Visitors to the National Republican Congressional Committee’s website are told how the party “most heavily” relies on small donors while its Democratic counterpart’s “primary sources of funding” include labor unions, trial lawyers and Democratic House members.

Fundraising figures analyzed by the Center for Responsive Politics tell another story.

The House Democrats’ fundraising arm took in 36 percent of the $22.6 million it raised from January to March in donations of $200 or less, according to CRP, a Washington-based research group.

The NRCC raised 14 percent of its $17.4 million in receipts from small-dollar donors.

For the 2012 elections, the NRCC raised $39.1 million from House Republicans, more than the $21.9 million that Democratic House members donated to their fundraising arm.

And while the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee raised $6.2 million from lawyers and labor, the NRCC brought in $9.9 million from Wall Street employees after every House Republican voted against imposing new regulations on the financial sector that has been blamed for contributing to the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

Wall Street gave $3.3 million to DCCC for 2012 elections. The committee’s website says only that the committee “is supported by the contributions of individuals and other groups from throughout the country.”

In 2013, Republicans have raised $2.5 million and Democrats have raised $8.2 million in small donations.

“Democrats are embroiled in three major scandals this week, but President Obama still found time yesterday to fundraise in New York City for the DCCC with his special interest cronies – liberal groups you can guarantee aren’t being targeted by the IRS,”  NRCC spokesperson Andrea Bozek said in an email.

Original post is House Republican Fundraising Claims Don’t Match Statistics by Political Capital.

Photograph by Win McNamee/Getty Images

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus at the National Press Club on March 18, 2013 in Washington.

The Republican National Committee is jealous of super-political action committees.

That bit of envy is tucked away on page 64 of the RNC’s 97-page “autopsy” of how to right itself after failing to win the White House and a Senate majority last fall. An introduction to the campaign finance section of the RNC report says that fundraising restrictions have put state and national political parties “well on their way to the intensive care unit.”

At the same time, outside groups such as super-PACs and nonprofit groups “use unlimited, and often unreported, amounts of the same money federal candidates and national parties are now prohibited from spending or raising,” the report, released today, says.

“The result is an illogical system where candidates and their parties no longer have the loudest voices in campaigns or even the ability to determine the issues debated in campaigns. Outside groups now play an expanded role affecting federal races and, in some ways, overshadow state parties in primary and general elections.”

Thanks to a series of Supreme Court decisions and rule changes in 2010, outside groups can raise unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations and unions and spend the money with few restrictions. No such luck for the Republican National Committee or and Democratic National Committee: Individuals are limited to giving $32,400 per year to the RNC or DNC, and corporations and unions can’t give directly to the parties at all.

Those restrictions help explain why super-PACs and nonprofits spent $890 million on last year’s federal elections — about four times as much as the parties, according to the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics.

The RNC doesn’t mind that the courts “restored the First Amendment rights” to the outside groups; it just wants similar access for itself. Today’s report recommends that elected officials, among other things, advocate for increasing the individual giving limits and ease restrictions on how the parties spend at the state and local level.

Without those changes, the report says, the parties won’t be able to compete with outside groups. The report tracks with what Steven Law, proprietor of several powerful outside groups, observed last week at the Conservative Political Action Conference: “There are no kingmakers in the parties in the way that there used to be.”

Original post is RNC Suffers Super-PAC Envy by Political Capital.

Photograph by Scott Eells/Bloomberg

People gather to watch election coverage in Times Square in New York, on Nov. 6, 2012.

The final price tag on the 2012 elections:

$6.3 billion.

That’s according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which intially pegged the cost at $6 billion.

It’s still less than the $7 billion that Federal Election Commission Chairwoman Ellen Weintraub estimated when she took the gavel in January.

Original post is 2012 Election Total: $6.3 Billion by Political Capital.

Photograph by Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg

The Russell Senate Office Building in Washington.

Want to be a member of Congress?

First, raise more than $1 million.

Or 10 times more to join the Senate.

That’s the price of admission, as calculated by the watchdog group Maplight.org.

The average House winner in 2012 raised $1.7 million, or $2,315 every day for two years.

The average Senate winner raised $10.5 million, or $14,351 every day for two years. That doesn’t include the previous four years in which senators could raise money for campaigns since they run every six years rather than every two.

The most expensive race nationwide was the U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts, where the candidates brought in $75.9 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a research group.  In that contest, Democrat Elizabeth Warren ousted Republican incumbent Scott Brown.

In the House, the Florida race pitting Tea Party-favorite Allen West, the Republican incumbent, against Democratic challenger Patrick Murphy, drew $24.4 million in donations. Murphy narrowly won.

Original post is Price of Admission to Congress (Cheap Seats) More than $1 Million by Political Capital.

Photograph by Getty Images

President Barack Obama on the golf course in Palm City, Florida, Feb. 16, 2013. Photo by Getty Images.

More fun facts on the Floridian in Palm City, Florida, where President Barack Obama is having his guys’ golf getaway this President’s Day weekend.

Jim Crane, the avid golfer who owns the club and also the Houston Astros baseball team, has been an Obama campaign backer, according to donor records.

Houston, 59, chairman and chief executive officer of Crane Capital Group, and his wife, Franci, have donated $57,700 to Obama and the Democratic National Committee since 2007, when Obama announced his candidacy for president, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, D.C. Crane also hosted a campaign fundraiser for Obama last March at Minute Maid Park, the Astros’ home field.

Crane bought the club from Florida-based entrepreneur Wayne Huizenga, founder of Waste Management, Blockbuster Video and AutoNation, in 2010. Huizenga is also a longtime donor to Republican candidates and the party.

Among the club’s members at the time were talk radio host and Obama critic Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh, on his show yesterday, noted the connection.

“I was a proud and honored member of the Floridian,” Limbaugh said. “Then Wayne sold it to a nice guy by the name of Jim Crane, who’s the owner of the Houston Astros.”

“The president’s got himself a good, old-fashioned guys golf weekend,” Limbaugh said, according to a transcript posted on his Web-site.

“You know, it’s shame,” he said. “We’ve got what’s for us a major cold front going through here tonight. Tomorrow, the temperature will barely hit 75, and then Sunday it will barely hit 60. It’s gonna be very, very chilly. Now, for the president that probably won’t be too chilly because he’s coming from a Northern clime. But for us, that’s fireplace and sweater weather.”

Original post is Obama’s Florida Golf Weekend — Limbaugh’s Sweater Weather by Political Capital.

Photograph by Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg

The Google Inc. logo in Washington.

The price of persuasion went down in 2012, the second consecutive year of declining spending on lobbying, according to figures released today by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Total spending to try to influence Congress, the White House and federal agencies fell to $3.28 billion last year, compared with $3.33 billion in 2011 and $3.52 billion in 2010.

High-tech companies such as Google Inc., whose lobbying expenditures increased to $18.2 million from $9.7 million a year earlier; and Facebook Inc., which spent $4 million in 2012 compared with $1.4 million in 2011, went against the overall pattern.

“It’s a continued slide, but there are industries that are ramping up, like the tech industry, where some companies are opening up shops and some are expanding,” said Viveca Novak, editorial and communications director at the Center for Responsive Politics.

General Electric Co. was the biggest corporate spender on lobbying, as it was in 2011 and 2010. It reported $21.1 million in lobbying expenses in 2012, down from $26.3 million the year before.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce again spent more than any other entity. The largest U.S. business lobby and its affiliate spent $135.5 million, up from $65.8 million a year earlier.

Original post is Price of Persuasion Down Year to Year by Political Capital.

Photograph by Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg

Worker Kevin Foste installs a U.S. Chamber of Commerce sign at the Union Station Metro stop in Washington.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its affiliate pushing for limits on lawsuits doubled its lobbying spending to $135.5 million in 2012, newly released figures show.

The chamber and its Institute for Legal Reform reported spending $65.8 million in 2011.

The largest U.S. business lobby spent a record $144.2 million in 2009.

The group also spent $33 million on independent expenditures in the 2012 congressional elections, losing 36 of the 50 races where it ran campaign ads.

Since 1998, the chamber has spent close to $1 billion on lobbying, more than any other group, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based research group that tracks lobbying. That’s three times more than any other trade association, interest group or corporation.

Original post is U.S. Chamber Doubled Lobby Spending by Political Capital.

Photograph by Joshua Roberts/Bloomberg

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in Washington.

A coalition of groups pressing for disclosure of corporate political contributions said today that it is heartened by the Securities and Exchange Commission’s decision to include plans for a proposed rule on its agenda.

“We congratulate the SEC for listening to investors and the public, in moving forward on a rule that would require publicly traded companies to disclose their political spending,” said Lisa Gilbert, director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch, a Washington-based advocacy group that supports stronger campaign finance laws.

An SEC spokesman, John Nester, said the inclusion of the topic simply means “the staff is considering whether to recommend a proposal.”

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat, introduced legislation last week that would require all groups spending at least $10,000 to disclose their expenditures and their donors. And Sen.John McCain, an Arizona Republican and co-author of the 2002 law banning corporate and union donations to political parties, said in an interview that he was talking with other lawmakers about increasing transparency.

“It may take another scandal, and there will be one,” he said.

At issue is the increasing amount of secret money spent on U.S. elections since the Supreme Court in its 2010 Citizens United decision relaxed curbs on corporate and union campaign spending.

Groups that do not disclose their contributors spent $318 million on the 2012 elections, 85 percent to support Republican candidates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based research group that tracks campaign spending.

In 2008, non-disclosing groups spent $79 million. Such groups include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Crossroads GPS, founded with the help of Karl Rove; Americans for Prosperity, linked to energy billionaires Charles and David Koch, and the League of Conservation Voters.

“Sometimes we feel like we’re walking around in a fog,” said Rep. John Sarbanes, another Maryland Democrat, on a conference call with reporters today. “You can’t see clearly exactly what’s happening in these campaigns because the money is hidden and the source of the money is unknown. There are legislative responses but there is a lot we can do at the regulatory level.”

Original post is Political Disclosure on SEC Agenda by Political Capital.

Photograph by Emmanuel Dunand/AFP via Getty Images

Participants in the Occupy Wall Street protest, masked as President Barack Obama and Republican candidate Mitt Romney, take part in a rally to mark the one year anniversary of the movement in New York, Sept. 17, 2012.

Wall Street outdid the legal profession in raising money for Republican Mitt Romney, making him the first major-party presidential nominee in at least two decades who didn’t rely on lawyers as his biggest source of funding.

The BGOV Barometer shows that Romney, who lost his White House run in November, raised $21 million from employees in the securities and investment industry and $14 million from lawyers, lobbyists and others working in law firms, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based research group that tracks campaign contributions.

President Barack Obama, like every other major-party nominee going back to at least George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton in 1992, saw attorneys and others at law firms provide the most money to his campaign, with $27 million in contributions. The securities and investment industry was less generous to Obama, the first time in at least 20 years Wall Street wasn’t among the top five sources of a presidential candidate’s contributions.

“There are a lot of lawyers in America and a lot of lawyers with the financial means to make contributions to campaigns,” said Michael Toner, co-chairman of the election law practice at Wiley Rein LLP and a former Federal Election Commission chairman. “Political giving is a part of the culture. It’s really in the DNA.”

Many lawyers work at firms that also lobby. While Obama’s campaign didn’t accept donations from registered lobbyists, it took in contributions from others who work in the same law firms. For example, his 12th biggest source of campaign contributions, $400,390, came from attorneys and others at DLA Piper not registered to lobby, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The firm was paid $7 million through the first nine months of 2012 by clients such as Aetna Inc., Comcast Corp. and Raytheon Co.

Lawyers were Romney’s third-biggest source of donations, behind both Wall Street and employees in the real estate industry. The legal profession had been the No. 1 giver to every major-party presidential nominee since at least 1992, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

A co-founder of the Boston-based private-equity firm Bain Capital LLC, the former Massachusetts governor took in more money from Wall Street than any other nominee since the modern campaign finance system was put in place for the 1976 elections following the Watergate scandal that led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon.

Romney’s Wall Street fundraising was fueled both by his investment background and by anger at Obama, who successfully championed new financial regulations in response to the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics.

“This is partly because of Romney, how attractive he was to the securities and investment industry because he viewed them as one of their own, and partially a reflection of what has happened in finance and how this administration has responded,” she said.

Even as Obama raised more than $700 million for his re-election, his 2012 campaign was the only one in 20 years where securities and investment employees weren’t among a major-party nominee’s top five sources of contributions. Wall Street employees gave Obama $6.1 million, ranking 10th, after giving him $16 million in 2008, when they were his third-largest source.

While 13 financial firms were among Romney’s top 20 sources of campaign cash, none appeared on Obama’s list of top industry donors, after five showed up in 2008.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. employees gave $1 million to Obama for his 2008 campaign, more than any other company’s. This time, a similar amount went to Romney, making Goldman his top source of contributions. Obama took in about $200,000 from employees of New York-based Goldman.

“A lot of business and a lot of Wall Street felt they needed government involvement and assistance in time for the ’08 election,” said Bruce Heiman, whose clients at K&L Gates LLP include Charles Schwab Corp. “You then had an overreaching by the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress. You had a response and reaction to that.”

Former U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, said Wall Street should have expected the White House to respond the way it did to the financial crash.

“Watching what some of the largest financial institutions did, it’s not reasonable to believe that would not result in additional oversight and some regulatory burdens,” said Dorgan, a senior policy adviser at Arent Fox LLP.

Original post is Romney’s Wall Street Romp — Obama’s Courthouse Stomp by Political Capital.

Photograph by David Zalubowski/AP Photo

Fox News commentator Karl Rove during a Republican Party election night gathering in Denver on Nov. 6, 2012.

Two groups that favor stronger campaign finance laws renewed their complaints against Crossroads GPS, founded with the help of Karl Rove, as they asked the Internal Revenue Service to deny nonprofit status to the organization that spent $71 million to elect Republicans in 2012.

The Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 told the IRS in a letter today that Crossroads in no way qualifies as a social welfare organization, the status claimed in its application for tax-exempt status.

Crossroads spent more money on the 2012 campaigns than any other group that did not disclose its donors, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based research group that tracks campaign spending.

All of its political expenditures went to help elect Republican candidates.

Groups favoring stronger campaign finance laws have argued that Crossroads and other organizations engaged in political activities are ineligible for nonprofit status and should be required to identify who their financiers are.

“The IRS has now allowed this charade to go on for two election cycles at great harm to our democracy and it is long past time when the agency should step up and enforce the law,” said J. Gerald Hebert, executive director of the Campaign Legal Center. “The tax code is being abused to allow the very rich to spend tens of millions of dollars anonymously in an attempt to buy election results, and by extension to purchase still more influence in Washington.”

Original post is Crossroads No Non-Profit, IRS Told by Political Capital.