1. One Congressman's $7,400 In Gourmet
Chocolates: Inside The Lawmaker
Luxury Scene
Paul Barton from Washington, DC
CNC News | October 6, 2010
Eric Cantor, R-Va., offers his contributors the very best chocolate.
• Share
• Ask a question
• Comment
WASHINGTON – Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House Republican whip, doesn’t settle for just any
brand when picking chocolates for campaign donors.
For his political fund-raisers this election cycle, Cantor has spent $7,451 on gourmet chocolates,
shopping from Mariebelle’s Chocolates of New York; Historical Chocolates of Fairfax, Va; Madame
Chocolates of Beverly Hills; and Norman Love Confections of Fort Myers, Fla. The latter boasts of
“artistry in chocolate.”
Cantor’s fiduciary attitude toward candy illustrates the lengths to which prominent members of
Congress will go to make campaign fund-raisers a memorable experience for high-dollar donors,
campaign finance experts say.
When the C-SPAN cameras are on, these lawmakers extol hard-working Americans who live on
budgets hammered out at the kitchen table.
Congressional luxury scene
Off camera, they live it up with their wealthy donors at exclusive resorts, golf courses, hotels and
wineries where the food, liquor and entertainment come from places most of their constituents
could only dream of patronizing.

2. Take Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas, chairman of the National Republican
Congressional Committee. Sessions likes to raise money in Las Vegas. His
leadership PAC has spent $49,739 on sites such the Palazzo, a resort hotel
and casino; Lavo Italian, a nightclub and restaurant on the city’s famous
Strip; Tao Vegas, a nightclub connected to a casino, and Dos Caminos, a
restaurant that brags about its “vibrant bar scene.”
Sessions failed to respond to numerous requests for comment.
Lawmakers don’t forget the little extras, either, like gifts for donors to take home, special lighting,
play equipment, limousines and balloons ordered from stores that specialize in just that – balloons.
Expenses that might strike some as unrelated to campaigning are often allowed, because campaign
law, which Congress controls, has few bright lines and lots of gray, experts say.
“The scandal in Washington is often what’s legal,” added Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Legal
Center, a watchdog group. “It’s a very enjoyable lifestyle.”
For the most part, she added, contributors who attend these events represent “interested money”
that wants something from Congress.
Members finance these champagne tastes out of the very same campaign funds for which they
solicit contributions. Most maintain at least two: one for their own re-election and a “leadership”
political action committee they use to enhance their influence by giving to other lawmakers’
campaigns.
What they seek is leverage, campaign finance experts say. They believe the more they spend
showing donors a good time, the more they will raise.
“They’ll tell you that major contributors won’t come to the Holiday Inn,” said Melanie Sloan of
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
By themselves, the committees of Cantor and Rep. John Boehner, the House minority leader, have
so far raised more for 2010 races than the top three Democratic leaders combined - Speaker Nancy
Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Majority Whip James Clyburn. It’s a difference of $14.74
million to $13.18 million, figures from the Center for Responsive Politics show.
With few re-election worries of their own, House leaders are expected to use their campaign
committees to raise money for other candidates and party committees.
By percentage, however, Boehner and Cantor have done less to help others than the top House
Democrats, the Center for Responsive Politics figures show.
Cantor, for instance, has raised $7.68 million for 2010 between his two committees but has given
only $1.2 million or 15.6 percent to help other candidates. Boehner has raised $7.06 million and
given $1.80 million or 25 percent to help GOP candidates and committees.
Pelosi, on the other hand, has raised $2.9 million and has given $1.8 million or 62 percent to help

3. other candidates and her party. Similarly, Hoyer has raised $6.28 million and
given away $3.47 million, or 55 percent. Clyburn has raised $3.9 million and
given away $2.21 million, also 55 percent.
What doesn’t go to others covers administrative costs, their own
campaignexpenses, a few miscellaneous categories and fund-raising - done in
style.
Since they’re not preoccupied with their own races, House leaders have the freedom “to be creative”
with campaign funds that others don’t, said Jonathan Krasno, political scientist at Binghamton
University in New York.
Cantor, who declined comment for this story, has spent at least $69,120 on fund-raisers for chic
Hollywood hotels and catering. The Hollywood establishments include the Coco de Ville lounge, the
Stl-La, the Mondrian Hotel, the Beverly Hills Hilton, the Beverly Hills Hotel and Bungalows and the
Beverly Hills Peninsula.
Away from Hollywood, Cantor has spent $88,761 at the Little Nell, a luxury ski hotel in Aspen,
Colo.; $5,462 at the Sky Hotel in Aspen; $16,402 for a golf fund-raiser at R.C. Creighton Farms in
Aldie, Va.; $13,948 at the Washington Nationals baseball stadium; $5,815 at the Four Seasons
Boston; and $9,519 at the Homestead Resort in Hot Springs, Va., among many other locations.
Also in Aspen, he purchased $969 in ski lift tickets for donors.
Examples of Cantor’s catering costs include $19,036 from Fete Accomplie; $39,743 from Bobby
Vans Grill; and $14,577 from the Donovan House, all in Washington, and $8,120 from Le Cirque in
New York
And Cantor’s sweets go beyond chocolates. He orders from places such as Kiss My Bundt in Los
Angeles, the Suga Chef Bakery of Upper Marlboro, Md., not to be confused with The Sugar Chef of
Los Angeles, and Wanna Have a Cookie in New York, where he ordered $4,085 in cookie tins.
He orders beverages from places like Aspen Wine and Spirits, balloons from shops such as First
Class Balloons of Glen Allen, Va., and Balloon Bunches of Bethesda, Md. And lighting comes from
Flashing Blinky Lights of North Hollywood.
Cantor has ordered $4,425 in popcorn buckets from The Popcorn Factory of Carle, N.Y., which
boasts of 20 gourmet flavors, and gets name tags from Name Badge Productions of Middleton, Wisc.
For entertainment, he’s spent $9,398, including $4,300 on musical groups like the Arlington, Va.
band “Blame It on Jane.”
And cookbooks are one of the gifts Cantor gives to donors.
Boehner, of Ohio, has spent at least $211,897 on fund-raising at country clubs and elite golf courses
nationwide. That includes $4,542 for the annual Boehner Birdie Hunt in Land O’ Lakes, Fla.
Other Boehner siites include the Muirfield Golf Club in Dublin, Ohio; the Firestone Country Club in

4. Akron, Ohio; the Robert Trent Jones golf course in Gainesville, Va.; the
Wetherington Golf and Country Club in West Chester, Ohio; and the Ritz
Carlton in Naples, Fla.
He also likes Brown Run’s Country Club in Middleton, Ohio; the Naples
National Golf Club in Naples, Fla; the Bighorn Golf Club in Yucca Valley, Calif;
the Oakwood Country Club in Dayton, Ohio; and the Troy Country Club in
Troy, Ohio.
For gifts, Boehner has spent more than $1,482 on Titleist brand golf balls. He’s also purchased
$2,656 in items from Sterling Cut Glass of Cincinnati.
Boehner’s tastes in quality resorts include $31,353 spent at Disney Resort Destinations in Atlanta
and $4,452 at the Homestead.
In some cases, the House minority leader provides valet parking for his contributors, using firms
such as Unipark Valet and Parking Services of Silver Spring, Md.
Boehner aide Don Seymour downplays suggestions of a disconnect between hanging out with
donors at prized golf courses and resorts and the lives most Americans lead.
“As a former small businessman, Congressman Boehner understands the challenges facing private
sector employers – that’s why he is out working hard doing what it takes to help elect Republicans
who will join him in the fight to cut spending, stop the tax hikes, and help get the economy going in
his district and around the country,” the aide said.
Among Democrats, the upscale tastes of Hoyer, of Maryland, have meant spending $50,807 at the
Boulders Resort , Carefree, Ariz.; $10,950 at the Kingsmill Resort in Williamsburg, Va.; $3,948 at
the Tribecca Palm in New York; $1,132 at the Park City Resort in Park City, Utah; and, in
Washington, $39,075 at the Mandarin Hotel; $46,131 at Hotel George; and $3,692 at Fogo De Chao
From one Maryland catering establishment alone, Martin’s Crosswinds, Hoyer has racked up bills of
$134,506. He orders beverages from shops such as Amagansett Wine and
Spirits in Amagansett, N.Y.
As for gifts, the majority leader bought $1,010 in tickets to the Country Music
Association in Nashville. Hoyer called it “donor relations.”
Like Cantor, Hoyer is fond of balloons, ordering them from several shops. He
spent $1,595 at Ballroom Balloons of Gaithersburg, Md., and $810 at Balloon
Bunches of Bethesda, Md., one of the places Cantor uses. Hoyer also spent
$842 with Stephens Limo Service of White Plains, Md.
"Leader Hoyer travels to districts all over the country - often visiting several
in one trip. There are expenses associated with such activities to support
candidates and advance a positive Democratic agenda, but the focus is always on providing support
to candidates to the greatest extent possible and minimizing expenses,” a Hoyer aide said.

5. Democrats, too, have their golfing events. James Clyburn, of South Carolina,
spent $25,160 for a fund-raiser at Kiawah Island, a golf resort in South
Carolina. He’s also spent $2,582 to travel to Fisher Island Hotel and Resort in
Miami Beach and $8,665 for trinkets from Capital Gifts of Annapolis, Md.
So that campaign workers and volunteers could attend President Obama’s inauguration in January
2009, Clyburn spent $65,641 from his personal campaign committee on rooms at the Holiday Inn
near Capitol Hill.
Even though it wasn’t a campaign event, arguing the hotel rooms were a kind of reward or
compensation to hard-working campaign staff “might carry the day with the FEC [Federal Election
Commission],” said Paul Ryan, an attorney with the Campaign Legal Center.
An FEC spokeswoman said the hotel expenses are the kind of thing the agency would examine on a
case-by-case basis.
Clyburn also pays his son-in-law, Cecil Hannibal, out of campaign funds. Federal election law allows
candidates to pay family members for “bona fide” campaign services. Clyburn’s staff said Hannibal
manages his re-election campaign. The FEC forms, however, said he was paid $26,000 for
“community outreach” and travel.
"As a member of the House Leadership, Whip Clyburn has contributed $1.35 million to the DCCC,”
said aide Derrick Hope.
“He also has responsibilities to assist other Democratic members and candidates in their campaigns
and fundraisers and travels extensively throughout the country doing so.”
Further, the aide said, Clyburn faced a “spirited” primary battle and faces an “expensive” general
election.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s campaign committees don’t list any fund-raising at resorts or golf
courses. They do list plenty of catering, though, including tabs of $29,426 at Delancey Street
Catering in San Francisco and $49,794 at Occasions Caterers of Washington.
Rep. John B. Larson of Connecticut, chair of the House Democratic Caucus, likes casinos. He’s spent
$9,995 at the Mohegan Sun in Uncasville, Conn.; and $36,120 at the MGM Foxwood in
Mashantucket, Conn. He’s also used campaign funds to purchase $7,700 in Boston Red Sox tickets;
a $19,555 car; and $2,382 in momentos from the gift shops of the House and Senate.
A Larson aide said it’s important to find memorable venues for fund-raising. The events at the
casinos, he said, were organized around concerts, not gaming, although he said supporters could
gamble if they wanted. The car purchase, the aide added, was for a campaign vehicle. If Larson
uses it for personal use, he has to reimburse the campaign, the aide said. The Red Sox tickets, he
said, also related to fund-raising.
Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, chief deputy Republican whip and one of the party’s “Young
Guns,” listed expenses such as $25,530 at the Tolosa Winery in San Lois Obispo, Calif.; $8,498 at
The Cliffs Resort, “California’s Ocean Playground, also near San Luis Obispo; $14,710 for catering
from the Seven Oaks Country Club in Bakersfield, Calif; $20,260 for the Doubletree Hotel in

6. Bakersfield; $877 for “fund-raising paraphernalia” from Proline Embroidery of Springfield, Va.; and
$520 for “play equipment” at Toys R Us in Bakersfield.
His campaign spending also betrays a fondness for the Chicago Cubs, as he spent $6,020 for fund-
raising at Wrigley Field.
McCarthy’s office failed to respond to requests for comment.
Frequently, there is little indication on an FEC report just why a hotel stay or meal is campaign-
related.
Cantor’s personal campaign committee, for instance, lists $1,764 for one-night’s lodging on Jan. 4
at the La Concha Renaissance Hotel in San Juan, Puerto Rico, which also has a casino. But only
“lodging” was on the FEC report; there was no indication of a fund-raising event.
And sometimes the meals charged to campaigns are so small they raise questions about how much
fund-raising really could be involved.
For instance, Sessions personal campaign committee has paid for 16 meals at Tortilla Coast, a
restaurant near Capitol Hill, some costing as little as $20 and only two involving charges of over
$110. One $567 tab is described as food for “an event.” The others are described only as a “meal”
or “meeting” expense.
Sessions also lists two $12 lunches at the Dallas Pachyderm Club.
Lawmakers are prohibited from using campaign funds “for a leisurely night out with the wife” or to
grab a bite on their owb. They must claim a connection to their campaign or official congressional
duties, said Ryan.
Analysts at the FEC can ask for more information about questionable expenses, commission officials
say. Also, anyone who suspects misuse of campaign funds can file a complaint.
For expenses covered by their personal campaign committees, members have to claim expenses
relate to their campaign or official duties and involve no personal use.
But with leadership PACs, there are virtually no restrictions. Spending can even involve personal
use, the FEC.
She added the FEC has asked Congress to expand the no-personal-use rule to all political
committees
“They’re basically just slush funds,” said Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in
Washington about leadership PACs.
Personal re-election funds should also draw more scrutiny, said Wendy Schiller, congressional
expert at Brown University.
“The problem is with the monitoring,” Schiller said. “The FEC relies on campaign reports submitted
by the candidates and their staffs and they can audit those reports, but it is not feasible given their

7. staff size to check out every single expenditure for every single candidate.”
But if a lawmaker disguises personal expenses as campaign-related, the FEC may be the last to
know, some campaign finance experts maintain. The agency depends on “luck and dumb luck,” said
Krasno, the Binghamton University political scientist.
Observers don’t see law lawmakers changing their habits anytime soon.
Said McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center: “This is part of Potomac Fever.”

8. Congress' Operating Costs Skyrocket
Paul Barton from Washington, DC
CNC News | September 29, 2010
Photo: Douglas Litchfield
The cost of operating Congress over the past decade has soared 89% -- or three times the rate of
inflation.
• Share
• Ask a question
• Comment
WASHINGTON – Money Congress spends on itself - to fund its innumerable offices, committees,
subcommittees, commissions, research arms and perquisites - soared 89 percent over the past
decade, more than three times the inflation rate, a review of spending bills and other government
documents shows.
These rapidly rising costs are also becoming an election issue. In their campaign platform, A Pledge
to America, House Republicans said congressional operations are one of the many areas of
government that need cutting. They didn’t offer specifics, however. And Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, D-
Ariz., has offered legislation to cut lawmakers’ pay by 5 percent. It would be the first cut in pay for
members of Congress since the Great Depression.
In the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, taxpayers are spending $5.42 billion to run the
Second Branch of government. In fiscal year 2000, the same bill came in at $2.87 billion.
Increases as large as 868%
Spending increases of 70 percent, 80 percent, 100 percent and even 868 percent took hold across
major parts of the institution over the past 10 years. Even those that saw the smallest increases
went up by almost 40 percent or more.
In contrast, inflation from 2000 to 2010 was 26 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

9. The spending increases are outlined in annual legislative branch appropriations
bills and documents from the Office of Management and Budget.
“If you compare it to other legislatures around the world, it’s pretty expensive,”
John Hibbing, congressional scholar at the University of Nebraska, said in a
telephone interview.
Congress costs more, he said, in large part because it is much more independent
of the executive branch than bodies like Parliament in Great Britain. The
independence requires Congress to invest heavily in its own information-
gathering abilities and technology.
Daunting security costs
Further, security costs since 9/11 have been daunting, said Brad Fitch, president of the
Congressional Management Foundation, a research organization that advises Congress on efficiency
and organizational issues. “Much of the increase has been related to security,” Fitch said.
One example: General expenses for the Capitol Police have increased more than 800 percent.
And still another factor, Fitch said, was the Capitol Visitors Center, which opened in 2008, after
costing almost $600 million to build. It nearly doubled the size of the Capitol building complex.
And the increasingly complex issues heaped on Congress nonstop, he said, stretch resources. “For
the committee and personal offices, I don’t know where they would cut,” Fitch said.
Watchdogs eye Congressional fat
Nevertheless, watchdog groups suspect congressional operations have their fair share of fat.
“That’s pretty incredible,” Pete Sepp, spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union said about the 89
percent increase. “Certainly a rate of increase over inflation that large prompts questions.”
At a hearing in July, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., chairman of the House subcommittee
on legislative branch appropriations, said she plans to reduce expenses for that chamber by $6.8
million for fiscal year 2011.
“This bill reflects an acknowledgement that the Legislative Branch must set itself as an example for
fiscal constraint, while continuing to serve the nation,” she said.
The cut she’s calling for, however, would only reduce legislative branch spending by 0.12 percent.
Legislative spending subcommittee
Similarly, Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., chairman of the subcommittee on legislative branch spending
in the Senate, “is committed to keeping the Legislative Branch agencies as lean as possible,” a
spokesman for his office said.
The Nebraska lawmaker wants to keep Senate funding unchanged at $926 million for fiscal year
2011.

10. While the money to operate Congress has increased dramatically over 10 years,
the cost to operate the entire federal government has gone up even more – 108
percent, a climb from $1.78 trillion to $3.72 trillion.
As a result, money to operate Congress still amounts to a little less than 0.2
percent of all federal spending, the same percentage as in 1962 when President
Kennedy was in office. Outlays for the legislative branch that year were $196
million.
Of the $5.4 billion to fund Congress this year, $4.6 billion comes from the
legislative branch appropriations bill, one of the 13 major spending bills Congress considers every
year.
Other funding, including money for lawmakers’ salaries and benefits, is found under “mandatory
spending,” the same section of the budget that funds major entitlement programs such as Medicare,
Medicaid and Social Security.
Key areas of cost
The cost trends for key areas of Congress include:
- Senators and representatives’ salaries and benefits: $126 million, up 23.5 percent.
- Expense allowances for Senate leaders: $180,000, up 99 percent since 2000.
- Senate officers: $178.98 million, up 99 percent.
- House leadership offices: $25.88 million, up 82 percent.
- Other House officers: $198.30 million, up 120 percent.
- Senators’ personal offices: $422 million, up 75 percent.
- House members’ personal offices: $660 million, up 62 percent.
- Architect of the Capitol salaries: $106.78 million, up 118 percent.
- Capitol Police salaries: $265.18 million, up 237 percent.
- Capitol Police general expenses: $63.13 million, up 860 percent.
Rising staff salaries
Although the number of staff members allowed each House and Senate member has remained fairly
static for two decades, salary costs continue to rise.
In 2009, House staff salaries totaled $707.98 million, a 39 percent increase since 2001, according to
calculations done for Capitol News Connection by LegiStorm, a Washington organization that tracks
congressional costs.
For the Senate in 2009, staff salaries totaled $490.79 million, also a 39 percent increase over eight
years.
Student loan repayments
A relatively new benefit for House staff members is help with student loan repayments. House
leaders say it was necessary in order to compete with the private sector.

11. The chamber spent $4.28 million on student loan payments during the first
quarter of this year, according to the Sunlight Foundation’s data base that
breaks down itemized expenses for that chamber.
Even with the increases, Fitch, of the Congressional Management Foundation,
says most congressional staff make significantly less than they could in either the
Executive Branch or private industry.
However, the Bureau of Labor Statistics says pay for professional-caliber workers
in the private sector only went up 32 percent over the past decade.
Industrial wages up only 30%
And wages for all private industry workers increased just 30 percent.
Taxpayers pay an average of $235,514 in salary and benefits – including generous health and
retirement plans - for each of the 535 members of Congress.
All receive a salary of $174,000 a year. That’s up from $141,300 in 2000. Members of the House
and Senate leadership, however, get amounts ranging from $193,400 to $223,500.
Increases in member’s pay over the decade were slightly less than the inflation rate, due in part to
the Congress turning down automatic pay raises for three of those years, including 2010. Nelson
has introduced legislation to freeze congressional pay.
$60,000 a year pensions
One of the more controversial congressional perks involves pension plans. Members can retire at
age 62 if they have five years service. More than 400 former members are enjoying average
pensions of $60,000 a year.
The overall cost for running the House this year is $1.36 billion this year; for the Senate it’s
$926.16 million. In addition are expenses for agencies like the Architect of the Capitol, the Capitol
Police, the Library of Congress, Government Printing Office, Congressional Research Service,
Congressional Budget Office and Government Accountability Office.
Each chamber prepares its own spending requests, and tradition calls for them to heed each other’s
requests.
Religious costs
Among several notable differences in how the House and Senate spend money, however, concerns
funding for their respective chaplains.
Senate Chaplain Barry C. Black makes $151,000 a year, part of the $415,000 approved for his
office in 2010. Black also has a chief of staff, communications director and executive assistant
helping him.
In contrast, House Chaplain Daniel P. Coughlin’s office receives $179,000, of which $172,500 goes
toward his salary.

12. In addition to providing opening prayers, the chaplains are responsible for
religious counseling to members of Congress. Black holds daily lunchtime Bible
study sessions with food as well.
Speaker of House costs up 62%
Also standing out is the 62 percent increase that took effect for the Speaker of
the House after Democrat Nancy Pelosi took over the position in January 2007.
Funding for the office went from $2.9 million in fiscal 2007, the last budget
controlled by House Republicans, to $4.7 million in fiscal 2008, the first budget
affected by the Democratic takeover of the House.
Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said the increase reflected the consolidation of several leadership
tasks in Pelosi’s office that were managed by other House leaders when Republicans were in power.
Still, the funding for all House leadership offices increased from $21.09 million to $23.64 million
between those years.
Miscellaneous expenses for Congress can often turn out to be quite large.
To keep the lights on, taxpayers are spending $51.05 million on electricity this year for the Capitol
and surrounding office buildings. The sewer and water bill is $4.63 million
$200,000 for bottled water
And House offices alone spent nearly $200,000 on bottled water during the first quarter of this year,
the Sunlight Foundation’s data base shows.
Some of the other first quarter 2010 expenses it details for the House include $3.27 million for
office supplies, $628,332 for food and beverage and $1.32 million for equipment.
The foundation expects to add Senate expenses to its data base when that chamber puts its
disbursements online next year.
With increasing calls for government austerity, it would certainly behoove Congress to look at a
more cost-effective way of organizing itself, experts say. “That would certainly play well politically
with the public,” said Hibbing, the University of Nebraska political scientist.
With the economy sluggish and concerns over federal debt and deficits, “Congress is under
significant political pressure to hold down its budget,” Fitch agreed.
Other 10-year increases
Other Increases in the Cost of Congress, 2000-2010:
Key members of the Senate:
- Vice President: $2.51 million, up 46 percent.
- President Pro Tempore: $752,000, up 72 percent.
- Offices of Majority and Minority Leaders: $5.21 million, up 97 percent.
- Majority and Minority Whips: $3.28 million, up 101 percent.
- Chaplain: $415,000 vs. $277,000, up 50 percent.
- Majority and Minority Conferences: $3.42 million vs. $2.26 million, up 51 percent.

13. - Majority and Minority policy committees: $3.52 million, up 53 percent.
- Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper: $70 million, up 101 percent.
- Secretary of the Senate: $25.79 million, up 82 percent.
Key Members of the House:
- Speaker: $5.07 million, up 191 percent.
- Majority Leader: $2.53 million, up 49 percent.
- Minority Leader: $4.56 million, up 120 percent.
- Majority Whip: $2.19 million, up 54 percent.
- Minority Whip: $1.69 million vs. $1.05 million, up 61 percent.
- Chaplain: $179,000 vs. $136,000, up 32 percent.
Other Items:
- Senate inquiries and investigations: $140.5 million, up 96 percent.
- Capitol grounds upkeep: $10.97 million, up 102 percent
- Capitol building maintenance: $33.18 million (not listed separately in 2000).
- Senate office buildings: $74.39 million, up 16 percent.
- House office buildings: $100.46 million, up 169 percent.
- Capitol Visitor Center: $22.45 million (didn’t exist in 2000).
- Congressional Budget Office: $45.16 million, up 72 percent
- Government Accountability Office: $556.84 million vs. $379 million, up 47 percent.
- Library of Congress: $446.15 million vs. $256.77 million, up 73 percent.
- Congressional Research Service: $112.49 million, up 57 percent.
- Printing documents: $93.76 million, up 212 percent.

14. Midterm Money Rush: The Secret
Outsiders
Paul Barton from Washington, DC
CNC News | October 21, 2010
Groups not connected to candidates or parties have so far spent $210.21 million to influence U.S.
House and Senate races.
• Share
• Ask a question
• Comment
WASHINGTON -- One of the biggest stories of the 2010 congressional elections reads like a
mystery: the identity of donors whose money saturates races nationwide with television spots and
other communications.
The numbers stupefy. Groups not connected to candidates or parties have so far spent $210.21
million to influence U.S. House and Senate races. That compares with $68 million in the 2006 mid-
terms, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
75% increase over 2008
In just the five weeks between Sept. 1 and Oct. 7, spending on television ads related to
congressional races topped $198 million, a 75 percent increase over the similar period in 2008,
according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group and the Wesleyan Media Project.
The spending explosion, most observers agree, stems from recent federal court rulings, especially
Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission, decided earlier this year. The Supreme Court
declared corporations, unions and other special interests could spend unlimited amounts from their
treasuries to try to influence campaigns, so long as the money doesn’t go directly to candidates.
Before, they had to restrict themselves to contributions made by their members or employees or
political action committees, with both routes subject to donation limits.

15. Corporations rush in
With the courts encouraging their greater involvement in the political fray, corporations and other
groups have rushed to channel money into contests through an array of committees permitted
under federal campaign and tax laws.
An old favorite is the 527 committee, named after a section of the tax code. A 527 can raise
unlimited amounts of money to sway voters, but its ads cannot use the words “vote for” or “vote
against” a particular candidate. It registers with the Internal Revenue Service, not the Federal
Election Commission. Donors must be disclosed.
A newer one, stemming from another recent federal court ruling, is the “super political action
committee.” So-called super PACs cannot give directly to candidates but can otherwise spend
unlimited amounts to affect races. Again, donors must be disclosed.
Increasingly, however, the weapon of choice is 501(c) nonprofit corporation or association, also a
reference to part of the tax code. Nonprofits have the advantage of not having to disclose donors,
which makes them attractive to corporations and wealthy donors who fear a backlash from having
their political activities publicized.
Secret donors flock to nonprofits
Outside groups operating as nonprofits dominate the list of the biggest spenders in congressional
races, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign research
organization.
They include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ($24.34 million), the Service Employees International
Union ($14.42 million), the conservative American Action Network ($16.95 million), the American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees ($9.86 million), the conservative American
Future Fund ($8.59 million) and the conservative Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies ($10.48
million). The later was founded by former Bush political adviser Karl Rove.
Races drawing the most spending from these and other groups tend to be Senate contests, such
Colorado ($25.03 million), Pennsylvania ($14.93 million), Arkansas ($13.15 million), Missouri
($11.62 million), Nevada ($10.89 million), Illinois ($10.22 million), Washington ($9.57 million),
California ($6.83 million), Florida ($6.24 million) and West Virginia ($5.54 million).
Among House races, the 20th Congressional District of New York leads with $5.76 million in outside
influence.
82 House races
Meanwhile, the Campaign Finance Institute, a research arm of George Washington University,
reports there are at least 82 other House races where outside groups have spent at least $50,000,
including 39 where they have spent more than $1 million.
After all is said and done on Nov. 2, the Campaign Finance Institute estimates, spending by outside
groups will approach $564 million in officially reported expenses and other known costs. Of that,
$360 million or 64 percent will have been dispensed by nonprofits that don’t have to list their
donors.

16. Citizens United has clearly motivated corporations to spend more on politics and to hide behind
nonprofits, said Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center, an advocacy group for campaign
finance reform.
Going back to pre-Watergate
“Before they [corporations] didn’t want to dance close to the line,” she said. With the secrecy
available now the country “is going back to pre-Watergate.”
That so much money shaping politics comes from unknown donors disturbs many. Voters need to
know the kinds of special interests influencing lawmakers, said Justin Levitt, an expert on election
law at Loyal Law School in Los Angeles.
“It’s not a good thing for democracy,” said Michael Traugott of the Center for Political Studies at the
University of Michigan.
“We don’t have a consensus on disclosure anymore. That’s the tragedy,” added Larry Sabato,
political expert at the University of Virginia.
Lopsided influence
What worries Cal Jillson, political scientist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, is that the
undisclosed giving appears to be favor one-side of the political spectrum.
“Contributions where donors are not identified are leaning decisively, about seven to one, to the
Republicans,” Jillson said. “That’s not a healthy situation; donors should be identified and
contributions public.”
Even when spending by all outside groups is included, including political party organizations such as
such as the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the field remains tilted toward
conservatives. The Center for Responsive Politics reports that conservative groups have outspent
liberal organizations $182.5 million to $121.3 million for 2010 races so far.
But Sabato says any conservative advantage from outside groups offsets the advantages of
Democrats.
'Party money and incumbent money'
“They [Democrats] have the party money and the incumbent money,” he said. “Money is not going
to decide this election. Both sides have it.”
And conservative groups will not always raise more, said Candice Nelson, campaign finance expert
at American University.
“This year there is more enthusiasm on the conservative side, so there is more money,” she said.
“In two years a different political environment could favor progressive groups.”
Meanwhile, Bruce Josten, executive vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, says the
anonymity afforded by nonprofit status is vital to businessmen that fear harassment and
intimidation if their or their firms’ names are revealed. Case in point, he said, was the public

17. backlash in August against Target Stores Inc. over $150,000 it spent on behalf of a Minnesota
gubernatorial candidate who ran on an anti-gay platform.
NAACP precedent
The Supreme Court, Josten said, understood that names sometimes have to be protected when it
ruled in 1958 that the Alabama chapter of the NAACP did not have to disclose its membership lists
to state authorities.
Mandatory disclosure laws, the Chamber of Commerce official said, can “squelch speach.”
But to compare what political donors face with the intimidation the NAACP faced in Alabama a half
century ago is to mix “very different cases,” said Levitt.
NAACP members in Alabama faced “existential threats” of being beaten or killed. “That is
fundamentally different from the concern of the Chamber of Commerce,” Levitt said.
Value of disclosure
Moreover, in recent campaign finance decisions, including Citizens United, the Supreme Court has
repeatedly stressed the value of disclosure to the political system, McGehee and others contend.
Still another issue concerns whether nonprofits abuse their favored tax status through political
activity. It is legal for nonprofits to participate in politics but politics cannot be their “primary
function.”
Fred Wertheimer, longtime advocate of campaign finance reform at Democracy 21, contends
Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, the group founded by Rove, has crossed that line and that
the Internal Revenue Service should investigate.
Republicans kill Disclose Act
The ultimate answer to this controversy, many contend, would be to require all political groups to
disclose, but such a proposal, the Disclose Act, fell victim to a Republican filibuster in the Senate
twice this year. Nonprofit groups on both sides of the political spectrum opposed it. The House,
though, passed it 219-206.
Given the current political climate, Sabato said, don’t look for anything to pass soon.
“We have gridlock,” the University of Virginia professor said. “It’s finished.”

18. GOP Readies For Second Full-Scale Health Care
Battle
Paul Barton from Washington, DC
CNC News | October 28, 2010
The latest polls find that neither the health care law nor its repeal are popular.
• Share
• Ask a question
• Comment
WASHINGTON - Congressional Republicans expect voters on Nov. 2 to deliver a mandate for
repealing, defunding or somehow legislatively sidetracking the health care reform law President
Obama and most congressional Democrats extol.
Although it aims to bridge the health care coverage gap for at least 30 million of the nation’s 50
million uninsured, GOP leaders insist more good would come from simpler, market-oriented
insurance and legal reforms, ones less intrusive and bureaucratic than “Obamacare,” their derisive
description of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.
Midterm stump issue
Even though passage was seven months ago, debate over how to best expand health care access,
provide consumer protections and control costs has remained at the forefront of political debate.
Republicans refuse to let the issue rest, especially on the stump and in candidate debates this fall.
Debate will intensify even more if the GOP, as expected, succeeds in taking back at least one house
of Congress next week. Republicans vow a do-over on health care will be job No. 1 after the 112th
Congress convenes in January. Strategizing has been underway for months.
“I am not sure we can stand a health care debate all over again, but I would not be surprised if the
Republicans push it … if the election results turn out heavily in their favor,” said Laura Olson,
political scientist at Clemson University.

19. 'In uncharted waters'
“We’re in completely unchartered waters here,” added Robert Moffit, health care policy expert at the
conservative Heritage Foundation and a leading critic of the new law.
Never before, he said, have so many lawmakers felt obliged to undo already-approved entitlements
on the scale of the Affordable Care Act. In 1989, he said, Congress repealed a Medicare catastrophic
health care law enacted the year before that quickly proved unpopular with seniors, but that was far
less ambitious than the Affordable Care Act.
The Obama administration and Democratic congressional staff have issued scores of fact sheets and
position papers about benefits of the law that would befall every region.
John Boehner's district
Consider, for instance, the residents of the 8th Congressional District of Ohio, the constituents of
House Minority Leader John Boehner, the man who delivered the defiant “Hell No” jeremiad against
the law on the House floor shortly before it passed on March 21. Boehner, who may be the next
speaker of the House, was also the first to promise “repeal and replace.”
By the calculations of Democratic staff on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, however,
Boehner’s constituents stand to miss out on a lot if the law unravels, including:
- Enhanced protections for 427,000 residents (66 percent) covered through employer-provided or
individually purchased policies, eliminating worries about annual and lifetime coverage caps,
cancellation of coverage after an illness starts or denial for pre-existing conditions.
- No denial of coverage for 8,800 individuals who have pre-existing conditions and no insurance.
- Tax credits for 161,000 households to help purchase insurance through new state-supervised
markets or “exchanges.” For a family of four living on $50,000, the credit would total $5,800.
- Insuring coverage for 94 percent of the 8th Distict, meaning 22,000 constituents who lack health
insurance could obtain it
- Limits on annual health care costs of $6,200 a year for individuals and $12,400 for families,
protecting them from bankruptcy. There were 1,400 health care-related bankruptcies in Boehner’s
district in 2008, the committee said.
- Enhancements for 99,000 Medicare recipients that include free preventative and wellness care and
enhanced nursing home, primary and coordinated care.
- Closing the Part D Medicare prescription drug “donut hole” – the dollar amount at which coverage
stops before it kicks in again at a higher level. About 7,700 Medicare beneficiaries in the 8th District
reach the donut every year. They started receiving $250 rebate checks this year; and next year will
enjoy 50 percent reductions on brand-name drugs, along with closure of the donut whole within 10
years.
- Allowing the young to stay on their parents’ insurance until they turn 26.

20. - Tax credits for businesses with 100 employees or less to help them acquire coverage for workers.
The district has 11,600 firms that could qualify.
- Help for small businesses in obtaining group rates would benefit 13,400.
Similar projections exist for every House member and Senator, including other GOP congressional
leaders who join Boehner in denouncing the law.
'If Democrats were smarter'
“If the Democrats were a smarter and more articulate party, they would be running ads night and
day about provisions of the law that could help folks with health care,” said Steffen Schmidt,
political analyst at Iowa State University.
But Democrats long ago lost the public relations battle, Schmidt said, as many voters continued to
believe it establishes “death panels” to make end-of-life decisions.
Boehner spokesman Michael Steel dismisses projected benefits as make-believe.
"Those numbers were utterly fictitious when Washington Democrats made them up, and they
continue to bear no relationship to reality for American families struggling with the job-killing effects
of Obamacare,” Steel said in an e-mail.
Raising costs
“Look, supporters of this bill said it would lower costs, but now the Obama Administration's own
experts at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services admit it will raise them. They said, 'if you
like what you have, you can keep it' but daily headlines across the country chronicle … American
workers and seniors being forced out of their current health care. We don't need more propaganda,
we need to repeal Obamacare and replace it with common-sense reforms that actually lower costs."
Further, the Heritage Foundation’s Moffit said supporters can brag about “the goodies” in the law all
they want, but voters increasingly perceive it as raising premiums, failing to containing costs and
forcing them out of existing health plans, despite promises to the contrary.
“That’s the calculus going on right now,” he said of polls showing opposition.
Actually, the polls are increasingly a mixed bag, said Karlyn Bowman, who interprets public opinion
for the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank.
Not wildly popular
“The law isn't wildly popular and neither is repeal. I doubt people know many of the specifics the
law offers, other than [prohibitions on denial of coverage for] preexisting conditions and keeping
your child on your policy until age 26,” Bowman said.
Meanwhile, the phrase "Obamacare" has “entered the American political lexicon," respected
Republican pollster Bill McInturff recently wrote. And for many, he said, the issue is paramount.
"Voters have little difficulty answering an open-ended question about their reaction to the term

21. Obamacare,” he added.
Conservatives' plan
To replace the Affordable Care Act, conservatives talk of eliminating barriers to health insurance
competition, especially restrictions on selling policies across state lines, as well as tort reforms to
lower medical mal-practice claims and deductibility - or other favorable tax treatment - for
individually and family-purchased insurance.
Controlling costs is “what most Americans want,” said GOP strategist Whit Ayers of Alexandria, Va.
“You can’t just repeal.”
Surprisingly, Moffit said, conservatives and liberals agree on many health reform basics, such as
guaranteed-issue insurance, elimination of caps on lifetime benefits and protections against pre-
existing condition clauses.
Can't stomach mandates
What conservatives can’t stomach, the Heritage official said, are mandates on employers and
individuals – to purchase insurance - and a “metastasizing federal bureaucracy” to supervise
implementation, mostly in the Department of Health and Human Services.
The law will also cause millions of Americans to lose employer-based health insurance as firms look
to the government to cover their workers, Republicans argue. And it costs far too much given the
nation’s fiscal problems and stagnant economy. The tab is projected to be at least $1 trillion over 10
years, paid for by new taxes and cuts in Medicare.
But Ron Pollack of Families USA, a liberal health care advocacy group, said Republican proposals, for
the most part, represent “old, hackneyed ideas” that won’t provide needed access and protections
for consumers. The GOP proposals, Pollack said, “can’t hold a candle to the Affordable Care Act.”
'A lot of myths'
As for the ongoing debate, Pollack added: “Opponents of reform have put out a lot of myths out
about [the act]. As more people understand it, support will grow.”
If Republicans fail at outright repeal, which they anticipate so long as Obama is president, other
strategies for neutralizing the Affordable Care Act include not providing funding in appropriation bills
for it or using the prerogative of congressional review to negate the regulations needed for
implementation.
Any combination of such steps, some observers warn, would likely force a showdown with Obama
and a possible government shutdown.
“If the president wants to shut down the government, that’s his call,” said Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa,
one of several who have already introduced repeal legislation.
And if Republicans want a fight with Obama, they will get one, predicted Stephen Wayne,
government professor at Georgetown University.
“The president regards health care as an important part of his legacy. He will fight for it tooth and

22. nail,” the Georgetown professor said.
Wayne said he expects Republicans to focus their attack on derailing the most unpopular parts of
the health care law, such as the mandate that all individuals buy insurance. “That’s seen as going
against individual freedom,” he said.
The key to who wins, Wayne said, is likely the economy. If the economy improves, it will lift the
mood of Americans, giving Obama more wind at his back as he defends the law. But if the economy
deteriorates further, he said, and Obama’s approval rating drops below 40 percent, “he is really
going to be on the defensive.”