaign contributions and the way members of Congressvote on particular pieces of legislation. A recent Common Cause study of National Rifle Associationcontributions documented how large campaign donations may have been a factor in the defeat oflegislation that would have banned the domestic production and sale of semiautomatic rifles — amove supported by a large majority of the American public. Despite public pressure to ban theweapons, Congress gave in to NRA influence in a vote on the "Unsoeld amendment." Theamendment, sponsored by Representative Jolene Unsoeld (D-WA), allowed domestic gunmanufacturers to continue to produce and sell semiautomatic rifles as long as they manufacturedthem in the United States. In vote after vote on the amendment, the pattern was clear: The moremoney a particular member of Congress received from the NRA, the more likely he or she was tovote in the NRA's favor (see Appendix IV).

Since 1974, Congress has come under increasing pressure to reform its campaign finance system.Proposals have ranged from a complete ban on all PAC contributions to campaign spending limits.Also being seriously considered, and widely supported, is a system of public financing, similar tothe presidential system, designed to stem or eliminate the flood of special interest money now pouringinto congressional campaign coffers.

Some opponents of public financing for congressional campaigns have argued that such a systemwould be too costly — about $300 million per year, according to some estimates. But an argumentcan also be made that the current system of financing congressional campaigns is more costly toconsumers and the U.S. Treasury — in other words, the taxpayer — than public financing wouldbe. Through special-interest tax breaks, subsidies, and other legislative favors doled out to largecampaign donors, billions of dollars are being frittered away each year for programs of dubious publicvalue or through the defeat of legislation in the public's interest.

This Center REPORT documents cases in which it appears that money played a role in whetherparticular pieces of legislation — affecting taxpayers and consumers — passed or failed.

METHODOLOGY

It's virtually impossible to prove that campaign contributions can influence congressional votes,since there is no systematic way to document what makes members of Congress vote the way theydo on the thousands of bills that come before committees and the full House and Senate each year.What can be shown, however, are patterns: In many cases, the more money a member of Congressreceives from a particular special interest group, the more likely he or she is to vote in favor of thatinterest or industry.

For this study, the Center examined dozens of issues and special interests, from the largest donors,such as the insurance and banking industries, to groups with well-known lobbying clout, such as thesugar and cable-television industries. Important votes over the past few years were analyzed, alongwith the contributions members of Congress received from those special interest groups. TheCampaign Research Center, an organization that has computerized campaign contributions asreported to the Federal Election Commission and categorized political action committee donationsaccording to interest group, tallied total campaign contributions to all members of Congress or tomembers of key committees. When possible, those contributions were compared to votes for oragainst a particular special interest to determine if members who received large amounts of moneyfrom a particular interest group were more likely to vote in its favor.

In many cases such straightforward documentation is not possible. As any veteran of CapitolHill will attest, a special interest group's clout can be seen not just through winning votes, but frompreventing a particular bill from ever coming to a committee or floor vote. An industry's case mayalso be made in conference committees between members of the House and Senate, where finallegislation is hammered out behind closed doors. In those cases, contributions to key committees —those with jurisdiction over a particular piece of legislation, and the Rules committees, which oftencontrol whether a bill or specific amendments will come to a vote — were examined, as well ascontributions to the House and Senate leadership, who also hold sway over when or if legislationwill be voted on.

THE SUGAR PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAM

COST TO CONSUMERS ANNUALLY: $3 billion

CONTRIBUTIONS TO CONGRESS SINCE 1985: $2.6 million

There is little argument that the U.S. sugar industry has wielded enormous clout over Congressin the past decade. With a price support program more generous than for any other farm commodity,and import restrictions on cheaper foreign sugar, the industry has a lot to lose should it fall out offavor with Congress.

Since the 1700s, the U.S. government has protected the domestic sugar industry, mainly throughimport quotas. Since 1934, a succession of Sugar Acts has defined U.S. sugar policy by requiring theU.S. Department of Agriculture to regulate domestic sugar prices through quotas, benefit paymentsto growers, acreage restrictions, and excise taxes. In 1977, Congress established the current loanprogram, which since 1985 has guaranteed growers 18 cents per pound. That's a far cry from theworld market rate, which in the 1980s averaged less than 10 cents per pound.

The effect has been to significantly increase the price of domestic sugar. A 1988 report by theU.S. Department of Commerce estimated that American consumers pay $3 bi l l ion more for sugareach year than they would without such a program. A study by Public Voice, a nonprofit consumerlobbying group that has consistently criticized the sugar program, found that 11,000 farmers — lessthan 1 percent of all U.S. farmers — benefitted an average of $250,000 per grower from the pricesupport program in the mid-1980s.

In addition to these domestic costs, the sugar program has had a detrimental effect on developingcountries, which depend on sugar exports as a source of revenue. In 1989, an international panel ofthe General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) found that the U.S. import quotas violated worldtrade rules.

Twice in the past five years the industry has beaten back attempts in Congress to gradually lowerthe government support it receives. In 1985 and again in 1990, Senators Bill Bradley (D-NJ), SladeGorton (R-WA), and William Roth (R-DE) and Representatives Thomas Downey (D-NY) and Wil l isGradison (R-OH) introduced amendments to the farm bills that would have lowered the price supportlevel and brought domestic sugar prices more in line with the world market, increased sugar imports,and set a tariff rate quota mechanism that would have permitted increased imports in times ofdomestic price hikes.

In 1985, both the House and the Senate voted down the amendments after 17 sugar PACs pouredmore than $900,000 over a 3-year period into congressional campaign coffers, according to a studyby Public Voice. Heavily targeted were members of the House and Senate Agriculture committees.Despite broad support from a coalition of consumer groups, food processors, retailers, sugar refiners,and the Bush administration, the 1990 amendments met with similar results: The House voted271-150 and the Senate voted 54-44 against curtai l ing the program.

At least 17 sugar PACs contributed $2.6 million to congressional campaign committees between1985 and 1990. Between 1988 and 1990 alone, individuals from the sugar industry kicked in another$178,000. A vote-by-vote analysis of the House and Senate showed the expected pattern: The moremoney a member got from sugar interests, the more likely he or she was to vote in the industry'sfavor.

* * * * * * * * * *

CONTRIBUTIONS BY 17 SUGAR PACS TO THE SENATE, 1985-1990

Voted in Favor Voted Against Percentage in FavorAmount of Sugar Industry Sugar Industry of Sugar Industry

$0

$1 -$5,000

$5,001-$10,000

$10,001 -$15, 000

$15, 000 or more

0

4

9

12

29

12

16

6

5

5

0%

20%

60%

71%

85%

Final Vote 54 44

(Two senators did not vote)

TotalContributions: $994,467 $279,881

AverageContribution: $18,416 $6,361

TOTAL SENATE CONTRIBUTIONS — $1,303,348*

*Total includes contributions to members who did not vote

CONTRIBUTIONS BY 17 SUGAR PACS TO THE HOUSE, 1985-1990

Voted Against Voted in Favor Percentage in FavorAmount Sugar Industry

$0

$1-5,000

$5,001-15,000

More than $15, 000

59

80

11

0

of Sugar Industry

8

92

129

42

of Sugar Industry

12%

53%

92%

100%

Final Vote 150 271

(12 members did not vote)

TotalContributions: $206,990 $2,387,188

AverageContribution: $1,380 $8,841

TOTAL HOUSE CONTRIBUTIONS — $2,649,778


(Note: See Appendix I for House and Senate vote-by-vote breakdown and PAC contributions toindividual members)

FUEL EFFICIENCY STANDARDS

SAVINGS TO CONSUMERS: $40 billion a year

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE SENATE SINCE 1985: $1.9 million

With the onset of the Persian Gulf War came a renewed interest in oil and energy conservation.According to the Energy Information Administration, an arm of the Department of Energy, theU.S. imported 290 million barrels of oil annually from Iraq and Kuwait. According to calculationsbased on Department of Energy figures by the Safe Energy Communication Council, a public interestgroup concerned with energy policy, that much oil could be saved by raising automobile fuelefficiency standards by a mere 2.75 miles per gallon —a 10 percent increase above the current legalmandate of 27.5 miles per gallon for all passenger cars.

Legislation to increase automobile fuel efficiency standards, introduced for the first time lastyear by Senator Richard Bryan (D-NV), came surprisingly close to being passed. A similar bill,introduced by Representatives Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Claudine Schneider (R-RI), never madeit out of committees and to the House floor last year.

Bryan's bill would have required automakers to increase fuel efficiency by 20 percent by 1995and 40 percent by the year 2001. The so-called CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standardshave not been raised since 1975, when the 27.5 m.p.g. standard was first implemented. It has beenestimated that since then, the United States has saved 2.5 million barrels of oil every day, or morethan 900 million barrels per year. Had the Bryan bill passed, the additional savings would have beenbetween 1 million and 2.8 million barrels of oil a day. Based on government figures, the annualsavings to consumers at the gas pump would have come to $40 billion. There's also an environmentalbenefit: Fuel-efficient cars produce less carbon dioxide, the main culprit in global warming. Bryanestimates that if his plan were put into effect, carbon dioxide emissions would be reduced by 500million tons a year.

The auto industry and the Bush administration opposed the bill on grounds that it waseconomically unfeasible for manufacturers and would result in lost jobs. They also contended thathigher fuel-efficiency standards would mean lighter, and therefore less safe, cars. Proponents of thebill countered that the industry made the same arguments 15 years ago when the original fuel economystandards were established. In addition, they pointed to a Department of Energy study which foundthat greater fuel efficiency can be achieved through technological advances — not lighter cars. TheBryan bill, which originally was part of the Clean Air package, was dropped in March, in exchangefor a promise for separate floor consideration later in the year. In mid-September, in an unusual move,proponents of the auto industry, led by Senator Don Riegle (D-MI), led a filibuster to keep the billfrom being brought to the Senate floor for debate. The Senate, however, ended the filibuster by avote of 68-28, and the bill was scheduled for debate on September 20. The auto industry and the Bushadministration immediately shifted into high gear, mounting an intensive lobbying campaign againstthe bill. By September 25, another filibuster had prevented debate on the bill. A cloture vote, whichwould have ended the filibuster, and allowed debate — and eventually a vote — required a three-fifthsmajority, or 60 votes to pass. Between those two important votes, 11 senators who had previouslyvoted against the auto industry changed their stance and voted in the industry's favor. The vote toinvoke cloture fell just three votes short, 57-42, thus killing the legislation.

In that 11-day period between the two votes, the Auto Dealers and Drivers for Free Trade PAC,which represents foreign-car makers, handed out $35,000 to 14 senators, while other auto interestsgave another $9,000 to seven senators. Two of these senators later switched their votes.

Bryan has introduced the bill again this year, as has Boxer in the House. The auto industry isexpected to pull out all the stops to defeat the proposal. Judging from last year's efforts, proponentsof the legislation in both houses of Congress will face tough battles in which money, no doubt, willbe a contributing factor.

* * * * * * * * * *

CONTRIBUTIONS BY AUTO INDUSTRY PACS TO

THE SENATE, 1985-1990:

Amt. Received

$0-$1 1,999

$12,000-19,999

$20,000 or more

Voted AgainstAuto Industry

on 9/25/90

28

14

15

Voted in Favorof Auto Industry

on 9/25/90

5

10

27

Percentage in Favorof Auto Industry

15%

42%

64%

Final Vote 57

(One senator did not vote)

TotalContributions $863,990

AverageContribution: $15,158

Total Contributions:

42

$1,012,065

$24,097

$1,917,155*

AVERAGE CONTRIBUTION TO 11 SENATORS WHO CHANGED POSITIONS ANDVOTED WITH THE AUTO INDUSTRY ON THE SECOND VOTE: $19,718

*Total includes contributions to member who did not vote

UTILITY CUSTOMER REBATE

REBATE TO CONSUMERS: $19 billion

CONTRIBUTIONS TO HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE (1985-1989): $340,770

In 1989, the Wall Street Journal reported how utility companies, armed with more than $10million in campaign contributions, had killed a provision of the 1989 tax bill that would haveexpedited spending "refunds to utility consumers because of industry overcharges. The Journalreported that the average residential customer would have received a rebate of $100.

The proposed rebate would have reflected a total of $19 billion in deferred taxes, which hadalready been billed to customers before changes in the 1986 tax reform bill that dropped the corporatetax rate from 46 percent to 34 percent, leaving the industry owing much less in taxes than had beenpreviously anticipated. While no one disputed that the utilities owed consumers the taxes, the questionwas whether they would be paid back quickly or over a number of decades.

The sponsor of the 1989 provision to repay consumers quickly was Representative Robert Matsui(D-CA). Ironically, Matsui had also sponsored the original 1986 provision that allowed the refundsto be paid back over 30 years. With no public hearings on the matter, consumer groups and otherinterested parties didn't find out about the delay in paying the refunds until it was already law. Stateutility regulators, who normally oversee rebates to customers and consumer and labor groups, as wellas 57 members of Congress, lined up behind the "Utility Ratepayer Refund Act of 1987,"sponsoredby Representative Byron Dorgan (D-ND). Dorgan's bill, which would have reversed the provisionand provided for an immediate rebate of the overcharges, died in the Ways and Means Committeewithout a vote, and after nine of the original cosponsors had repudiated the bill. Of those nine, theWall Street Journal reported eight received an average of $13,057 in campaign contributions fromthe utilities.

Matsui, who received large campaign contributions from utility PACs after he sponsored the1986 provision, began to turn against the utilities a year later as he came under fire from consumergroups. When he asked the utilities to give him more information to defend himself, Matsui told theJournal he got little more than offers for fundraising help.

One study, paid for by a telephone association, projected that telephone customers who gotone-time, one-year refund of $24 would lose out by paying $40 in higher rates over the next 20 years.A rebuttal of that study, commissioned by Pennsylvania's Office of Consumer Advocate, said itcontained 'faulty analysis"and that a rapid refund would actually leave customers between $7 millionand $356 million ahead over 20 years.

Matsui's bill eventually lost in the Ways and Means Committee, 13-22. "I have been told anumber of times by members whom I have sought as cosponsors that my bill makes good policysense but dangerous political sense to them," Matsui told the Journal. "Rich in honorariums andcampaign contributions, their [utility lobbyists'] talk is pretty loud in the halls around here."

10

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS BY UTILITY PACSTO MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE WAYS AND

MEANS COMMITTEE, 1985-89Those members receiving $10,000 or more from utility PACs were nearly twice as likely to votein favor of the industry's position.

Vote/Contribution Breakdown

Voted Against the Utilities Voted in Favor of the Utilities

**MatsuiGibbonsDorganMoodyAndrewsRangelDonnellyPeaseKennellyCoyneDowneyStarkGradison

TOTALAVERAGE

$32,42514,30011,30010,65010,0008,5758,4506,0003,6153,5001,5001,250

-0-

$111,565$8,582

TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS: $340,770AVERAGE CONTRIBUTIONS: $9,736

FlippoSchulzeRostenkowskiAnthonyVander JagtShawGuariniMcGrathLevinRussoPickleJenkinsThomasFrenzelFordChandlerBrownJohnsonSundquistJacobsArcherCrane

$36,60033,77631,10017,45016,84012,00011,18910,6008,2507,3006,8506,5506,0505,6505,2504,4003,5003,4002,450

-0--0--0-

$229,205$10,418

**After sponsoring the original 1986 provision, Matsui's contributions from utilities climbed to$32,425. If those contributions were not included in the averages, the total to those voting againstthe industry would have been $79,140, with an average of $6,595.

11

INSURANCE INDUSTRY EXEMPTION FROMFEDERAL ANTITRUST LAWS

COST TO CONSUMERS: Higher insurance premiums

CONTRIBUTIONS TO CONGRESS SINCE 1985: $21.5 million

In 1945 Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which exempted the insurance industryfrom federal antitrust laws that disallow business practices such as price-fixing and monopolies. Thepurpose of the law was to allow states, rather than the federal government, to regulate the industry.It also provided for a three-year moratorium on the exemption, after which, in the absence of effectivestate regulation, federal antitrust regulations would apply. Because of ambiguous language in thelaw, however, the temporary moratorium became a permanent exemption. As a result, according toa report by the House Judiciary Committee, lax oversight and enforcement in a number of states haveled to the proliferation of anti-competitive practices, including price-fixing.

There have been a number of proposals and attempts to place the insurance industry under greaterfederal regulation by removing or altering the antitrust exemption. A 1977 study of the industry bythe Department of Justice questioned whether the exemption was in the public interest and concludedthat "open competition" laws would be favorable to the industry. Following the study, PresidentJimmy Carter created a commission to study federal antitrust laws and various exemptions from thelaw. The McCarran-Ferguson exemption was discussed at length in the commission's report, whichconcluded: "The current broad antitrust immunity for the business of insurance granted by theMcCarran-Ferguson Act should be repealed."

By the 1980s, with the onset of the "insurance crisis," when premiums soared and somebusinesses and localities found it impossible to obtain adequate coverage, the industry once againcame under scrutiny. Over a four-year period, a series of hearings were held by the House JudiciarySubcommittee on Monopolies and Commercial Law. In the hearings, industry representatives balkedat the idea of repealing the exemption and maintained that the industry's huge losses — and theresulting crisis —should be blamed on skyrocketing jury awards. Consumer advocates insisted the"crisis" was brought on by the industry itself through ill-advised rate policies and irrational responsesto a few large claims. The subcommittee subsequently undertook an investigation into the industry'sclaims and found that liability insurers had actually paid out far less in claims than they had receivedin premiums over the decade.

A 1986 report by the General Accounting Office found that rates for workers compensationinsurance in Michigan in 1984 were at least 30 percent less than they would have been if that statehadn't adopted competitive rating provisions for the industry. It is still too early to know the effectsof greater competition on rates in California and New Jersey, for example, where ballot initiativeshave led to more state regulation of the insurance industry.

An industry's clout can often be measured not only by how many votes are won in Congress,but also by how many bills never come to a vote. Several bills have been introduced over the pastfew years that would either repeal or modify the insurance industry's exemption from antitrust laws.

72

The latest, H.R. 1663, introduced in the 101st Congress, represents the first time since 1945 that abill to reform the exemption was voted on and passed at both the subcommittee and committee levels.The bill, sponsored by Representative Jack Brooks (D-TX), would allow antitrust laws to apply incases of price-fixing, monopolization, allocation of territories by market rivals, and other unlawfulbusiness practices. The bill narrowly passed the subcommittee level in 1990 by a vote of 9-6. In 1990,the Judiciary Committee also passed the bill, by a vote of 19-16. The legislation died, however, beforeit reached the House floor. Between 1988 and 1990, two members who received large contributionsfrom the insurance industry switched from supporting the bill to opposing it.

A similar bill has been introduced in the last four Congresses by Senator Howard Metzenbaum(D-OH). It has never made it out of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Monopoliesand Business Rights. One reason might be that insurance-industry contributions to members of theSenate committee have been unusually high.

Brooks's bill is expected to make it to the House floor this year. The close votes in both thecommittee and subcommittee may indicate a close vote on the House floor. And if the pattern of votesversus campaign contributions continues, money may make the difference in whether or not thispro-consumer legislation ever passes.

The 1990 House Subcommittee Vote on the McCarran-Ferguson

Exemption and Industry Contributions (1985-fflO !)

Voted Against the Insurance Industry Voted in Favor of the Insurance Industry

GlickmanBrooksFeighanSmith (FL)MazzoliSchroederStaggersEdwards (CA)Synar

$67,94548,50044,75819,60017,40013,1508,5002,500

-0-

Total Contributions $222,353

Average Contribution $24,706

FishDouglasMoorheadDannemeyerHydeCampbell (CA)

$74,86367,80051,82538,55032,69029,550

$295,278

$49,213

13

1990 Vote on the McCarran-Ferguson Exemption by the

House Judiciary Committee:

Voted Against the Insurance Industry Voted in Favor of the Insurance Industry

SchumerBrooksBryantBoucherL. Smith (FL)MazzoliSchroederFrankHughesStaggersKastenmeierLevineWashingtonHermanSangmeisterConyersEdwards (CA)CrockettSynar

$76,99048,50039,15032,30019,60017,40013,15013,00010,8808,5006,2955,3504,2504,2003,6003,1352,500

800-0-

Morrison (CT)FishGlickmanDouglasCobleMoorheadFeighanDannemeyerSensenbrennerL. Smith (TX)HydeCampbell (CA)Slaughter (VA)DeWineJamesGekas

$89,33474,86367,94567,80064,15751,82544,75838,55036,78336,35032,69029,55028,95016,40014,25010,270



$704,475

$44,030

Two Members Who Switched From Voting Against the Insurance

Industry to Voting in Favor of the Industry:

GlickmanFeighan

$67,945$44,758



14

VOTES VS. CONTRIBUTIONS

Voted AgainstAmount the Industry

1990 Subcommittee Vote

$0-9,999

$10-29,999

$30,000 or more

Final Vote

1990 Judiciary Committee

$0-$9,999

$10-29,999

$30,000 or more

Final Vote

3

3

3

9

Vote

10

5

4

19

Voted in Favorof the Industry

0

1

5

6

0

5

11

16

Percent in Favorof the Industry

0%

25%

67%

0%

50%

73%

Contributions to House Leadership (1985-1990)

Speaker of the House Thomas Foley (D-WA) $ 88,637Majority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO) 172,578Minority Leader Robert Michel (R-IL) 130,575Majority Whip William Gray (D-PA) 67,700Minority Whip Newt Gingrich (R-GA) 53,900

Total Contributions $513,390Average Contribution $102,678

Contributions to the Senate Judiciary Committee

Total — $902,553

Average — $ 64,468

Contributions to Senate Judiciary Subcommittee onAntitrust, Monopolies and Business Rights

Total — $575,159

Average — $ 63,906

The Savings and Loan Debacle

COST TO TAXPAYERS: As much as $500 billion over 30 years

CONTRIBUTIONS TO CONGRESS FROM 1985-1987: $1.8 million

For years, savings and loan institutions, or "thrifts," earned their nickname. They thrived throughprudent banking practices, commonly known as the 3-6-3 rule: Pay 3 percent interest on savings,charge 6 percent for home loans, and hit the golf course by three. But by the late 1970s and early1980s, changing financial conditions had rendered that formula obsolete, as newly emerging moneymarket funds and other high-interest bearing accounts sucked funds away from the ailing industry.

But that wasn't all that contributed to the impending disaster in the industry. As the savings andloan crisis quietly unfolded, it was helped along by legislation passed in Congress. In a series offar-reaching deregulatory moves, Congress raised the federal insurance on deposits from $40,000 to$ 100,000, loosened restrictions on the types of investments S&Ls could make (thus opening the doorfor risky ventures), and quickened the phase out of interest rate ceilings for thrift deposits. In addition,the Reagan administration loosened accounting procedures for thrifts, which allowed them to hidemajor losses from thrift regulators.

These and other changes in the way S&Ls were allowed to conduct business contributed to the"high-flying" mentality of the '80s thrift operators, which led to hundreds of thrifts failing and evenmore being cited by federal regulators as "problem" thrifts. In the meantime, delays in closinginsolvent thrifts — delays the S&L industry lobbied hard for — added billions each year to theultimate cost of the government bailout of the industry, now estimated at more than $500 billion overthe next 30 years.

While virtually all of these changes passed Congress easily and swiftly as more and more S&Lsbegan to fail, there was at least one close call for the industry when the Reagan administrationrecommended a $15 billion bailout in the mid-1980s. In 1987, in a major victory for the industry, theHouse Banking Committee voted 25-24 to reject the administration's first request for $15 billion toclose down or take over ailing thrifts, voting instead for only $5 billion in funding. Less fundingmeant that regulators could not move against problem thrifts that, as time wore on, went deeper anddeeper into debt, thus increasing the ultimate cost of the government bailout. According to mediareports, even White House officials privately conceded at the time that $15 billion wasn't enoughand that as much $50 billion would be needed to rescue the industry. Instead of providing the $15billion, however, the House Banking Committee,"at the urging of the industry, House Speaker JimWright (D-TX), and Committee Chairman Femand St Germain (D-RI), voted for only $5 billion.When the bill came to the full House for a vote, Wright and St Germain quietly switched theirpositions to support the administration, but did little else to support the higher bailout rate. Eventually,Congress and the Reagan administration agreed to $10.8 billion.

A 1990 report by the General Accounting Office has estimated that this and other delays uppedthe ultimate cost of the bailout to as much as $500 billion.

16

The Keating Affair and Other Ethical Questions

A number of members of Congress have been singled out in the media and by the House andSenate ethics committees as having used undue influence to aid the savings and loan industry. Thatinfluence, of course, was combined with large contributions from S&L PACs, individuals, andindustry associations. House Banking Committee Chairman Fernand St Germain was cited by theHouse ethics committee for having violated House rules when he accepted free travel and meals fromthe S&L industry. St Germain was the banking committee's top recipient of S&L campaigncontributions and played an instrumental role in advancing legislation that deregulated the industry.

House Speaker Jim Wright was investigated by the House ethics committee for using his powerand influence to assist S&L operators. While the outside counsel investigating Wright recommendedthat the committee find him in violation of House rules regarding his activities with S&Ls, thecommittee rejected those recommendations. Nevertheless, Wright resigned two months later.

The most notorious case in the S&L debacle, of course, is Charles Keating, the Arizonamillionaire who owned Lincoln Savings and Loan in Irvine, California. A 1987 art icle in the NewYork Times called Keating and his S&L "one of the most prominent examples of a new andcontroversial breed of savings and loan institution^]" that downplayed the traditional role of homelending to underwrite riskier and potentially more lucrative speculative investments, such as investingin real estate developments.

In 1986, federal regulators began investigating Lincoln's lending practices. Later that year theyconcluded that the S&L suffered from serious deficiencies in its underwriting, appraisal, anddocumentation practices. About that time, by his own admission, Keating began making generouscorporate donations, campaign contributions, and gifts to influence members of Congress to "lakeup my cause." Five senators in particular received large sums of campaign money from Keating, hisfamily, and his colleagues: Alan Cranston (D-CA), Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ), John Glenn (D-OH),John McCain (D-AZ), and Don kiegle (D-MI). The senators, who became known as "the KeatingFive," received more than $324,000 among them in campaign contributions from Keating. Inaddition, Keating gave more than $1 million to political causes and organizations that benefitted thesenators, as well as corporate gifts, including vacations at Keating's retreat in the Bahamas.

In 1987, the senators met with federal S&L regulators on two occasions in an apparent attemptto press them to ease up on Lincoln Savings and close their investigation. Despite what appears tobe extraordinary pressure from the five senators, the regulators recommended that Lincoln be takenover. With a change in chairmanship at the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, two years went bywithout the recommendation being implemented. In April 1989, after several unsuccessful attemptsto sell the S&L, Keating placed the thrift in bankruptcy proceedings.

The federal bailout of Lincoln is estimated to have cost the taxpayers at least $2.5 billion. Thetwo-year delay following the recommendation to take over the thrift is estimated to have cost $1.3billion. Lincoln is thought to be one of the most expensive S&L failures ever.

17

1987 House Banking Committee Vote to Reduce Funding for

S&L Bailouts From $15 Billion to $5 Billion and

S&L Campaign Contributions (1981-1986) *

Voted in Favor ofthe S&L Industry

Voted Against theS&L Industry

St GermainDreierShumwayLehmanAnnunzioTorresNealMcCollumDakarHubbardFauntroyVentoNelsonMantonGarciaKanjorskiErdreichMorrisonMcMillenSchumerKapturPricePattersonFlakeMfumeAverageTotal

WylieMcKinneyBartlettWortleyFrankRoukemaParrisLaFalceRidgeSaxtonMcCandlessBunningKleczkaCarperHilerRoemerMcMillanKennedyBereuterRothSwindallLeachGonzalezSaiki

$22,85021,07520,09816,10015,15015,09512,75012,30010,0009,4158,1006,0005,7005,1505,0005,0004,5004,3004,1503,9602,4001,080

450100

$8,780$210,723

Votes vs. Contributions

Contribution

$0-$9,999

$10-524,999

$25.000 or more

Final Vote

Voted in FavorofS&Ls

8

11

6

25

Voted AgainstS&Ls

15

9

0

24

Percent in FavorofS&Ls

35%

55%

100%

*Figures taken from a June 1990 Common Cause study, "It's a Wonderful Life." Figures includecontributions from 157 PACs and 1,074 individual contributions between 1981 and 1986.

18

Keating Contributions to the "Keating Five"

Senator Campaign Contributions Other Donations

Alan Cranston $47,000 $850,000**John Glenn 34,000 200,000***Dennis DeConcini 55,000 0DonRiegle 76,100 0John McCain 112,000 13,433****

Totals $324,100 $1,063,433

Total Contributions $1,387,533

**Contributed to three private organizations involved in registering Democrats to vote and foundedor controlled by Senator Cranston

***Contributed to the National Council on Public Policy, a political action committee controlled byGlenn.

****Corporate travel gifts which included three trips to the Bahamas. McCain later reimbursedKeating for these expenses.

19

THE TOBACCO PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAM

Cost to the Taxpayer: As much as $900 million

Contributions to Congress from 1987 to 1990: $3 million

One of the most important votes for the tobacco industry in recent years came in 1985, when aproposal was introduced in the House of Representatives to do away with the tobacco price supportprogram. The program has been in place since the early 1930s, when the Agricultural AdjustmentAct first designated tobacco as a basic commodity and authorized payments to growers who restrictedproduction. These quotas, which are still in place today, restrain tobacco production, thereby raisingthe prices that growers receive. The current program uses a combination of price support loans andsupply controls.

Defenders of the program contend that it operates at "no net cost" to the taxpayer because of a1982 provision that requires manufacturers and growers to contribute to a fund to cover any lossesshould the government need to buy up excess tobacco. But recent figures from the CongressionalResearch Service and the U.S. Department of Agriculture show that the eventual cost to the taxpayerwill be between $660 million and $900 million. That's because another provision of the programrequired the government to make up for any losses incurred from flue-cured crops between 1976 and1981 and a disastrous burley tobacco crop in 1983. In addition, administering the program costs theAgriculture Department $35.4 million a year.

In 1985, the same year those provisions were adopted, Representative Thomas Petri (R-WI)introduced an amendment to the farm bill that would have done away with the tobacco price supportprogram altogether. Petri argued that the system, which required growers to pay for "allotments"from landowners, had become feudalistic and that the "no net cost" provision was bogus becauselosses were greater than the assessments collected by the government from farmers andmanufacturers. Petri's amendment lost, and the support program now in place does not have to bereauthorized, as many other agricultural support programs do.

With pressure on the government from health advocates and the non-smoking public to findways to discourage smoking —through tax increases, bans on advertising, and curbs on smoking inpublic places — the tobacco industry is fighting an increasingly defensive battle in Congress and instate legislatures. Among the industry's most recent losses was the smoking ban on all domesticairline flights.

But there have also been some victories. Last year, in looking for ways to reduce the federaldeficit, Representative Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL), the powerful chairman of the House Ways andMeans Committee, was among those who promoted a doubling of the 16-cent tax on a pack ofcigarettes. That plan would have raised $2.8 billion a year. Instead, the final compromise worked outin House-Senate conferences raised the tax only four cents in 1991 and another four cents in 1993.That small increase was considered a victory for the tobacco industry.

The tobacco industry, of course, has long been a large contributor to congressional campaigns,donating more than $3 million to House and Senate campaigns between 1987 and 1990.

20

TOBACCO CONTRIBUTIONS (1981-86) AND THE VOTE ON

THE PETRI AMENDMENT

Amount Votes AgainstTobacco Industry

$0

$1 -$2,499

$2,500-$4,999

More than $5,000

Final Vote

(10 members did not

TotalContributions

AverageContribution

71

90

29

5

195

vote)

$242,075

$1,241

Votes in Favorof TobaccoIndustry

25

95

66

44

230

$677,215

$2,944

PercentageIn Favor ofTobacco

26%

51%

70%

90%

Total Contributions: $952,540*


27

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE TAX-WRITING HOUSE AND

SENATE COMMITTEES

1987-1990

HOUSE WAYS & MEANS COMMITTEE

'ANDREWSANTHONYARCHER

*BROWN (CO)CARDINCHANDLERCOYNECRANE

*DONNELLY*DORGANDOWNEY

*FLIPPOFORD (TN)FRENZELGIBBONSGRADISONGUARINIJACOBS

014,750

07,2502,200

03,500

02,500

11,5007,000

10,7509,5005,550

13,5000

16,5000

JENKINS 12,500JOHNSON (CT) 0

*KENNELLY 11,750LEVIN 0MATSUI 13,041

*McGRATH 21,000MOODY 6,100PEASE 1,500PICKLE 2,000*RANGEL 18,000ROSTENKOWSKI 5,500RUSSO 10,250SCHULZE 13,750SHAW 5,800

*STARK 0*SUNDQUIST 27,250THOMAS (CA) 7,000

*VANDER JAGT 15,450

*Member, Subcommittee on Revenue Measures

Total Contributions: $275,391Average Contribution: $7,650

Total Contributions to Subcommittee on Revenue Measures: $125,450Average Contribution to Subcommittee Members: $11,405

Contributions to the House Leadership

House Speaker Thomas Foley (D-WA) $ 16,000Majority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO) 24,500Minority Leader Robert Michel (R-IL) 28,285Majority Whip William Gray (D-PA) 20,750Minority Whip Newt Gingrich (R-GA) 8,250

Average Contribution $19,557Total Contributions $97,785

22

SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE

PRYOR*ARMSTRONGROTH

*MATSUNAGA*SYMMSDOLEMITCHELLRIEGLEDURENBERGERDANFORTHBAUCUS

9,5000

3,0664,0007,000

17,0009,0008,500

14,2662,000

12,750

BRADLEY 1,000MOYNIHAN 1,500

*BOREN 0PACKWOOD 0HEINZ 1,400CHAFEE 0

DASCHLE 9,000BENTSEN 14,000ROCKEFELLER 8,611

*Member, Subcommittee on Energy and Agricultural Taxation

Average Contribution: $ 6,130Total Contributions: $122,593

Total Contributions to Members of the Subcommittee: $11,000Average Contribution to Members of the Subcommittee: $2,750

Contributions to the Senate Leadership

PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE ROBERT BYRD (D-WV)MAJORITY LEADER GEORGE MITCHELL (D-ME)MINORITY LEADER ROBERT DOLE (R-KS)MAJORITY WHIP ALAN CRANSTON (D-CA)MINORITY WHIP ALAN SIMPSON (R-WY)

Average ContributionTotal Contributions

$ 10,0009,000

17,000-0-

9,000

$9,000$45,000

TOTAL TOBACCO CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HOUSE AND SENATE,1987-1990: $3,010,903

AVERAGE CONTRIBUTION, 1987-1990: $5,628

23

APPENDIX IHOUSE SUGAR VOTE AND 1985-90 CONTRIBUTIONS

FROM 17 SUGAR PACS

Name Contribution Name Contribution Name Contribution

Voted Against SugarIndustry:

ANNUNZIOARCHERARMEYATKINSBARNARDBARTLETTBATESBEILENSONBENNETTBERMANBORSKIBOUCHERBRENNANBROOMFIELDBURTONCAMPBELL (CA)CARPERCHANDLERCLAYCONTECONYERSCOOPERCOURTERCOXCOYNECRANEDELAYDEWINEDIXONDONNELLYDOUGLASDOWNEYDWYEREARLYECKARTEDWARDS (CA)EDWARDS (OK)FAWELLFEIGHANFIELDSFRANKFRENZELGALLOGEJDENSONGEKASGIBBONS

-0--0-

$500-0-

$1,500-0-

$250-0-

$500$1,350

-0-$12,500

$300$1,250

$250$1,150

-0-$4,550

-0--0-

$300$750

-0-$550

-0-$250

$1,400$1,750$2,150

-0--0-

$1,850-0--0-

$250$6,400$4,550

-0--0--0--0-

$8,850$1,700

-0--0-

$11,850

GOODLINGGORDONGRADISONGREENGUARINIHALL (OH)HAMILTONHAMMERSCHMIDTHANCOCKHAWKINSHENRYHILERHOCHBRUECKNERHOUGHTONHUGHESHYDEJACOBSJOHNSON (CT)KANJORSKIKENNEDYKENNELLYKOLBEKOSTMAYERKYLLAFALCELEACHLEHMAN (FL)LENTLEVINELEWIS (GA)LLOYDLUKENSMACHTLEYMARKEYMARTIN (IL)MAZZOLIMCCURDYMCDADEMCDERMOTTMCGRATHMCHUGHMCNULTYMEYERSMILLER (OH)MILLER (WA)MOAKLEYMOODYMRAZEKNEAL (MA)

-0-$6,100

$700$300

-0-$500

$3,000$3,500

$900$1,700$3,500$2,250

$500$500

-0--0--0-

$750$500$300$500$750

$1,000$1,950

-0--0-

$2,800-0--0-

$2,000$7,850

$300$1,100

-0-$7,300

$250$6,500

-0-$2,550$1,000

-0-$1,600$2,050

-0-$1,000

$200$3,500

$550-0-

NIELSONNOWAKOAKAROWENS (UT)OWENS (NY)PACKARDPALLONEPAYNE (NJ)PEASEPETRIPORTERRANGELREGULARHODESRINALDORITTERROHRABACHERROSTENKOWSKIROUKEMAROWLAND (CT)SAVAGESAWYERSAXTONSCHEUERSCHNEIDERSCHROEDERSCHULZESCHUMERSENSENBRENNERSERRANOSHARPSHAWSHAYSSLATTERYSMITH (NJ)SMITH (NH)SNOWESOLOMONSPRATTSTUDDSSUNDQUISTUDALLUPTONVISCLOSKYWALGRENWALKERWASHINGTONWAXMANWEISS

$500-0-

$4,600$10,150$2,100

-0--0--0--0-

$250-0-

$2,550-0-

$2,600$2,400

$250$250

$5,000$300

$1,150$3,100

$650-0--0-

$1,500$500$300

-0--0-

$1,300-0-

$2,800-0-

$6,400-0-

$550-0--0-

$4,600-0-

$1,200-0--0-

$290$10,150

-0-$1,400

$500-0-

24


WELDONWOLFWYLIEYATESYATRONYOUNG (FL)

Total

$1,650-0-

$1,300-0-

, -0-$250

$206,990

Voted in Favor of SugarIndustry:

ACKERMANALEXANDERANDERSONANDREWSANTHONYAPPLEGATEASPINAUCOINBAKERBALLENGERBARTONBATEMANBENTLEYBEREUTERBEVILLBILBRAYBLILEYBOEHLERTBOGGSBONIORBOSCOBOXERBROOKSBROWDERBROWN (CA)BROWN (CO)BRUCEBRYANTBUECHNERBUNNINGBUSTAMANTEBYRONCALLAHANCAMPBELL (CO)CARDINCARRCHAPMANCLARKECLEMENTCLINGER

$500$35,350$3,450

-0-$7,000$2,350$3,000$6,600$3,700$4,700

$10,300$8,350

$500$8,600$3,800$4,500

$11,600$500

$5,300$35,091

$4,600$8160$4,850$4,550

$18,600$2,750

$11,300$10,800$4,175$6,850$8,350

-0-$2,150

$12,050$1,200$6,850$7,750$1,550$6,050

$11,650

COBLECOLEMAN (TX)COLEMAN (MO)COLLINSCOMBESTCONDITCOSTELLOCRAIGDANNEMEYERDARDENDAVISDE LA GARZADEFAZIODELLUMSDERRICKDICKINSONDICKSDINGELLDORGANDORNANDREIERDUNCANDURBINDYMALLYDYSONEMERSONENGELENGLISHERDREICHESPYEVANSFASCELLFAZIOFISHFLAKEFLIPPOFOGLIETTAFORD (MI)FROSTGALLEGLYGAYDOSGEPHARDTGERENGILLMOROILMANGINGRICHGLICKMANGONZALEZGOSSGRANDYGRANTGRAY

$8,750$10,300$12,550$4,300

$11,400$6,520$4,200$6,350$4,400$8,050

$13,400$28,750$2,300

$250$17,900$4,100$6,000$6,200

$44,600$5,950$1,350$5,300

$36,157$4,650

$16,700$28,800$4,000

$18,750$9,300

$18,750$20,900$6,600

$14,010-0-

$2,250$5,850$5,550$7,600$8,200$4,600$7,900$9,300$2,750

$15,280$11,350$11,400$17,750

$300$3,850

$17,590$7,900

$19,000

GUNDERSONHALL (TX)HARRISHASTERTHATCHERHAYES (IL)HAYES (LA)HEFLEYHEFNERHERGERHERTELHOAGLANDHOLLOWAYHOPKINSHORTONHOYERHUBBARDHUCKABYHUNTERHUTTOINHOFEIRELANDJAMESJENKINSJOHNSON (SD)JOHNSTONJONES (GA)JONES (NC)JONTZKAPTURKASICHKASTENMEIERKILDEEKLECZKAKOLTERLAGOMARSINOLANCASTERLANTOSLAUGHLINLEATHLEHMAN (CA)LEVINLEWIS (CA)LEWIS (FL)LIGHTFOOTLIPINSKILIVINGSTONLONGLOWERYLUKENMADIGANMANTON

$15,150$3,950

$10,100$1,550

$17,200$300

$3,900$5,950

$10,950$18,175$4,250$4,300

$14,300$9,750$4,250$5,550

$12,925$35,800$6,700$1,000$7,300$8,500$3,650$4,100

$19,700$6,200$3,900$5,500

$21,600$6,850

$250$3,000$6,650$4,950

$12,150$6,740

$10,200$2,050$2,850

$300$6,550$7,000$8,000

$15,300$7,500$1,500$2,600

$13,800$6,950

$500$27,250$11,850

23


MARLENEEMARTIN (NY)MARTINEZMATSUIMAVROULESMCCANDLESSMCCLOSKEYMCCOLLUMMCCRERYMCEWENMCMILLANMCMILLENMFUMEMICHELMILLER (CA)MINETAMOLINARIMOLLOHANMONTGOMERYMOORHEADMORRISON (WA)MURPHYMURTHAMYERSNAGLENATCHERNEAL(NC)OBERSTAROBEYOLINORTIZOXLEYPANETTAPARKERPARRISPASHAYANPATTERSONPAXONPAYNE (VA)PELOSIPENNYPERKINSPICKETTPICKLEPOSHARDPRICEPURSELLQUILLENRAHALLRAVENELRAYRICHARDSONRIDGE

$23,050$3,750

$850$12,150$3,900$5,900

$10,650$3,900$5,350$3,300

$10,850$4,200

$500$26,000$6,650$6,000

-0-$8,100$3,550$6,850$2,800$4,400$5,750$7,450

$12,965-0-

$14,300$13,650$9,900

$16,300$3,800$3,600$8,400$6,700$2,000$9,550$8,700$2,550$7,150$4,550

$18,600$11,900$5,100$2,800

-0-$6,650$9,700

$21,250$7,100$1,950$3,400$5,200$1,050

ROBERTSROBINSONROEROGERSROS-LEHTINENROSEROTHROWLAND (GA)ROYBALRUSSOSABOSAIKISANGMEISTERSARPALIUSSCHAEFERSCHIFFSCHUETTESHUMWAYSHUSTERSIKORSKISKAGGSSKEENSKELTONSLAUGHTER (VA)SLAUGHTER (NY)SMITH, D. (OR)SMITH (TX)SMITH (FL)SMITH (IA)SMITH (VT)SMITH, R. (OR)SMITH (NE)SOLARZSPENCESTAGGERSSTALLINGSSTANGELANDSTARKSTEARNSSTENHOLMSTOKESSTUMPSWIFTSYNARTALLONTANNERTAUKETAUZINTAYLORTHOMAS (WY)THOMAS (GA)THOMAS (CA)TORRES

$14,500$3,500$4,750$4,750$2,750

$23,300$5,900$5,550$2,000

$11,550$19,850$4,900$4,100

$16,780$6,550$2,600

$31,102$4,640$5,500

$22,600$6,350

$12,500$12,900$2,900$5,100

$14,750$4,300$5,700$6,350$6,350

$12,200$9,150

-0-$6,300

$10,100$35,000$86,261$6,600$2,050$7,450

$10,400$7,400$6,350

$350$16,650$2,950$4,100$6,850

$500$5,500

$12,850$15,200

$400

TORRICELLITOWNSTRAFICANTTRAXLERUNSOELDVALENTINEVANDER JAGTVENTOVOLKMERVUCANOVICHWALSHWEBERWHEATWfflTTAKERWHITTENWILLIAMSWILSONWISEWOLPEWYDENYOUNG (AK)

Total

Not Voting

. BILIRAKISCOUGHUNCROCKETTFOLEYFORD(TN)HANSENLOWEYMORELLAMORRISON (CT)NELSONSISISKYWATKINS

Total

$250$7,650

-0-$22,215$2,750$8,950$9,850

$15,400$12,950$3,550$4,900

$28,950$8,650$6,202

$13,000$8,050$2,650$5,700$9,700$5,350

$15.900

$2,387,188

$2,950-0-

$2,000$30,750$1,000$5,900

$500$1,500

-0-$4,050$2,350$4.600

$55,600

Total Contributions $2,649,778

26

SENATE SUGAR VOTE AND SUGAR PAC CONTRIBUTIONS, 1985-1990


Voted In Favor Of SugarIndustry:

ADAMSAKAKABAUCUSBENTSENBORENBOSCHWTTZBREAUXBUMPERSBURDICKBURNSBYRDCOCHRANCONRADCRANSTOND'AMATODASCHLEDECONCINIDIXONDODDDURENBERGEREXONFORDFOWLERGOREGRAHAMGRAMMHARKINHATCHHEFLINHELMSHOLLINGSINOUYEJOHNSTONKERREYLEAHYLEVINLOTTMACKMCCLUREMIKULSKIPRYORRDEGLEROCKEFELLERSANFORDSASSERSHELBYSIMONSIMPSONSTEVENSSYMMSTHURMOND

$15,500$10,750$19,250$23,300$2,000

$34,625$10,750$4,750

$29,504$11,500$11,000$18,500$35,315$14,700$5,500

$26,135$17,250$36,800$4,000

$42,601$37,752$8,000

$23,500$18,500$19,500$26,806$44,250$19,296$24,750$41,150$15,150$7,250

$23,150$6,000

$11,250$22,550$6,500

$12,850$8,033

$500$14,000$14,943$20,000$14,250$19,500$9,250

$49,373$15,000$10,250$19,850$8,500

WALLOPWILSONWIRTH

Total

$16,708$27,126$5.250

$994,467

Not Voting:

GARN $4,500PRESSLER $24.500

Total $29,000Voted Against Sugar Industry

ARMSTRONGBIDENBINGAMANBONDBRADLEYBRYANCHAFEECOATSCOHENDANFORTHDOLEDOMENICIGLENNGORTONGRASSLEYHATFIELDHEINZHUMPHREYJEFFORDSKASSEBAUMKASTENKENNEDYKERRYKOHLLAUTENBERGLIEBERMANLUGARMCCAINMCCONNELLMETZENBAUMMITCHELLMOYNIHANMURKOWSKINICKLESNUNNPACKWOODPELLREIDROBBROTHRUDMANSARBANESSPECTERWARNER

Total

-0--0-

$20,500$12,250

$0$2,000

-0-$11,000$2,000$3,250

$53,000$2,500$4,750$4,000

$20,900$6,500$2,000

-0-$10,800

$500$1,000

-0-$1,500

-0-$1,000$3,000

$19,500$6,500

$19,431$2,000

$15,000-0-

$9,750-0-

$10,000$3,000$1,000$7,000

$10,000-0--0--0-

$3,000$11,250

$279,881

TotalContributions: $1,303,348

17 SUGAR PACS/SPONSORSINCLUDED IN THIS STUDY:

1. Amalgamated SugarCompany PAC

2. American Crystal Sugar PAC3. American Sugar Cane League

PAC4. American Sugarbeet Growers

Association PAC5. Archer Daniels Midland Co.

PAC6. California Beet Growers

Association7. Florida Sugar Cane League

PAC8. Great Lakes Sugar Beet

Growers9. Hawaiian Sugar Planters

Association PAC10. Michigan Sugar Co. PAC11. Minn-Dak Farmers

Cooperative PAC12. Political Action Committee of

the Texas Sugar BeetGrowers Association, Inc.

13. Rio Grande Valley SugarGrowers PAC

14. Savannah Foods & IndustriesInc. PAC

15. Southern Minnesota SugarCooperative

16. Staley Political ActionCommittee

17. United States Beet SugarAssociation PAC

27

APPENDIX IISENATE VOTE AND AUTO PAC CONTRIBUTIONS

FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS

9/14/90SENATOR VOTE

ADAMSAKAKAARMSTRONGBAUCUSBENTSENBIDENBINGAMANBONDBORENBOSCHWITZBRADLEYBREAUXBRYANBUMPERSBURDICKBURNSBYRDCHAFEECOATSCOCHRANCOHENCONRADCRANSTOND'AMATODANFORTHDASCHLEDECONCINIDIXONDODDDOLEDOMENICIDURENBERGEREXONFORDFOWLERGARNGLENNGOREGORTONGRAHAMGRAMMGRASSLEYHARKINHATCH

YYNYYYYNNYYNYYYNNYNNYYYYYYYNYNYYYNY

NVYYYYNYYN

9/25/90VOTE

YYNYYYYNNYYNYYYNNYNNYYYYYYYNYNNYYNYNNYYYNNYN

CONTRIBUTIONS(198S - 1990) SENATOR

$7,5006,000

-0-8,500

39,7005,625

20,00051,750

-0-29,00024,00012,5007,250

19,80018,75022,00022,00019,40047,40012,5008,0009,000

15,40021,72537,15022,50010,80028,8008,200

51,62031,50034,00029,50030,0008,500

19,50022,40017,25053,3508,000

26,75027,50013,10527,500

HATFIELDHEFLINHEINZHELMSHOLLINGSHUMPHREYINOUYEJEFFORDSJOHNSTONKASSEBAUMKASTENKENNEDYKERREYKERRYKOHLLAUTENBERGLEAHYLEVINLIEBERMANLOTTLUGARMACKMCCAIN -MCCLUREMCCONNELLMETZENBAUMMIKULSKIMITCHELLMOYNIHANMURKOWSKINICKLESNUNNPACKWOODPELLPRESSLERPRYORREIDRIEGLEROBBROCKEFELLERROTHRUDMANSANFORDSARBANES

9/14/90VOTE

Y

NYNYYYY

NVYNYYYYYYNYNNNYNNYYYYYNYYYYYYNYYYYYY

9/2S/90 CONTRIBUTIONSVOTE (1985-1990)

Y

NYNYNYYNNNYYYYYYNYNNNYNNYYYYNNNYYYYYNYYYYYY

17,50022,0007,500

24,25030,750

1,00024,75014,00022,2503,000

42,7204,500

10,200-0--0-

25,1508,500

20,550-0-

18,00029,37540,40019,3354,600

30,5006,0004,3005,5005,750

17,00031,65015,50022,25011,50016,0008,0006,000

39,35012,80014,50035,250

-0-8,9507,800

28

SENATOR

SASSERSHELBYSIMONSIMPSONSPECTERSTEVENSSYMMSTHURMONDWALLOPWARNERWILSONWIRTH

9/14/90VOTE

Y

NY

NVYYNNNY -AY

9/25/90VOTE

NNYNNNNNNNAY

CONTRIBUTIONS(1985 - 1990)

30,50014,00019,50023,00031,00018,00038,00015,50026,70019,50041,10015,700

TOTAL 1,917,155

27 AUTO INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONS AND COMPANY PACSINCLUDED IN THIS STUDY:

1. American Motors Corp.2. A.O. Smith Corporation3. Arvin Industries Inc.4. Auto Dealers and Drivers for Free Trade5. Automotive Warehouse Distributors Association6. B.F. Goodrich7. Budd Company8. Chrysler Corp.9. General Motors Civic Involvement

10. Dana Corporation11. National Automobile Dealers Association12. Eaton Corporation13. Mogul Corporation14. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.15. Ford Motor Co.16. Freuhaf Corp.17. General Automotive Corp.18. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.19. I.C. Industries Inc.20. Maremont Corp.21. Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association22. New United Motor Manufacturing Inc.23. PHH Group Inc.24. Ryder System Inc.25. Sealed Power Corporation26. Ingersoll-Rand Co.27. Warshawsky & Co./J.C. Whitney & Co.

29

APPENDIX IIITOBACCO INDUSTRY CONTRIBUTIONS - HOUSE, 1981-1985


Voted in Favor of TobaccoIndustry

AKAKAALEXANDERANDREWSANTHONYASPINBARNARDBATEMANBEDELLBENNETTBENTLEYBEVILLBIAGGIBILIRAKISBLILEYBOGGSBONERBONIORBORSKIBOSCOBOUCHERBROOKSBROYHILLBRUCEBURTON (CA)BUSTAMANTEBYRONCAMPBELLCARNEYCARRCHAPMANCHAPPELLCHAPPIECLAYCOBEYCOBLECOELHOCOLEMAN (MO)COLEMAN (TX)COMBESTCOOPERDANIELDARDENDASCHLEDELAGARZADERRICKDICKINSONDICKSDINGELLDIXON, J.

-0-4,0003,2505,5502,700

7004,250

-0--0-

2,5002,050

5001,500

14,8002,5504,7001,300

-0-1,0004,0003,8003,5001,750

-0-1,000

6009,1501,2001,750

5003,3001,2001,5002,5003,750

12,7502,132

7502,5001,5004,5002,2503,2505,2004,5501,2501,150

.5,0003,550

DORGAN (ND)DOWDYDUNCANDYMALLYDYSONEMERSONENGLISHEVANS (IA)FASCELL

, FAZIOFLIPPOFOLEYFORD (MI)FOWLERFRANKLINFROSTFUQUAGALLOGAYDOSGEPHARDTGINGRICHGLICKMANGONZALEZGORDONGRADISONGRAY (IL)GRAY (PA)GROTBERGGUNDERSONHALL, R.HAMILTONHAMMERSCHMIDTHARTNETTHATCHERHAWKINS, A.HAYESHEFNERHEFTELHENDONHOLTHOPKINSHORTONHOWARDHOYERHUBBARDHUCKABYHUTTOJEFFORDSJENKINSJONES (OK)JONES (NC)JONES (TN)

3,00010,4009,5002,4003,4105,4504,4502,2505,0003,4008,0007,000

5007,6002,2501,2504,3502,2501,0001,0001,000

-0-500

3,250-0-

1,0003,0002,2503,0503,7504,075

3001,7505,750

150-0-

9,500250

4,9502,075

11,650750

6,3501,3506,0502,250

-0--0-

4,00013,2758,0005,000

KASTENMEIERKENNELLYKINDNESSKLECZKAKOLTER

" LATTALEATHLEHMAN (CA)LELANDLENTLEVIN (MI)LEWIS (FL)LIPINSKILLOYDLOEFFLERLONGLOTTLOWRY (WA)LUJANMADIGANMANTONMARLENEEMARTIN (NY)MARTINEZMATSUIMAZZOLIMCCAINMCCLOSKEYMCCURDYMCEWENMCGRATHMCMILLAN (NC)MICAMIKULSKIMILLER (OH)MITCHELLMOLLOHANMONTGOMERYMOOREMURPHYMURTHAMYERS (IN)NATCHERNEAL (NC)NICHOLSOAKAROBEYO'BRIENOLINORTIZOXLEYPANETTA

1,0002,8753,200

250500

1,750500300

3,3754,950

-0-500200

3,1001,5004,0007,950

-0-3,4505,8751,7502,0503,105

5002,7504,5503,2501,0001,0002,0004,6005,9502,3001,0002,200

-0-2,500

-0-5,150

8002,400

500-0-

10,800750

-0-1,7002,2504,7502,5004,3501,750

30


PARRJSPASHAYANPENNYPEPPERPERKINSPICKLEPRICEQUILLENRAHALLRANGELRAYRICHARDSONROBERTSROBINSONROEROGERSROSEROSTENKOWSKIROTHROWLAND (GA)ROYBALRUDDRUSSOSABOSCHUETTESCHULZESHELBYSIKORSKYSISISKYSKEENSKELTONSLAUGHTERSMITH (IA)SMITH (NE)SMITH R. (OR)SNYDERSPENCESPRATTSTAGGERSSTANGELANDSTENHOLMSTOKESSTRANGSTUMPSUNDQUISTSWIFTSWINDALLSYNARTALLONTAUZINTAYLORTHOMAS (CA)THOMAS (GA)

2,850150

1,750500

1,250-0--0-

6,7501,6506,1256,2006,7501,9502,200

2508,2009,4257,5504,3424,900

5001,0005,300

5001,5006,0506,9259,4004,2501,7502,2504,000

-0--0-

5,7505,1501,6503,6504,0002,7503,450

9501,0001,1503,6003,5002,500

-0-4,8004,5404,2002,5006,150

TORRESTOWNSTRAFICANTTRAXLERUDALLVALENTINEVANDER JAGTVOLKMERWALKERWATKINSWEAVERWEBERWHEATWHITLEYWHITTENWILLIAMSWILSONWISEWOLFWORTLEY

2,3013,5001,000

-0-1,0009,2506,9502,6002,8501,450

-0-300

2,3006,0503,000

-0--0-

5002,3501,250

WRIGHT 13,000YATRONYOUNG (AK)YOUNG (MO)

Voted Against TobaccoIndustry

ANDERSONANNUNZIOAPPLEGATEARCHERARMEYATKINSAUCOINBADHAMBARNESBARTLETTBARTONBATESBEILENSENBEREUTERBERMANBOEHLERTBOLANDBONKERBOULTERBOXERBREAUXBROOMF1ELDBROWN (CA)BROWN (CO)

6001,0001,500

-0-250250

-0-1,000

-0-1,4001,000

-0-3,2001,0001,800

-0-250

-0--0--0--0-

1,0001,250

-0--0--0-

1,500

BRYANTCALLAHANCARPERCHANDLERCHENEYCLINGERCOATSCOLLINSCONTECONYERSCOUGHLINCOURTERCOYNECRAIGCRANECROCKETTDANNEMEYERDAUBDAVISDELAYDELLUMSDEWINEDIOGUARDIDONNELLYDORNAN (CA)DOWNEYDREIERDURBINDWYEREARLYECKART (OH)ECKERT (NY)EDGEREDWARDS (OK)EDWARDS (CA)ERDREICHEVANS (IL)FAWELLFEIGHANFIEDLERFIELDSFISHFLORIOFOGLIETTAFORD(TN)FRANKFRENZELGARCIAGEJDENSENGEKASGIBBONSOILMANGOODLING

3,1001,250

-0-1,2504,0002,6503,400

-0-1,250

-0-2,500

250100250750

-0-4,4502,000

-0-1,500

-0-2,500

12,0001,0001,5001,800

7501,750

7001,200

5002,5001,000

-0--0-

1,250500

1,750250

-0-2,600

5004,800

-0-8,300

-0-4,7503,500

-0-500

4,5003,250

250

31


GREENGREGGGUARINIHALL (OH)HANSENHENRYHERTELHILERHILLISHUGHESHUNTERHYDEIRELANDJACOBSJOHNSON, N.KANJORSKIKAPTURKASICHKOLBEKOSTMAYERKRAMERLAFALCELAGOMARSINOLANTOSLEACHLEHMAN (FL)LEVINE (CA)LIGHTFOOTLIVINGSTONLOWERY (CA)LUKENLUNDINELUNGRENMACKMACKAYMARKEYMARTIN (IL)MAVROULESMCCOLLUMMCDADEMCHUGHMCKERNANMEYERSMICHELMILLER (CA)MILLER (WA)MINETAMOAKLEYMOLINARIMONSONMOODYMOORHEAD

2,250500

4,7501,000

3001,000

-0-250

1,100250

-0-1,000

550-0-

2,450250

-0-2,0002,0003,6501,250

-0-1,000

-0--0--0--0--0-

250250

5,500250

-0-4,300

-0--0-

4,400-0-

7502,550

-0--0-

55018,325

-0-750250

-0-2,000

-0-3,7002,000

MORRISON (CT)MORRISON (WA)MRAZEKNELSONNIELSONNOWAKOWENSPACKARDPEASEPETRIPORTERPURSELLREGULAREIDRIDGERINALDORITTERRODINOROEMERROUKEMAROWLAND (CT)SAVAGESAXTONSCHAEFERSCHEUERSCHNEIDERSCHROEDERSCHUMERSEIBERLINGSENSENBRENNERSHARPSHAWSHUMERSHUMWAYSHUSTERSILJANDERSLATTERYSMITH (NJ)SMITH, D.(OR)SMITH, R.(NH)SMITH (FL)SNOWESOLARZSOLOMONST GERMAINSTALLINGSSTARKSTRATTONSTUDDSSWEENEYTAUKETORRICELLI

1,7501,500

-0-50

1,250-0-

1,000-0-

2,300-0-

700-0--0-

3,0001,0007,050

5002,000

150-0-

1,500-0-

2,2503,000

-0--0--0--0--0-

1,0003,000

250-0--0-

2,000500

3,750-0-

1,2502,5502,500

-0-750

1,850-0-

2,0001,250

-0--0-

1,0001,750

250

VENTO -0-VISCLOSKY 1,000VUCANOVICH 1,100WALGREN 2,600WAXMAN -0-WEISS -0-WHTTEHURST 1,000WHTTTAKER 750WIRTH 3,100WOLPE -0-WYDEN -0-WYLIE -0-YATES -0-YOUNG (FL) -0-ZSCHAU -0-

Not Voting

ACKERMAN -0-ADDABBO 2,150BURTON 2,500KEMP 13,600KILDEE -0-LEWIS (CA) 250MCCANDLESS 2,500MCKINNEY 7,250O'NEILL 5,000OBERSTAR -0-

TOBACCO PACS INCLUDEDIN THIS STUDY:

Batus Inc.Brown & Williams Tobacco Corp.Cigar Association of AmericaNational Association of TobaccoDistributorsPhilip Morris Inc.RJR Nabisco Inc.Smokeless Tobacco Council Inc.Tobacco Institute Inc.United States Tobacco Company

32

APPENDIX IVNRA CONTRIBUTIONS AND THE UNSOELD AMENDMENT


Voted In Favor of NRAPosition:

ALEXANDERANDREWSANTHONYAPPLEGATEARCHERARMEYASPINBAKERBALLENGERBARNARDBARTLETTBARTONBENTLEYBEREUTERBEVILLBILBRAYBILIRAKISBLILEYBOEHLERTBOGGSBOUCHERBROOKSBROWDERBROWN (CO)BRUCEBUECHNERBUNNINGBURTONBUSTAMANTEBYRONCALLAHANCAMPBELL (CO)CARRCHAPMANCLARKECLEMENTCLINGERCOBLECOLEMAN (TX)COMBESTCONDITCOOPERCOSTELLOCOXCRAIGCRANEDANNEMEYERDARDENDAVISDE LA GARZA

$15,850$0$0$0$0

$12,900$0

$4,750$550

$0$4,000$7,800$4,250

$0$0

$4,950$0

$6,350$1,250

$0$19,800$14,850

$300$0

$7,750$8,950$6,250

$17,050$1,100

$0$2,550$1,050

$10,039$10,700

$0$0

$11,275$9,000$4,950$5,500$5,650

$0$2,350$9,900

$19,800$0

$350$6,950

$12,950$0

DEFAZIODELAYDERRICKDICKINSONDINGELLDORGANDORNANDOUGLASDREIERDUNCANDYSONECKARTEMERSONENGLISHERDREICHESPYFIELDSFISHFLIPPOFORD (MI)FRENZELFROSTGALLEGLYGALLOGAYDOSGEKASGERENGILLMOROILMANGINGRICHGOODLINGGORDONGRANDYGRANTGUNDERSONHALL (TX)HALL (OH)HAMILTON

$12,900$4,650

$19,800$19,800$8,950$1,000$9,900$4,950

-0-$3,400

$17,400-0-

$18,850$0

$1,350$14,850$7,500$8,950

$0$600

$0$0

$11,200$5,500

$0$600

$9,900$5,250

$375$6,000

$0$3,000$8,500

$16,850$0

$300$0

$500HAMMERSCHMIDT $0HANCOCKHANSENHARRISHASTERTHATCHERHAYES (LA)HEFLEYHEFNERHERGERHILERHOLLOWAYHOPKINSHORTONHOUGHTON

$1,300$19,186

$700$8,379$2,800$1,850$1,650

$15,350$10,750$7,450

$17,250$3,500

$0$6,450

HUCKABYHUNTERHUTTOHYDEINHOFEIRELANDJACOBSJAMESJENKINSJOHNSON (SD)JONES (NC)JONTZKANJORSKIKASICHKOLBEKOLTERKOSTMAYERKYLLAGOMARSINOLANCASTERLAUGHLINLEATHLENTLEWIS (CA)LEWIS (FL)LIGHTFOOTLIVINGSTONLLOYDLONGLOWERY (CA)LUKENSMADIGANMARLENEEMARTIN (NY)MARTIN (IL)MARTINEZMCCANDLESSMCCOLLUMMCCRERYMCDADEMCEWENMCMILLAN (NC)MCMILLEN (MD)MICHELMILLER (OH)MOLINARIMOLLOHANMONTGOMERYMOORHEADMORRISON (WA)MURPHYMURTHAMYERS

$300$6,850

$500$0

$18,800$800

$0$300

$0$6,250

$0$7,800

$24,800$7,350$5,450$9,700

$0$5,250

$0$6,550$1,200$5,200

$0$5,450

$500$8,650

$300$11,950

$0$1,250$6,500$1,000

$19,852$0$0$0

$1,300$0

$5,450$0

$2,500$5,950

$0$8,950

$250$0

$9,700$0

$600$0

$3,250$5,950

$0

33


NATCHERNEAL (NC)NIELSONOBERSTAROBEYOLINORTIZOWENS (UT)OXLEYPACKARDPARKERPARRISPASHAYANPATTERSONPAXONPAYNE (VA)PENNYPERKINSPETRIPICKETTPICKLEPOSHARDQUILLENRAHALLRAVENELRAYREGULARHODESRICHARDSONRIDGERITTERROBERTSROBINSONROGERSROHRABACHERROSEROTHROWLAND (CT)ROWLAND (GA)SARPALIUSSCHAEFERSCfflFFSCHUETTESCHULZESENSENBRENNERSHARPSHAWSHUMWAYSHUSTERSISISKYSKEENSKELTON

$0$4,950

$0$1,600$8,150$8,300$4,950

$15,350$0

$5,000$9,900$2,500$6,200

$500$13,900$2,850

$0$19,850

$850$2,100

$0$1,000

$30,750$4,950$4,950

$350$0$0

$4,350$1,350

$250$0

$15,850$0

$5,250$250

$13,700$125

$0$9,900

$11,100$9,250

$17,950$4,100

$0$500$500

$0$10,556

$850$5,900$1,500

SLATTERYSLAUGHTER (VA)SMITH (IA)SMITH (NE)SMITH (NH)SMITH, R. (OR)SMITH, D. (OR)SMITH (TX)SNOWESOLOMONSPENCESTAGGERSSTALLINGSSTANGELANDSTEARNSSTENHOLMSTUMPSUNDQUISTSWIFTTALLONTANNERTAUKETAUZINTAYLORTHOMAS (GA)THOMAS (WY)THOMAS (CA)TRAXLERUDALLUNSOELDUPTONVALENTINEVANDER JAGTVOLKMERVUCANOVICHWALKERWALSHWATKINSWEBERWELDONWHTTTAKERWfflTTENWILLIAMSWILSONWISEWYDENYATRONYOUNG (AK)YOUNG (FL)

$0$0

$750$5,050

$14,200$6,950

$13,900$6,300

$800$10,400$11,800$7,300

$20,150$18,350$5,870

$0$6,750$7,750

$500$3,400$5,250

-0-$1,700$5,950$1,000

$0$1,000$5,450

$0$1,000

$0$500$700

$21,800$14,200

$600$0

$250$14,600$5,700

$950$0

$5,950$15,850

$0$0

$9,450$13,700$2,000

Total $1,307,607

Voted Against the NRAposition:

ACKERMANANDERSONANNUNZIOATKINSAUCOINBATEMANBATESBEILENSONBENNETTBERMANBONIORBORSKIBOSCOBOXERBRENNAN

. BROOMFIELDBROWN (CA)BRYANTCAMPBELL (GA)CARDINCARPERCHANDLERCLAYCOLEMAN (MO)COLLINSCONTECONYERSCOUGHLINCOURTERCOYNEDELLUMSDEWINEDICKSDIXONDONNELLYDOWNEYDURBINDWYERDYMALLYEARLYEDWARDS (CA)ENGELEVANSFASCELLFAWELLFAZIOFEIGHANFLAKEFOGLIETTA

$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0

$250$0$0$0$0$0$0

34


FORD (TN)FRANKGEJDENSONGEPHARDTGIBBONSGLICKMANGONZALEZGOSSGRADISONGRAYGREENGUARINIHAYES (IL)HENRYHERTELHOAGLANDHOCHBRUECKNERHOYERHUBBARDHUGHESJOHNSON (CT)JOHNSTON (FL)JONES (GA)KAPTURKASTENMEIERKENNEDYKENNELLYKILDEEKLECZKALAFALCELANTOSLEACHLEHMAN (CA)LEHMAN (FL)LEVINLEVINELEWIS (GA)LIPINSKILOWEYLUKENMACHTLEYMANTONMARKEYMATSUIMAVROULESMAZZOLIMCCLOSKEY

$0$0$0$0$0$0$0

$3,000$0$0so$0$0so$0$0$0so

$3,700soso

$289SO$0$0$0$0SO

$250$0$0$0$0$0

' $0$0$0$0$0

$500$300

$0$0$0$0$0

$8,300

MCDERMOTTMCGRATHMCHUGHMCNULTYMEYERSMFUMEMILLER (CA)MILLER (WA)MINETAMINKMOAKLEYMOODYMORELLAMORRISON (CT)MRAZEKNAGLENEAL (MA)NELSONNOWAKOAKAROWENS (NY)PALLONEPANETTAPAYNE (NJ)PEASEPELOSIPORTERPRICEPURSELLRANGELRINALDOROEROS-LEHTINENROSTENKOWSKIROUKEMAROYBALRUSSOSABOSAIKISANGMEISTERSAVAGESAWYERSAXTONSCHEUERSCHNODERSCHROEDERSCHUMER

$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0

$500$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0

$250$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0

$8,750$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0

SERRANOSHAYSSIKORSKISKAGGSSLAUGHTER (NY)SMITH (FL)SMITH (NJ)SMITH (VT)SOLARZSPRATTSTARKSTOKESSTUDDSSYNARTORRESTORRICELLITOWNSTRAFICANTVENTOVISCLOSKEYWALGRENWASHINGTONWAXMANWEISSWHEATWOLFWOLPEWYLIEYATES

Total

Not Voting

CROCKETTEDWARDS (OK)FOLEYHAWKINSMCCURDY

Total NRAContributions: $1

$0$0$0$0$0$0

$250$250

$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0

$1,000$0$0$0$0$0$0$0

$27,589

$0$500

$14,850$0

$500

$15,850

,351,046

APPENDIX VUTILITY PACS INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY

1. Action Committee for Rural Electrification2. Action Committee for Rural Electrification/Missouri Cooperatives3. Alabama Power Company Employees Federal Political Action Committee4. American Electric Power Committee for Responsible Government; The American Public

Power Association Public Ownership of Electric Resources Pac5. Arizona Public Service Company Political Action Committee6. Arkansas Power & Light Company Employees' Energy Political Action Committee7. AseaBrown Boveri Employees' Fund for Effective Government8. Atlantic City Electric Company Federal Political Action Committee9. Babcock & Wilcox Company Good Government Fund; The Baltimore Gas and Electric

Company Political Action Committee10. Basin Electric Power Cooperative Political Action Committee11. Bechtel Group, Inc. Political Action Committee12. Better Government Fund of Mcdermott, Inc.13. Black Hills Power & Light Company Political Action Committee14. Boston Edison Company Advocates of a Better Congress15. Centel Corporation Good Government Fund16. Centerior Fund a Political Action Committee of the Centerior Energy Corp.17. Central and South West Services, Inc. Political Action Committee18. Central Illinois Public Service Company Pac19. Central Power and Light Company Political Action Committee20. Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company Employee Federal Pac21. Citizens for Responsible Government - Employees of the Montana Power Company22. Colorado Advocates for Rural Electrification23. Columbus Southern Power Company Political Action Committee24. Com/energy Services Company Employees for a Responsible Congress25. Committee for Accountable Government Interstate Power Company26. Committee for Responsible Government-Dominion Resources, Inc.27. Commonwealth Edison Political Action Committee28. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. Employees Political Action Committee29. Consumers Power Company Employees for Better Government — Federal Cooperative Power

Association Political Action Committee30. Dayton Power and Light Company Employees' Fund for Responsible Citizenship31. Detroit Edison Political Action Committee •32. DP & L Division of Texas Utilities Electric Company Active Citizenship Committee33. Duquesne Light Company Federal Political Action Committee34. Electric Employees Committee of the United Illuminating Company35. Empire District Electric Company Political Action Committee36. Employee Management Political Action Committee Mississippi Power & Light Company37. Employees Federal Pac - Carolina Power & Light Company38. Employees Federal Pac - Duke Power Company39. Employees* Responsible Government Association of Delmarva Power & Light Company40. Entergy Services, Inc. Good Government Action Committee41. Epic/el Paso Electric Company42. Federal Citizenship Responsibility Group43. Frankfort Political Action Committee of the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company44. General Atomics Political Action Committee45. General Electric Company Political Action Committee

36

46. General Public Utilities Political Participation Association47. Georgia Power Company Federal Pac, Inc.48. Gilbert Associates, Inc. Political Action Committee49. Good Government Management Association Florida Power & Light Company Employee's Pac50. Gulf States Utilities Federal Political Action Committee51. Henley Group, Inc. Employees Committee for Sensible Government52. Houston Industries Political Action Committee53. Ida-pac Political Action Committee54. Illinois Power Employees' Federal Political Action Committee55. Indiana Acre/Indiana Statewide Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives Inc.56. Indiana Michigan Power Company Civic Action Program57. Iowa Electric Light and Power Company Political Action Committee58. Iowa Friends of Rural Electrification59. Iowa Power Employee Political Action Committee Fka Iowa Resources Employee Pac60. Iowa Public Service Company Employees Government Committee61. Iowa-Illinois Gas and Electric Political Action Committee62. K C Power Pac-Kansas City Power & Light Company63. Kansas Action Committee for Rural Electrification64. Kansas Gas and Electric Company, Federal Political Action Committee65. Kentucky Utilities Company Political Action Committee66. KMS Fusion, Inc. Political Action Fund67. KPLGas Service Employees Political Action Committee68. Louisiana Action Committee for Rural Electrification69. Louisiana Employees Committee on Political Action of Louisiana Power & Light Company70. MDU Resources Group, Inc. Political Action Committee71. Minnesota Power Pac72. Mississippi Acre Committee73. Mississippi Power Company State Pac74. Missouri Public Service Company Employee Pac75. Montana Action Committee for Rural Electrification76. N C Association of Electric Cooperatives Rural Electric Action Program77. National Independent Energy Producers Pac78. New England Electric Pac Established by New England Power Service Company79. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. Committee for Responsible Government80. New York State Electric & Gas Corporation Political Action Committee81. Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Management Voluntary Federal Political Action Committee82. Northeast Utilities Political Action Committee83. Northern Indiana Public Service Company Employees Political Action Committee84. Northern States Power Employee Political Interest Committee85. Ohio Edison Employee Federal Political Action Committee86. Ohio Power Company Political Action Committee87. Oklahoma Acre88. Oklahoma Gas And Electric Company Employees Pac89. Orange And Rockland Utilities, Inc. Employees' Political Action Committee90. Oxford Energy Company Pac; The Pacific Gas Political Action Committee91. Pacific Power & Light Employee Political Action Committee92. Pekin Energy Employees' Political Action Committee93. Pennsylvania Power & Light Company People for Good Government94. Pennsylvania Power Company Employee Federal Political Action Committee95. Philadelphia Electric Company Federal Political Action Committee96. PNM Responsible Citizens Group97. Political Action Committee of Florida Power Corporation Employees98. Portland General Electric Employee Bi-partisan Committee99. Potomac Electric Power Company Political Action Committee

37

100. Power Pac of the Edison Electric Institute101. PSI Energy, Inc. Political Action Committee102. Public Service Company of Colorado Political Action Committee103. Public Service Company of New Hampshire Political Action Committee104. Public Service Company of New Hampshire, New Hampshire Yankee Division Pac105. Public Service Company of Oklahoma Political Action Committee106. Public Service Electric and Gas Company Political Action Committee107. Puget Power Good Government Committee108. Responsible Government Committee of Gulf Employees, Inc.109. Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation Employees' Federal Political Committee, Inc.110. San Diego Gas & Electric Company Citizens for Good Government Committee111. Scana Corporation Federal Political Action Committee112. Sierra Pacific Employees Political Action Committee113. Sierra Pacific Resources Committee for Good Government Political Action Committee114. Solar Energy Industries Association Political Action Committee115. Southern Company Services Pac116. Southwestern Committee on Political Education For Southwestern Public Service Company117. Southwestern Electric Power Company Political Action Committee118. Speak Up for Rural Electrification119. Systems Energy Resources, Inc. Employee Political Action Committee120. Teco Energy, Inc. Employees' Pac121. Tesco Division of Texas Utilities Electric Company Pac122. Texas Utilities Co/Texas Utilities Electric Company and Service Companies Energy Employees

Pac123. Texas Utilities Company Political Action Committee124. Texas Utilities Electric Company Division Employee Political Action Committee125. Texas Utilities Electric-Tugco Division Political Action Committee126. Texas-New Mexico Power Company Responsible Government Association127. Toledo Edison Company Employee Federal Political Action Committee128. Union Electric Company Employees Federal Political Action Committee129. Union Oil (UNOCAL) Political Awareness Fund130. United Employee Pac, Central Louisiana Electric Company, Inc.131. Utilicorp United, Inc. Employee Pac132. Virginia Action Committee for Rural Electrification133. Water Power Federal Political Action Committee134. West Texas Utilities Company Political Action Committee135. Westinghouse Electric Corporation Employees Political Participation Program136. Wisconsin Electric Political Action Committee137. Wisconsin Power And Light Employees' Political Action Committee138. Wisconsin Public Service Corporation Responsible Government Committee

APPENDIX VIINSURANCE PACS INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY

1. A L Williams & Associates Political Action Committee, Inc.2. Acacia Mutual Political Action Committee3. Aetna Life and Casualty Company Political Action Committee4. Aid Association for Lutherans Political Action Committee5. Alliance of American Insurers Political Action Committee6. Allied Mutual Insurance Company Political Action Committee7. Allstate Insurance Company Political Action Committee8. Ambase Corporation Political Action Committee9. American Association of Crop Insurers Political Action

Committee10. American Council of Life Insurance, Life Insurance Pac11. American Express Political Action Committee12. American Family Corporation Political Action Committee13. American Fidelity Corporation Pac14. American General Political Action Committee15. American Insurance Association Political Action Committee16. American International Group, Inc. Employee Political Action Committee17. American Mutual Life Insurance Company Political Action Committee18. American National Insurance Company Good Government Committee19. American States Insurance Company Political Action Committee20. American United Life Insurance Company Pac21. Ameritas Financial Services Political Action Committee22. Amev Holdings, Inc. Political Action Committee23. Aon Corporation Political Action Committee24. Associated Insurance Companies, Inc. Federal Political Action Committee25. Associated Life Insurance Group National Policyholder Advisory Committee26. Beneficial Management Corporation And Affiliated Corporations Political Action Committee27. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Connecticut, Inc. Pac28. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisconsin Political Action Committee29. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Missouri Federal Government Affairs Committee30. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Virginia Federal Political Action Committee31. Boat Owners Association of the United States Political Action Committee32. Business Men's Assurance Company of America Pac-federal33. Capital Holding Political Action Committee34. Carepac of Kansas Blue Cross & Blue Shield35. Carepac, The Blue Cross & Blue Shield Association Political Action Committee36. Central Life Assurance Company Political Action Committee37. Chubb Corporation Political Action Committee38. Cigna Corporation Political Action Committee39. Cna Financial Corporation Citizens for Good Government40. Colonial Penn Political Action Committee41. Colpac - The Political Action Committee of Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Company42. Common Sense Political Committee, Inc.43. Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Co-political Action Committee44. Continental Insurance Good Government Club45. Corporate Citizenship Committee46. Crown Life Brokerage General Agents Association Political Action Committee47. Crum and Forster, Inc. Voluntary Political Action Committee48. Crump Companies Political Action Committee49. Delta Dental Plans Association Pac

39

50. Employers Mutual Casualty Company Committee for Responsible Federal Government51. Equitable Financial Services Political Action Committee52. Ere Corporation Public Affairs Program53. Erie Indemnity Company Pac-federal (aka) Erie Insurance Pac and Erie Pac54. Ethyl Corporation Political Action Committee55. Farmers Group, Inc. Political Action Committee56. Farmers Mutual Hail Insurance Company of Iowa Political Action Committee57. Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance Company-Fidelity Mutual Group, Inc. Federal Pac58. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company Employees Committee for Responsible Government59. Florida Health Political Action Committee60. Franklin Life Employees' Campaign Fund61. GeicoPac62. General Accident Political Action Committee63. General Agents Association Political Action Committee64. General American Life Insurance Company Associates Federal Political Action Committee65. Georgia U.S. Corporation Political Action Committee66. Great-west Life Assurance Company Political Action Committee67. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Company Political Action Committee68. Guarantee Mutual Life Company Political Action Committee69. Guardian Life Insurance Company of America Political Action Committee70. Harleysville Insurance Political Action Committee71. Hartford Insurance Group Political Action Committee72. Health & People Political Action Committee of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan73. Health Insurance Political Action Committee of the Health Insurance Association of America74. Healthy Government Committee - The Political Action Committee/Blue Cross & Blue

Shield/Arizona75. Home Life Insurance Company Federal Political Action Committee76. Household International, Inc. & Subsidiary Companies Political Action Committee77. Ids Political Action Committee78. Independent Insurance Agents of America, Inc. Political Action Committee79. Insurance Association of Connecticut Political Action Committee80. Integon Corporation Federal Political Action Committee81. Jefferson-pilot Corporation Federal Good Government Committee Jefferson-pilot Fedpac82. John D. Williams Pac83. John Hancock Financial Services Pac84. Kansas City Life Insurance Company Employees' Political Action Committee85. Kansas Insurance Federal Political Action Committee86. Kemper Group Campaign Fund87. Liberty Corporation Federal Political Action Committee88. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company Political Action Committee89. Lincoln National Corporation Political Action Committee90. Loews Corporation/:Lorillard Public Affairs Committee91. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company Political Action Committee92. MCM Corporation Political Action Committee93. Merrill Lynch Political Action Committee94. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Employees' Political Participation Fund A95. Midwestern United Life Insurance Company Political Action Committee96. Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Company Pac97. MMI Companies Political Action Committee98. Modem Woodmen of America Political Action Committee99. Monumental Political Action Committee100. Mortgage Insurance Companies of America Political Action Committee101. Mutual Benefit Life Federal Political Action Committee

40

102. Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York Mony Political Action Committee103. Mutual of Omaha Companies Pac104. Mutual Trust Life Insurance Company Political Action Committee Mutual Trust Pac105. National Association of Casualty & Surety Agents Political Action Committee (nacsapac)106. National Association of Crop Insurance Agents Pac107. National Association of Independent Insurers Political Action Committee108. National Association of Insurance Brokers Political Action Committee109. National Association of Life Companies Political Action Committee110. National Association of Life Underwriters Political Action Committee110. National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies Pac111. National Structured Settlements Trade Association Political Action Committee112. Nationwide Political Participation Committee113. New England Mutual Life Insurance Company Pac/New England Life Pac114. New York Life Insurance Company Political Action Committee115. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company Federal Political Action Committee116. Northwestern National Life Insurance Company Federal Pac117. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company Political Action Committee118. Penn Mutual Political Action Committee119. Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Company Pac Committee120. Primerica Corporation Political Action Committee121. Principal Mutual Life Insurance Company - Federal Political Action Committee122. Professional Insurance Agents Political Action Committee123. Protective Life Corporation Federal Political Action Committee124. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company Political Action Committee125. Provident Mutual Life Insurance Company Political Action Committee126. Prudential Insurance Company of America Federal Pac127. Rebsamen Companies, Inc. Political Action Committee128. Reliance Group Holdings, Inc. Political Action Committee129. Royal Indemnity Company Voluntary Political Action Committee130. Safeco-pac131. Sears Political Action Committee132. Security Benefit Group, Inc. Federal Political Action Committee133. Security Life of Denver Insurance Company Political Action Committee134. Shelter Insurance Federal Pac135. Southland Life Insurance Company Political Action Committee136. St. Paul Companies, Inc. Volunteer Committee for Good Federal Government137. Standard Insurance Company Political Action Committee138. State Mutual Life Assurance Federal Political Action Committee139. Team Xerox Political Action Committee140. Textron, Inc. Political Action Committee141. Torchmark Corporation Political Action Committee142. Transamerica Corporation Political Action Committee143. Transamerica Insurance Company Political Action Committee144. Transamerica Life Companies Political Action Committee145. Travelers Corporation Political Action Committee; The Union Central Life Insurance Company

Political Action Committee146. United Services Automobile Association Group Political Action Committee147. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company Political Action Committee148. UNUM Political Action Committee149. Utica Mutual Insurance Company Insurance Executives Political Action Committee150. Washington National Employees Political Action Fund of Washington National Insurance

Company151. Wausau Insurance Companies Political Action Committee-federal

41

Documents

SHORT-CHANGEDcloudfront-files-1.publicintegrity.org/legacy... · award-winning investigative journalist who has written extensively about campaign finance issues, Hogan formerly was