MILKING THE CASH COWMILKING THE CASH COW A powerful factor in my decision was the searing reality...

29
MILKING THE CASH COW A powerful factor in my decision was the searing reality that I would have had to spend half of every day between now and the next election fund-raising. To run an effective campaign, I would have to ask literally thousands of people for money. I would have had to raise $125,000 a week, or $25,000 every working day. That’s about $3,000 an hour—more than lots of people earn in a month—distracted from the job I was hired to do. Lautenberg To Retire From Senate In 2000 Safe Democratic Seat Becomes Open Race The Washington Post Feb. 18, 1999 “Money,” said Jesse M. Unruh, the liberal Democrat who reigned as Speaker of the California State Assembly in the 1960's, “is the mother's milk of politics.'' And, indeed, cash has always been an essential commodity in campaigns. Still, it is likely that even Unruh would have had some difficulty believing the role that it plays these days. It’s as if every candidate for office, certainly at the federal level, has personal cash cows. This results in some Congressional outcomes that are manifestly wrong-headed. Chief among them these days is the need for a $700 billion bailout of the U.S. financial industry, roughly two decades after almost exactly the same circumstances resulted in a bailout of the saving and loan industry. These–and the failure to address global warming–are a result of an orgy of de-regulation and virtually complete control of Congress by corporations and the wealthy. And the key tool in acquiring that control has been cold, hard cash in the form of campaign contributions, resulting in, for lack of a better term, simply looney actions. Consider a Congress and President that-- & In response to the assassinations of nine innocent people by the Washington sniper, and after receiving millions in gifts from those opposed to gun control, Congress a new law: a ban on law suits by shooting victims against gun dealers and makers. & In the guise of "reforming" campaign giving, the Congress instead doubles the amount of so-called "hard money" that individuals can make, providing the Republican Party and its rich donors with an immense advantage over their Democratic rivals. & As the Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans demand that regulations be based on "sound science," they quietly load advisory panels with scientists linked to the very industries they're supposed to scrutinize--the same industries whose lavish giving helped elect Bush and the Republican Congress. & After Eli Lilly gives $400,000 to the Republican Party, a provision suddenly and

Transcript of MILKING THE CASH COWMILKING THE CASH COW A powerful factor in my decision was the searing reality...

Page 1: MILKING THE CASH COWMILKING THE CASH COW A powerful factor in my decision was the searing reality that I would have had to spend half of every day between now and the next election

MILKING THE CASH COW

A powerful factor in my decision was the searing reality that I would havehad to spend half of every day between now and the next election fund-raising. Torun an effective campaign, I would have to ask literally thousands of people formoney. I would have had to raise $125,000 a week, or $25,000 every workingday. That’s about $3,000 an hour—more than lots of people earn in amonth—distracted from the job I was hired to do.

Lautenberg To Retire From Senate In 2000Safe Democratic Seat Becomes Open Race

The Washington Post Feb. 18, 1999

“Money,” said Jesse M. Unruh, the liberal Democrat who reigned as Speaker of theCalifornia State Assembly in the 1960's, “is the mother's milk of politics.'' And, indeed, cash hasalways been an essential commodity in campaigns. Still, it is likely that even Unruh would havehad some difficulty believing the role that it plays these days. It’s as if every candidate for office,certainly at the federal level, has personal cash cows. This results in some Congressionaloutcomes that are manifestly wrong-headed.

Chief among them these days is the need for a $700 billion bailout of the U.S. financialindustry, roughly two decades after almost exactly the same circumstances resulted in a bailout ofthe saving and loan industry. These–and the failure to address global warming–are a result of anorgy of de-regulation and virtually complete control of Congress by corporations and thewealthy. And the key tool in acquiring that control has been cold, hard cash in the form ofcampaign contributions, resulting in, for lack of a better term, simply looney actions.

Consider a Congress and President that--

& In response to the assassinations of nine innocent people by the Washington sniper,and after receiving millions in gifts from those opposed to gun control, Congress a new law: aban on law suits by shooting victims against gun dealers and makers.

& In the guise of "reforming" campaign giving, the Congress instead doubles the amountof so-called "hard money" that individuals can make, providing the Republican Party and its richdonors with an immense advantage over their Democratic rivals.

& As the Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans demand that regulationsbe based on "sound science," they quietly load advisory panels with scientists linked to the veryindustries they're supposed to scrutinize--the same industries whose lavish giving helped electBush and the Republican Congress.

& After Eli Lilly gives $400,000 to the Republican Party, a provision suddenly and

Page 2: MILKING THE CASH COWMILKING THE CASH COW A powerful factor in my decision was the searing reality that I would have had to spend half of every day between now and the next election

mysteriously appears in the Homeland Security Bill prohibiting lawsuits by parents who believethe company's vaccine caused their children's autism.

I have heard Senators and other member of Congress rail against the implication that avote could be bought for a campaign contribution of a few thousand dollars, and I long thoughtthat was so. Then, in 1983 while in the office of then-Sen. Slade Gorton, a WashingtonRepublican, where we were preparing for a floor fight over a proposed repeal of the federal NoiseControl Act, he was counting the votes we would likely have. When he reached the name of aSenator who was also a Republican member of the Environment and Public Works Committee,Frank Murkowski of Alaska, Gorton paused, then said, “Frank won’t be with us. He got $5,000from Marlowe Cook, who wants a vote and this is it.”

Was it true? Can’t say. But Murkowski voted against us. On that day Cook and hisclient, Harley Davidson, prevailed. At the time, the motorcycle maker’s slogan at the time was“Make Your Own Thunder–Ride a Harley Davidson.” A quarter century later, there is still noregulation of motorcycles, garbage trucks, central air conditioners and other noisy products in theUnited States.

The painful reality is that campaigns have been made so expensive that there are only twoconceivable sources of money: the government itself; or, corporate America. In 2004 alone,campaign contributions for federal elections alone amounted to $4 billion. It took about $7million to win a U.S. Senate seat in 2004–that means a candidate must raise $3,196 every day,each and every day for six years, Chistmases, Easters and Yom Kippurs included--and $1 millionto win a House seat, or $1,370 per day over two-years. That’s 11 times more than in 1976.During the same period, the cost of living rose three fold.1

To place these sums in perspective, when I worked on my first federal campaign, a runfor the Senate in 1970 by Republican William V. Roth, Jr. of Delaware, the effort cost $100,000.

Usually tomes on campaign contributions focus totals given and received, sometimesbroken down by industry. This is useful in describing the magnitude of the money, but fails toconvey a sense of just how corrosive the money is. Moreover, this is usually accompanied by anattempt to link the money with specific votes, though sometimes a vote is the least of the favorsthat a politician can provide.

Instead of attempting such a broad examination, this chapter will instead examine the deftway that American corporations have managed to gridlock the world’s efforts to cope with globalwarming. They focused on one member of the United States Senate.

In 1996, Chuck Hagel—soon to become the new Republican Senator fromNebraska—was the kind of candidate who is every other politician’s worst nightmare: rich.

Running against a popular Democratic governor, Ben Nelson, Hagel was initially givenlittle chance by political oddsmakers. But he ran a good campaign, overtook Nelson, and whenthings started getting close, Hagel played his trump card: he lent himself $1 million.

Page 3: MILKING THE CASH COWMILKING THE CASH COW A powerful factor in my decision was the searing reality that I would have had to spend half of every day between now and the next election

With that single act, Hagel became the instrument that would be wielded by the coal andoil industries, as well as the Saudis, Kuwaitis and other Donald Pearlman’s allies, to halt for adecade any international progress to curb global warming for a decade.

Hagel’s loan to himself catapulted him to victory, finishing with 56 percent of the vote toNelson’s 42 percent. But he also finished the race with a problem: he was out of pocket the $1million he had lent his campaign. That’s when Hagel became every lobbyist’s dream: a newly-elected U.S. Senator out to fill a $1 million hole in his bank account. That’s exactly the sort ofproblem that those familiar with the ways of Washington know how to solve.

The process of solving Hagel’s problem illustrates how easy it has become to not onlydiscredit good science, but cow the Congress of the United States. Even though there are 100members of the Senate and 435 of the House, the corporate machine can force the institution toits knees by exploiting the greed of a handful of members. It requires a Republican andDemocratic pair in the Senate and House alike, and the rest is almost child’s play.

More troubling still, it demonstrates how multi-national corporations develop globalstrategies that thrust the power of the United States abroad to serve their ends and, by so doing,threaten all of humanity.

Although he had not previously held elective office, Hagel was no stranger to the nation’scapital. From 1971 to 1977, he had been chief aide to Republican Rep. John Y. McCollister,then became a lobbyist for Firestone for three years, which was followed by a stint in the numbertwo spot at the Veterans’ Administration in the Reagan Administration. It was after thisapprenticeship in Washington politics that Hagel founded Vanguard Cellular Systems and madehis fortune, then returned to Nebraska to lay the foundation for a run for the U.S. Senate.

Within days of Hagel’s election, the coal and oil industries, as well as others opposed toaction to stem global warming, began sending him hefty “campaign” contributions—even thoughthe old campaign was finished and his next campaign was almost six years away. The moneydidn’t pay for campaign expenses like consultants or advertisements. Instead, most ofit—$787,000 of the $1,099,783 raised in 1997–98—went straight into the Hagel’s bank account. From there, Hagel could do whatever he wished with the money. So why are these “campaigncontributions” instead of bribes? Because Congress writes the law that defines what a bribe is.

Page 4: MILKING THE CASH COWMILKING THE CASH COW A powerful factor in my decision was the searing reality that I would have had to spend half of every day between now and the next election

I recall a meeting some years ago when a Republican Senator, Slade Gorton of Washington, that I was staffing and1

I were counting votes in preparation for a showdown on the Senate floor. We were attempting to repeal the federal

Noise Control Act. A court had held that it barred state noise laws, but with Ronald Reagan’s election to the

Presidency all money and people for the law had been reduced to zero. We were trying to return power to the states.

Gorton said that another Committee member, Frank Murkowski of Alaska, would vote against it because a lobbyist,

former Kentucky Senator Marlow Cook had given him $5,000, wanted a vote, and this was it. Murkowski’s client

was said to be Harley Davidson, the U.S. motorcycle maker whose slogan at the time was “make your own thunder.”

It is a measure of how much America’s politicians have changed that less than 50 yearsago, Richard Nixon was almost forced from the ticket with Dwight Eisenhower because he hadaccepted and used money for purposes that are today commonplace. Perhaps the lesson to belearned from reviewing Chuck Hagel’s campaign receipts and expenditures is that a system ofcorruption that once was conducted at a retail level, one vote at a time, is today done atwholesale. The immense amount of money flowing out of the accounts of big business and intothe accounts of politicians does not buy single votes or individual politicians, but rather the entiresystem, or at least immense chunks of it. Money is applied to fields of Washington in much thesame way that fertilizer and pesticides are worked in the soils by a farmer, stunting the growth ofplants that are unwanted while bolstering the health of those that are. So, too, are healthypoliticians brought to harvest.

Politicians will say they pay no attention to the identities of their contributors, and thatthere is no connection between what is given to them and what they do. Make your ownjudgment, but I personally believe that is simply, and obviously, untrue. Admittedly, politiciansdon’t have every contributor in mind every day. When contributors number in the thousands, it’stough to keep track of them all. But one reason companies have lobbyists is to remind forgetfullegislators, and they do.1

There’s no coal or oil in Nebraska, but Hagel became one of the most unflinching alliesof the industries. Hagel’s money came from a Who’s Who of polluters—BP Amoco, Chevron,

It is a measure of how much America’s politicians have changed that lessthan 50 years ago, Richard Nixon was almost forced from the ticket with

Dwight Eisenhower because he had accepted and used money for purposesthat are today commonplace. Perhaps the lesson to be learned from reviewing

Chuck Hagel’s campaign receipts and expenditures is that a system ofcorruption that once was conducted at a retail level, one vote at a time, is

today done at wholesale. The immense amount of money flowing out of theaccounts of big business and into the accounts of politicians does not buy

single votes or individual politicians, but rather the entire system, or at leastimmense chunks of it. Money is applied to fields of Washington in much the

same way that fertilizer and pesticides are worked in the soils by a farmer,stunting the growth of plants that are unwanted while bolstering the health of

those that are. So, too, are healthy politicians brought to harvest.

Page 5: MILKING THE CASH COWMILKING THE CASH COW A powerful factor in my decision was the searing reality that I would have had to spend half of every day between now and the next election

Marathon, Mobil, Occidental, Shell, Tenneco, and Texaco, as well as the Big Three automakersand electric utilities in West Virginia, Ohio, the Dakotas, Michigan, California, Georgia,Alabama, and Florida. Most of these supporters had given not one cent to Hagel during theelectoral campaign in 1995–96.2

There is no evidence that the words global warming or anything similar ever crossedHagel’s lips during the campaign. A search of the Omaha World Herald files yielded no mentionof the issue by Hagel, campaign observers say the subject of global warming never arose, andHagel’s office failed to respond to both written and telephone inquiries on the subject.3

Hagel might have been a cipher on global warming before the election, but he certainlywasn’t afterwards. Within months of his election Hagel became an instant expert on globalwarming.4

As Hagel and his allies began working on global warming, the other parts of themachinery began working. Michaels, Singer, Lindzen and the other junk scientists began writingreports critical of the science, casting doubts on its quality and attacking their adversaries asbiased. These articles were then circulated to echo machine, which would reprint them widely.

Simultaneously, economic studies were written concluding that the impact of emissioncontrols would be devastating. The most widely circulated of these was from a Charles RiverAssociates report, “World Economic Impacts of US Commitments to Medium Term CarbonEmission Limits.” It was paid for by the Edison Power Research Institute (an arm of electricityproducers), the American Petroluem Institute (oil industry) and the American AutomobileManufacturers Association (car makers).5

Page 6: MILKING THE CASH COWMILKING THE CASH COW A powerful factor in my decision was the searing reality that I would have had to spend half of every day between now and the next election

This is the way the PAC system works, using Norfolk Southern as an example.2

Coal is especially important to Norfolk Southern, which makes it a vital concern to Virginia members

of Congress who, in turn, dominate the most powerful legislative committee in the House of

Representatives, Energy and Commerce. In the second quarter of 2005, for example, Norfolk Southern

reported a record net income of $424 million—a 99 percent increase compared with net income of $213

million for the same 2004 period. The reason was, quite simply, coal, which accounted for $578 million of

the company’s gross revenue for that quarter.

Starting in January and continuing through 1997 the following executives or employees of Norfolk

Southern contributed to the railroad’s political action committee, Norfolk Southern Good Government

Fund: B.J. Ahern ($500), C.F. Alley, Jr. ($500), P.N. Austin ($900), J.C. Bishop ($2000), R.A. Brogan

($2,000), L.R. Collingwood ($300), D.S. Cooper ($500), D.A. Coz ($2,160), A.J. Doyle ($250), T.L.

Finkbiner ($1,800), D.L. Glenum ($500), D.R. Goode ($5,910), M.H. Haynesworth ($500), T.S. Hostutler

($600), R.H. Jones ($600), H.C. Mauney ($2,000), C.W . Moorman ($2,750), R.T. Plain ($300), L.I.

Prillaman ($3,740), W .J. Romig ($1,000), D.E. ($1,000), S.C. Tobias ($4,576), R.C. Upchurch ($400),

D.H. W atts ($416), C. J. W ehrmeister ($750), and H.C. W olf ($8,400), for a total of $36,562.

In the 1997–98 election cycle, Norfolk Southern collected money from 234 people, and gave to 316

candidates. In addition, it gave to four other PACs: $5,000 each to the Association of American Railroads

and New Republican Majority PACs and $1,000 to Blue Dog PAC. Although the Norfolk Southern PAC did

not contribute directly to Hagel, the Nebraska Senator received $5,000 from the New Republican Majority

Fund on July 16, 1997.

The PAC operates out of Norfolk Southern’s headquarters at Three Commercial Place, Norfolk,

Virginia. The railroad provides office space, administrative support, salaries and other expenses. Source:

CQMoneyLine.

For their part, the Congressional cogs in the machine began scheduling hearings, makingfloor statements and speeches. As these efforts mounted, the political action committees (PACs)and corporate executives cracked open the floodgates of money, swelling the campaign warchests.2

On February 6, 1997, the nation’s fifth largest cement manufacturer, Ash Grove Cement,gave Hagel $1,000. Nearly one month later, on March 4, 1997, National Portland Cement6

Association PAC gave Hagel $1,000, adding another $1,000 on July 22 . Individuals joined innd

filling Hangel’s accounts: In March, 1997, Hagel received $1,000 from Duane Ackley of theCrete Corporation, a national over-the-road trucking company. On May 22 , Ackley gave Hagelnd

another $500, while his “homemaker” wife added another $500. Another Crete official, TonnOstergard gave $1,000.7

Hagel had been appointed to the Committee on Foreign Relations and chaired theSubcommittee on International Economic Policy, Export and Trade Promotion. On June 19,1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing on global warming. It was not, said Hagel, about whowas for or against the environment but rather “truth and facts.” The first witnesses were8

Sen. Byrd, who emphasized the need to develop newer, cleaner technologies, and Rep. Dingell,who expressed doubt about the quality of climate science. The next witness, ClintonAdministration Undersecretary of State and former U.S. Senator Tim Wirth, defended the scienceand urged U.S. leadership in curbing emissions. The final panel of witnesses were Rich Trumka,former head of the Mineworkers Union and at the time Secretary-Treasurer of the AFL-CIO;Kevin Fay of the International Climate Change Partnership; and, Bryce Neidig of the Nebraska

Page 7: MILKING THE CASH COWMILKING THE CASH COW A powerful factor in my decision was the searing reality that I would have had to spend half of every day between now and the next election

Despite its name, the national and state-level Farm Bureaus are dominated by agri-business pesticide,3

fertlizer and equipment manufacturers, not individual farms.

During 1997, Richard Lindzen would be cited in the U.S. Senate five times, Patrick Michaels six, Sallie4

Baliunas twice and Fred Singer once.

Farm Bureau.3

On June 26, Hagel held another hearing, this one featuring the National Association ofManufacturers and, once again, the former head of the United Mine Workers, as well as PatrickMichaels.

Soon, Hagel was himself lecturing on global warming. Speaking on July 15, 1997 at aconference on global warming organized by front group Competitive Enterprise Institute, Hageltermed the science “inconclusive” and the implications “unclear,” citing, not surprisingly, PatrickMichaels. On September 29 , he spoke at a National Center for Policy Analysis briefing, where9 th

he said it would be a “disastrous course of action” to adopt a global agreement on globalwarming. 10

But the damaging blow dealt by Hagel to action to curb global warming was lending hisname to the “Byrd-Hagel Resolution,” which required developing nations—even those with littleelectricity or running water—to cut pollution before the United States, the world’s largestpolluter, would reduce its emissions by as much as one pound.

The resolution was introduced on June 12 , with Byrd, Hagel and 46 other cosponsors. th

On June 18 , 14 additional cosponsors were added. By July 25, when the resolution was takenth

up by the full Senate, there were 65 cosponsors.

Hagel’s first action was to have two editorials printed in the Congressional Record fromthat day’s Wall Street Journal. One, “A Treaty Built on Hot Air” was written by former BuffaloBills professional football quarterback and former Representative Jack Kemp. Kemp assailed aninternational agreement on global warming, saying the net cost to the U.S. “could reach hundredsof billions annually.” Kemp cited the Charles River Associates report. The second, “Not11

Scientific Consensus,” bore the name of Fred Singer.4

One Senator after another came to the floor extolling the efforts of Byrd and Hagel, eventhe usually pro-environment Rhode Island Republican who succeeded Stafford as Chair of theCommittee on Environment and Public Works, John Chafee. Only Sen. John Kerry of12

Massachusetts resisted, but in the end even he joined as the resolution passed the Senate 95–0.13

The resolution erected two major obstacles to participation by the U.S.—which accountsfor roughly one-fifth of the world’s emissions of carbon dioxide— in an international agreement.

First, it rejected as unacceptable any agreement that “would result in serious harm to theeconomy of the United States.” Second, it required developing nations, many of which havelittle electricity, running water or sewers, much less adequate supplies of energy, to meet “new

Page 8: MILKING THE CASH COWMILKING THE CASH COW A powerful factor in my decision was the searing reality that I would have had to spend half of every day between now and the next election

specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions . . . within the samecompliance period” as rich industrialized nations like the U.S. It is that second requirement thatmany diplomats consider to be the deal-buster at international negotiations.

Roughly one week later, Donald Pearlman, David Finnegan and the other Americanlobbyists boarded their flights for Bonn, where the last stake would be driven into the heart ofwhat would later be named the Kyoto Protocol. At the meeting, Pearlman would be seenhuddling with a Nigerian delegate, in a mood that was described by an observer as “gleeful.” Ifdeveloping countries were to dig in and in reaction to the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, insist on nonew commitments, then the Kyoto protocol would be dead. “We can kill this thing,” he washeard to say.14

The Byrd-Hagel Resolution was not the only roadblock being raised to an internationalagreement.

The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, chaired by Frank Murkowski ofAlaska, joined in holding hearings on global warming on September 30 . With other skepticsth

having already testified elsewhere, Murkowski opted for Sallie Baliunas.

As the dates for the Kyoto negotiations began approaching, Hagel stepped up pressure. On October 3 , he told the Senate of Lindzen’s view that research had “failed to establish thatrd

global warming is a significant problem” and Michaels conviction that “conditions in the realworld” failed to match computer models.”15

While the freshman Senator was busy fighting against an international agreement, hiscampaign was raising money. During the two years following Hagel’s election—with his nextelection not until 2002—Hagel raised roughly $133,000 from the political action committees ofthose opposed to action to curb global warming. This was more than five times as much as heraised from these same groups before the election. His post-election contributors included notonly BP Amoco, Chevron, Marathon, Mobil, Occidental, Shell, Tenneco, and Texaco oilcompanies, but electric utilities in West Virginia, Ohio, the Dakotas, Michigan, California,Pennsylvania, Kansas City, Minnesota, Philadelphia, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, and Tampa, aswell as the Big Three car makers of General Motors, Ford and Daimler Chrysler, and several coalcompanies. Virtually none of these interests had given Hagel even so much as a dollar before theelection.

His post-election contributors included not only BP Amoco, Chevron,Marathon, Mobil, Occidental, Shell, Tenneco, and Texaco oil companies, butelectric utilities in West Virginia, Ohio, the Dakotas, Michigan, California,Pennsylvania, Kansas City, Minnesota, Philadelphia, Georgia, Alabama,

Florida, and Tampa, as well as the Big Three car makers of General Motors,Ford and Daimler Chrysler, and several coal companies. Virtually none ofthese interests had given Hagel even so much as a dollar before the election.

Page 9: MILKING THE CASH COWMILKING THE CASH COW A powerful factor in my decision was the searing reality that I would have had to spend half of every day between now and the next election

W hen researching campaign contributions, it is essential to focus on individuals and political action5

committees (PACs) alike. Corporations and labor unions—and environmental groups, for that matter—are

prohibited by federal law from donating directly to a candidate. Instead, they establish PACs, through

which money is funneled on the suspect theory that there is a difference between a corporation or

organization and its PAC. As a result, most of the special-interest money flows through PACs, though

probably at least another third—in some cases, half—comes from real persons. At the time of Hagel’s

election, PACs could give $5,000 per candidate in the primary and again in the general election, while

individuals were limited to $1,000.

Although federal law limits individual contributions, it’s easy to circumvent, sincespouses, children, customers, vendors, and lawyers (and their spouses, children, customers, andsub-vendors) can also provide $1,000 per election. For example, former U.S. TradeRepresentative and Secretary of Agriculture Clayton Yeutter gave Hagel $2,000 in the 1996campaign cycle, while “homemaker” Christy Bach Yeutter pitched in another $1,000.5

Individual contributions from an association president or senior partner in a major lawfirm are a dead giveaway that industry or special-interest money is being directed to a candidate.In Hagel’s case, the head of the Global Climate Coalition, William O'Keefe—also a senior vicepresident of the American Petroleum Institute—chipped in $2,000.16

Sometimes connections are veiled. Although the coal, oil, electric utility, and autoindustries obviously have stakes in the global-warming debate, why would the NationalAssociation of Convenience Stores give Hagel $2,000? Answer: because oil companies ownthem. Exxon’s Tiger Marts, for example. Railroads? First, because many of them own coalmines and, second, because shipping it is the largest single sources of railroad income.17

In 1998 and 1999 Hagel received $1,000 from the Arch Coal Political Action Committee(ARCHPAC). Arch Coal is the nation’s second-largest coal producer, supplying about one-tenthof U.S. coal, a volume that accounts for approximately six percent of the nation’s electricity.Other beneficiaries of ARCHPAC’s largesse include Senator Robert C. Byrd, West VirginiaDemocrat and cosponsor of the Byrd-Hagel Resolution; Representative John D. Dingell,Michigan Democrat, who is the protector of the U.S. auto industry and an adamant foe of actionon global warming; and Senator Christopher (Kit) Bond of Missouri, the Republican who chairsthe appropriations subcommittee that doles out money for the environment.18

These and other contributions did wonders in reducing the debt that Hagel owed himself. Of the $1,099,783 that he collected in 1997–98, he paid $787,000 to himself. In other words, forevery $1,000 donated by a coal, oil, utility, auto or other polluting interest, roughly $750 was theequivalent of a direct deposit to his personal bank account. In 1999–2000, Hagel paid himselfanother $205,000.

Hagel was by no means alone. Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri, for example, chaired theHUD-Independent Agencies Appropriation Subcommittee at the time. It has jurisdiction of theEnvironmental Protection Agency’s budget, and Bond had no qualms about using his position tothrottle the agency.

Page 10: MILKING THE CASH COWMILKING THE CASH COW A powerful factor in my decision was the searing reality that I would have had to spend half of every day between now and the next election

On the oppositeside of the Capitol in theHouse of Representatives,industry water was beingcarried by a variety ofCongressmen. Rep. JamesSensenbrenner ofWisconsin, then theChairman of the HouseCommittee on Science wasraking in the dough aswell: $1,000 from Boeing;$500 from Ford; $500from McDonnell Douglas;$500 from GeneralElectric; $1,000 fromPhilip Morris; $2,500 fromLockheed-Martin; $500from Navistar; $750 fromWisconsin Electric; $500from General Motors;$1,000 from United ParcelService; $500 from Pfizer;$500 from GTE; $2,000from AT&T; $2,000 fromthe National Association ofBeverage RetailersPolitical ActionCommittee; $3,000 fromDealers Election ActionCommittee of the NationalAutomobile DealersAssociation (NADA);$500 from Allied-Signal;$1,000 from Boeing; $500from General Electric;$500 from John Deere;and, $500 from GeneralMotors, all in 1997.

Not surprisingly,when Sensenbrennergaveled a hearing by theScience Committee toorder on October 7, 1997,

Utilities Pay Scientist Ally On Warming

Coal-burning utilities are contributing money to one of the few

remaining climate scientists openly critical of the broad consensus that

fossil fuel emissions are intensifying global warming.

The critic, Patrick J. Michaels, is a professor of environmental sciences

at the University of Virginia, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute

and Virginia’s state climatologist.

Dr. Michaels told Western business leaders last year that he was

running out of money for his analyses of other scientists’ global warming

research. So a Colorado utility organized a collection campaign for him last

week and has raised at least $150,000 in donations and pledges.

The utility, the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, based in

Sedalia, Colorado, has given Dr. Michaels $100,000 of its own, said

Stanley R. Lewandowski Jr., its general manager. Mr. Lewandowski said

that one company planned to give $50,000 and that a third planned to

contribute to Dr. Michaels next year.

“We cannot allow the discussion to be monopolized by the alarmists,”

Mr. Lewandowski wrote in a July 17 letter to 50 other utilities. He alsoth

called on other electric cooperatives to undertake a counterattack on

“alarmist” scientists and specifically Al Gore’s movie “'An Inconvenient

Truth,”' which lays much of the blame for global warming on heat-trapping

gases like carbon dioxide.

Mr. Lewandowski and Dr. Michaels, who holds a Ph.D. in ecological

climatology from the University of Wisconsin, have openly acknowledged

the donations and say they see no problem. But some environmental

advocates say the effort clearly poses a conflict of interest.

“This is a classic case of industry buying science to back up its

anti-environmental agenda,” said Frank O’Donnell, president of the

Washington advocacy group Clean Air Watch.

Others, however, view it as the type of lobbying that goes along with

many divisive issues. One environmental scientist, Donald Kennedy, former

president of Stanford University and current editor in chief of the journal

Science, said skeptics like Dr. Michaels were lobbyists more than

researchers.

“I don't think it’s unethical any more than most lobbying is unethical,”

Dr. Kennedy said.

Dr. Michaels is best known for his newspaper opinion columns and

books, including “'Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global

Warming by Scientists, Politicians and the Media.” He also writes research

articles published in scientific journals.

He has been quoted by major newspapers more than 150 times in the

last two years, according to a LexisNexis database search. He and Mr.

Lewandowski say that their side of global warming is not being heard and

that the donations resulted from a speech Dr. Michaels gave to the Western

Business Roundtable last fall.

Dr. Michaels said the money would help pay his staff.

“Last I heard, anybody can ask a scientific question,” he said.

The Associated Press

July 28, 2006

Page 11: MILKING THE CASH COWMILKING THE CASH COW A powerful factor in my decision was the searing reality that I would have had to spend half of every day between now and the next election

he decried climate science, saying temperatures had been “cooler.”

The Democrat fronting for industry in the House was John Dingell, Jr., one of the mostwidely feared legislators due to his bullying tactics. Dingell illustrates not only how corrupt thesystem has become, but why it needn’t be that way.

The Michigan representative occupies a seat that was held by his father from 1933 to1955, when the son was elected. Dingell is always re-elected easily, sometimes with noopposition. Nevertheless, he routinely amasses large amounts of campaign cash. In 1988, forexample, when he was unopposed, Dingell still raised $462,180.19

The 1997–98 period was no exception. Dingell collected from too many donors to listconveniently, but the gifts included $2,000 from Ford, $1,000 each from Florida Power andLight, Acton Committee for Rural Electrification, ICF Kaiser, ARCO, McDermott, Will &Emery, American Crystal Sugar, Elf Atochem, DTE Energy, Houston Industries, and NorfolkSouthern—and that was only in January, 1997 and just the political action committees. 20

Testifying before the Hagel subcommittee on June 19, 1997, Dingell raised five questionsto which he had “yet to receive satisfactory answers” he said. He asked whether science had“overreached” and whether there might be an “economic fiasco.” Seated next to Dingell was21

Sen. Byrd. Together, they represented the two most feared members of Congress in a half-century, each given to retribution for even the smallest most dimly remembered slights.

On July 15 , as the Clinton Administration unveiled its analysis of the economic sideth

effects of action to curb global warming—concluding that they would be only half as severe asthose projected by Charles River Associates—its representative was greeted with what The NewYork Times described as “blistering” questioning by Dingell. He contended that returningemissions to 1990 levels would requiring increasing gasoline taxes 26 cents a gallon andelectricity rates 2 cents per kilowatt hour. Committee Chairman Tom Bliley of Virginia, who22

had received $62,000 in campaign contributions from the coal, oil and other allied interestsbetween January 1, 1997 and the date of the hearing, joined in the attacks.23

Hagel, Sensenbrenner and Dingell all blitzed the negotiations in Kyoto, where Hagelattacked the Clinton Administration, contending that an agreement would constitute a seizure of“national sovereignty” that would create a “United Nations multinational bureaucracy .”24

By that time, however, the agreement, and indeed the meeting itself, were irrelevant. Anagreement that had not even been negotiated yet, was already dead in the United States. Corporations had deftly married the writings of an eccentric (Lindzen) an octogenarian (Singer),a coal industry hire (Michaels), and a scientist labeled by one of their own lobbyists as senile(Seitz) to politicians eager to accept their campaign contributions to kill, in less than one year, aninternational agreement that had been ten years in the making.

Page 12: MILKING THE CASH COWMILKING THE CASH COW A powerful factor in my decision was the searing reality that I would have had to spend half of every day between now and the next election

1997 PAC Contribution Time LineHagel

Date Contributor Amount

January 3 Altria $2,500

January 7 Arnold & Porter $500

January 8 Burlington Northern Santa Fe $5,000

Union Pacific Corp $5,000

January 15 Valmont Industries $2,500

January 21 FPL PAC, Florida Power &Light Co.

$1,000

McDermott Will & Emery LLP $1,000

January 22 Action Committee For RuralElectrification (ACRE)

$1,000

January 23 Arizona Public Service(Pinnacle West)

$1,000

Williams Companies Inc. $1,000

KeyCorp Advocates $1,000

Williams Companies $1,000

January 24 Bethlehem Steel $1,000

International Steel Group $1,000

January 27 JP Morgan Chase and Company $1,000

January 28 Sempra Energy Employees $1,000

Motorola $500

January 30 Polyone $1,000

January 31 JP Morgan Chase and Company $1,000

February 4 Union Pacific Resources $1,000

Tenneco Inc. Employees GoodGovernment

$5,000

Florida Crystals $1,000

February 6 General Electric $1,000

Ash Grove Cement $1,000

Page 13: MILKING THE CASH COWMILKING THE CASH COW A powerful factor in my decision was the searing reality that I would have had to spend half of every day between now and the next election

Date Contributor Amount

Archer Daniels Midland $1,000

JP Morgan Chase and Company $5,000

February 7 DaimlerChrysler Corp $1,000

February 10 Edison International $1,000

February 11 Deere & Company Political $1,000

February 14 Tyson Foods $1,000

February 17 Civic InvolvementProgram/General MotorsCorporation

$1,000

February 18 National Concrete MasonryAssociation

$500

February 20 Ford Motor $1,000

February 21 Pfizer $1,000

February 25 National Concrete Masonry $500

Columbia Energy $3,000

National Association ofConvenience Stores

$1,000

Nisource Inc. $3,000

UST $1,000

February 26 National Assn of BeerWholesalers

$5,000

National Assn of BeerWholesalers (cq)

$5,000

March 3 Employees Federal PAC -Carolina Power & Light Co.

$1,000

March 4 American Portland CementAlliance

$1,000

American Sugar Cane League $1,000

Nuclear Energy Institute $1,000

March 5 CMS Energy Corp Employees $1,000

American Sugar Cane League $1,000

Page 14: MILKING THE CASH COWMILKING THE CASH COW A powerful factor in my decision was the searing reality that I would have had to spend half of every day between now and the next election

Date Contributor Amount

Federal Express $1,000

Tobacco Institute $1,000

March 6 Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative $1,000

March 7 American Electric Power $1,000

American Crystal Sugar $1,000

Torchmark $1,000

March 10 CH2M Hill $1,000

Interstate Natural Gas Assn $500

Novartis $1,000

March 11 Southern Company Services $1,000

March 13 Brown & Williamson $1,000

March 19 Ameren $1,000

March 20 Ameren $500

March 21 JP Morgan Chase and Company $2,500

March 25 GPU Corporation Power $500

March 26 Tenneco Inc. Employees GoodGovernment

$5,000

March 31 Edison International $1,000

April 1 Cymax PAC Cyprus AmaxMinerals

$1,000

Employees of EntergyOperations Inc.

$1,000

April 8 COALPAC $1,000

O’Melveny and Myers $1,000

April 17 Stewart & Stevenson $500

April 21 McDermott Will & Emery LLP $1,000

April 29 ASEA Brown Boveri $500

April 23 Van Ness Feldman $500

May 2 National Good GovernmentFund

$1,000

Page 15: MILKING THE CASH COWMILKING THE CASH COW A powerful factor in my decision was the searing reality that I would have had to spend half of every day between now and the next election

Date Contributor Amount

May 8 Coastal Corp. Employee Action $1,000

El Paso Natural Gas $1,000

May 12 Raytheon $500

May 16 DaimlerChrysler Corp Pol $1,000

May 20 American Beverage Association $1,000

Motorola $500

May 30 Exxon Corporation $200

June 9 Wells Faro $1,000

June 18 Action Committee For RuralElectrification (ACRE)

$1,000

American Frozen Food Institute $500

Page 16: MILKING THE CASH COWMILKING THE CASH COW A powerful factor in my decision was the searing reality that I would have had to spend half of every day between now and the next election
Page 17: MILKING THE CASH COWMILKING THE CASH COW A powerful factor in my decision was the searing reality that I would have had to spend half of every day between now and the next election

APPENDIX

The purpose of this appendix is to provide readers with something like a primer on howto track such trails of cash, and tie them to actions. This article deals only with “hard money,”which can be tracked through the Federal Election Commission, not so-called “soft money,”which are the enormous donations that industries and individuals make to Republican andDemocratic parties.

The first step is to determine whether there is (a) a position that logically would attractheavy contributions and (b) a stream of money flowing from vested interests to an office holder.

Step one: check the record. The first stop in this project was to determine what officialrecords there were of Hagel’s activities on global warming. This may be the easiest step,especially for those with access to Lexis/Nexis. Others can visit Project VoteSmart,http://www.vote-smart.org/, a non-profit institution based in Montana with a branch office inBoston. It bills itself as “a national library of factual information on over 13,000 elected officesand candidates for public office.” The Project is funded by individual contributions as well as thePew, Carnegie and other foundations. It describes itself as “staffed by both conservatives andliberals of various parties who have volunteered for up to two years.” Noting that its membershave included Goldwater and McGovern, Carter and Ford, Newt Gingrich and Geraldine Ferraro,the Project says “We will not allow anyone to join our founding board without a politicalenemy.”25

[For members of Congress, other information can be found at the Library of Congress’website, Thomas, http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas2.html, which has links to websites of boththe U.S. Senate (http://www.senate.gov/) and the House of Representatives(http://www.house.gov/).]

Although these sources show that Hagel quickly became deeply committed and veryactive in the cause of staving off international action to curb global warming, they cannot paint acomplete picture. Much of what office holders have to provide of value is intangible. They canhold hearings, or not; write letters or otherwise exercise influence in ways that may never bepublicly revealed. Check office-holder’s own websites, where they will often boast in their ownpress releases of their hearing and statements, and don’t overlook the obvious—simple searchesusing engines such as Go and Hotbot. Check with their political adversaries as well, who oftenkeep close tabs on what their rivals are up to.

Page 18: MILKING THE CASH COWMILKING THE CASH COW A powerful factor in my decision was the searing reality that I would have had to spend half of every day between now and the next election

Step two:follow the money. Goto the website of theFederal ElectionCommission(http://www.fec.gov/). You will find twomapsa of the UnitedStates, one dealing withthe Presidentialcampaigns, the otherwith House and Senateraces. Click on one orthe other. Click onHouse and Senate, andanother map of the U.S.will appear. Beneath itis a space for enteringthe name of a candidate.

In this case,enter “boucher” forRick Boucher ofVirginia, who chairs the House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the Committee onEnergy and Commerce. This is subcommittee with jurisdiction over global warming.

Corporations and their leave little to chance, so they have been donating lavish amount toBoucher for a decade or more. Click on “Go” and a summary of the money given to Boucher forthe election cycle will appear. At the time of my search, the FEC reported that he had$1,420,936 cash on hand as of June 30, 2008. You can search for gifts from either individuals orpolitical action committees. Click on PACs, and 11 pages of 624 gifts will appear, with the PACidenties, dates and amounts. In Boucher’s case, had received $322,800 from PACs with aninterest in global warming–and that interest is to keep it up, not stop.26

Boucher’s givers includes all of the major oil, coal, auto companies as well as electricityproducers and railroads. Does Boucher need all that money? Hardly. He was re-elected in 2006with 68 percent of the votes, handily beating his opponent by more than 2 to 1.27

Sites that provide information on campaign contributions come and go. Another usefulsite, http://www.publicampaign.org/, is “dedicated to sweeping reform that aims to dramaticallyreduce the role of special interest money in America’s elections and the influence of bigcontributors.”

Step three: focus on individuals, too. In the aggregate, contributions from individuals toa campaign are roughly the same magnitude as those from PACs, so they are important in and of

Page 19: MILKING THE CASH COWMILKING THE CASH COW A powerful factor in my decision was the searing reality that I would have had to spend half of every day between now and the next election

themselves. They can also be a vital clue: finding a $1,000 contribution from an associationpresident or a senior partner in a law firm that represent a major industry is a dead giveaway thatmoney is being directed to a candidate. In Hagel’s case, for example, the head of the GlobalClimate Coalition, William O'Keefe—who is also a senior vice president of the AmericanPetroleum Association, the trade association of the oil industry—gave $2,000. O'Keefe donated$1,000 on August 1, 1997, and another $1,000 on April 2, 1998.

Click the “back” tab and the summary page will return. Click “individuals,” and personswho gace to Boucher will appear. Most are lawyers (who in Washington practice mostlylobbying, not law). Ferreting out their interests can be a challenge, but a Google search willusually do the trick. Two lawyers from the firm of Bracewell & Giuliani, Scott Segal and JefferyHolmstead, are listed on the first page of Boucher’s givers.

Wikipedia reveals that--

Bracewell & Giuliani LLP is an international law firm based in Houston, Texasthat began in 1945. The firm has over 400 lawyers, and has United States officesin New York, Washington, D.C., Hartford, San Antonio, Dallas, and Austin, andoverseas offices in Dubai, London, and Almaty in Kazakhstan. The firm's areas ofspecialization include energy, banking and financial institutions, environmentalstrategies, white collar criminal defense, special investigations and privateinvestment funds. Also unique to the firm is the strategic communications teamwho has more than two decades of experience in government relations, mediarelations and policy-making.28

In 2008, Segal was named by The Hill newspaper as one of Washington’s the “best hiredguns.” Holmstead was Bush-the-Son’s head of air pollution at the Environmental Protection29

Agency.30

Look for large contributions. Individuals are limited to $2,300 per election to a federalcandidate, but that amount can be given for each primary, runoff, and general election.31

It’s easy to miss contributions when searching individual records. “Bill O’Keefe,” forexample, is one FEC file while “William O’Keefe” is another, even though the person is thesame. Similarly, the O’Keefe who lives in McLean, Virginia. Is the same O’Keefe who works inWashington, D.C., but, again, the records may be different.

Contributors are supposed to list not only addresses, but employers, so there should be alot of lawyers. To find out if a lawyer from, say, Van Ness Feldman, might have an interest inglobal warming or air pollution, return to the Netivasion home page, click on lobby registrations,select an issue area, then conduct a control-f search for “Van Ness.” Up pops a report that thefirm represents BP Amoco.

Page 20: MILKING THE CASH COWMILKING THE CASH COW A powerful factor in my decision was the searing reality that I would have had to spend half of every day between now and the next election

Step four: look beyond the obvious. One of the first rules of searching for cash-policyconnections is to look beyond the obvious. For global warming, for example, the coal, oil,electric utility and auto industries obviously have stakes in the debate. But look for others. Coal,for example, is the number one source of income for U.S. railroads. Moreover, many railroadsare coal owners dating from the days when the government gave them land as an inducement toopen the West. The largest single operating expense for many chemical companies is the cost ofcoal and oil, which are feedstocks for their products. Similarly, steel mills and cement kilns notonly consume immense amounts of energy, but also use coal and lime as feedstocks, both ofwhich emit carbon dioxide. Why do convenience stores care about global warming? Becausemany, such as ARCO’s AM/PM chain and Exxon's Tiger Marts, are owned by oil companies.

Step five: look for circumventions. Federal law limits contributions. Individuals arecapped at $2,300 per campaign. PACs are capped at $5,000. For those who want to give more32

it’s easy to circumvent the rule. Wives can give, and so can children and parents. A company’slawyer, the firm’s partners and their wives and children can give. For example, Clayton Yeuttergave Hagel $2,000 in the 1996 campaign cycle, while “homemaker” Christy Bach Yeutter,pitched in another $1,000. Aside from this, there are numerous other ways of skirting the rules.

For example, Netivasion reveals that Hagel received $5,000 from Burlington-Northern(BN) (headquartered in Nebraska, BN also donated $5,000 to Hagel’s Democratic opponent, acommon practice) and $1,000 from Norfolk Southern. But is that all? Possibly not, for on April19, 1996, BN gave $2,500 to Keep Our Majority Political Action Committee (KOMPAC), whichin turn donated $30,000 on July 2 to the Republican National Committee, which funnelednd

roughly $60,000 to the Nebraska Republican Committee over a period of months, including apayment of $15,312 on July 17 . Then on July 20 , the Nebraska RC gave $1,000 to Hagel. th th

Was some of BN’s April 19 contribution earmarked for Hagel? No way to tell, but it happens.th

Step six: look for clusters. “Bundles,”or gifts collected by a single lobbyist fromcolleagues, then delivered to the office-holder, are clear signs that a candidate has been adoptedby an industry. So are fundraisers. To find these look for donations clustered on or close to the

Why do convenience stores care about global warming? Because many, suchas ARCO’s AM/PM chain and Exxon's Tiger Marts, are owned by oil

companies.

On April 2, 1998, Hagel collected $15,300 from 19 individuals, almost allfrom Texas and associated with the oil industry. The three exceptions wereBill O’Keefe of the American Petroleum Industry, Stephen Wood of Reston,

Virginia, (with Shell Oil) and Washington lawyer Kent Hance. In alllikelihood, one or all of these three arranged a fundraiser for Hagel in Texas

or they bundled the checks for him.

Page 21: MILKING THE CASH COWMILKING THE CASH COW A powerful factor in my decision was the searing reality that I would have had to spend half of every day between now and the next election

same date.

On April 2, 1998, Hagel collected $15,300 from 19 individuals, almost all from Texasand associated with the oil industry. The three exceptions were Bill O’Keefe of the AmericanPetroleum Industry, Stephen Wood of Reston, Virginia, (with Shell Oil) and Washington lawyerKent Hance. In all likelihood, one or all of these three arranged a fundraiser for Hagel in Texasor they bundled the checks for him.

O’Keefe is executive vice president of the American Petroleum Institute, the oilindustry’s trade association He is also chairman of the Global Climate Coalition, a businessconfederation founded in 1989 to lobby against actions to curb global warming. O’Keefe hascontributed to a half-dozen members of Congress, including Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, aDemocrat who is the most outspoken House of Representatives opponent of action to curb globalwarming. Wood works for Diefenderfer and Wunder, a Washington lobbying firm that once gave$200,000 to the National Policy Forum, a Republican fundraising arm. The firm’s clients33

include CSX railroad. Other clients include Ashland Oil, Bituminous Coal Operators, the34

Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition, Industrial Oil Consumers Group, Lonesome DovePetroleum, Shell Oil, and the Oil Refiners Coalition for Competitive Markets. Hance, a lawyer35

and member of Congress from 1979–85, “frequently attends OPEC meetings and is active in theacquisition of international oil & gas drilling rights on behalf of U.S. and international clients,”according to his official biography. He also “served on the Finance Committee for U.S. SenatorPhil Gramm and U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, and on Governor George W. Bushre-election campaign.”

All in all, Hagel did handsomely after his election in 1996. Although his first six-yearterm didn’t expire until 2003, he collected $1,099,783 in the 1997–98 and another $366,194 in1999–2000. In 1997–98, more than $600,000 came from PACs, and about $467,000 fromindividuals. Burlington Northern gave him another $5,000, while Union Pacific kicked in$11,000, starting with a $5,000 gift on January 8, 1997. Electric utilities, which had given only

$4,000 to Hagel in 1995–96, donated 10 times that amount in 1997–98. In 1999–2000, Hagel hit

In 1997–98, more than $600,000 came from PACs, and about $467,000 fromindividuals. Burlington Northern gave him another $5,000, while UnionPacific kicked in $11,000, starting with a $5,000 gift on January 8, 1997. Electric utilities, which had given only $4,000 to Hagel in 1995–96, donated10 times that amount in 1997–98. In 1999–2000, Hagel hit the jackpot inCalifornia, especially with Edison Mission Energy and its related companies. EME is the world’s third or fourth largest independent producer of electricity,with plants in 20 or more nations, virtually all of them coal-fired, with nopollution controls—exactly the type of powerplants likely to be shut down by aglobal warming agreement that called for reductions in emissions.

Page 22: MILKING THE CASH COWMILKING THE CASH COW A powerful factor in my decision was the searing reality that I would have had to spend half of every day between now and the next election

the jackpot in California, especially with Edison Mission Energy and its related companies. EME is the world’s third or fourth largest independent producer of electricity, with plants in 20or more nations, virtually all of them coal-fired, with no pollution controls—exactly the type ofpowerplants likely to be shut down by a global warming agreement that called for reductions inemissions.

From July 23–August 10,1999 Hagel received 15 individual contributions from Edisonexecutives totaling $14,500. This was in addition to $10,000 from the firm’s political actioncommittee that had been spread over several months.

Also check for in-kind contributions, such as $229.63 paid by the PowerPAC of theEdison Electric Institute to Washington, D.C. caterer Geppetto Catering on April 27, 1999—it’sa sure sign that the electricity industry hosted a fundraiser for Hagel on or about that date.

Step seven: look for connections. This is where to find just how much of aninvestigative reporter you are. Figuratively, grab a piece of string and pull until you unravelsomething. For example, note that on January 22, 1997 Hagel received $1,000 from the ActionCommittee for Rural Electrification (ACRE), one of the major foes of air pollution regulation ofwhatever shape or form.

The best site for cross-walking campaign contributions is the FEC’s, so head there. Clickon blue-lighted name of ACRE, which brings up its FEC data, showing others to whom it hascontributed. Hit control-f, search for 01/22/97, and other names start popping up. Among them:the most outspoken House foe of action to curb global warming, Rep. John Dingell, who alsoreceived $1,000 on January 22, 1997. Among the “A” names alone, Hagel and Dingell sharedfour other contributors related to global warming: Allegheny Energy (an electric utility),AmerEn, Arch Coal (a coal company), and Arnold & Porter (a major Washington law firm withmany energy clients).

Step eight: avoid red herrings. There is so much money, from so many differentsources that it is dizzying. If ever there were a situation where staying on track is essential this isit. Hagel, for example, received over 2,600 contributions from individuals alone. It is a verycommon practice for the wealthy to send donations in the names of children, including infants. Itis also common practice to ask fundraisers for names of needy candidates, and in response, tosend a sheaf of $1,000 or $500 checks to the Republican and Democratic party committees.Trying to pin down the connection between a “student” in New York city and a given candidate

Of the $1,099,783 collected by Hagel in 1997–98, over three-quarters, or$787,000, was used to repay the loan of $1 million made to himself during thecampaign. In effect, when the Southern Company gave $1,000 on March 11,1997 and $2,000 on February 2, 1998, it was making a direct deposit toHagel’s personal bank account. In 1999–2000, Hagel paid himself another$205,000.

Page 23: MILKING THE CASH COWMILKING THE CASH COW A powerful factor in my decision was the searing reality that I would have had to spend half of every day between now and the next election

1. David Alexander, “Consultants got $1.8 billion in '04 election,” Reuters, Sep. 26, 2006

2. This kind of information can be found at sites like www.tray.com/, which is a “who gave what to whom” site

where you can do a comprehensive search of campaign contributions. Tray is easy to navigate: click on “US

House/Senate Campaign Money Info: All Candidates.” Next, select the election cycle of interest, type in the

candidate's last name, and within seconds you get summaries of receipts and expenditures, and tabs for downloading

more detailed information.

Interested in Superfund? Check insurance (especially American International Group), mining (especially

ASARCO), chemicals, and the state of Connecticut. For air pollution, check oil and gas as well as electric utilities

(especially the Southern Company). For forests, check paper and forest products (especially Champion International

and building contractors).

The Center for Responsive Politics operates a good general purpose site, www.opensecrets.org/, but one

quickly outgrown as skills develop. Much of the information has been “dumbed down,” making it easy to understand

but frustrating when you want specific dates and names.

3. The author used several different search engines which yielded hundreds of hits for “Hagel global warming” but

all after the election, not before.

4. ????

5. “W. David Montgomery,” http://efsec.wa.gov/bpcogen/Adjudications/prefiled/23.1(WDM-1).DOC.PDF,

accessed Aug. 8, 2007.

6. Hagel for Senate Committee, Federal Election Commission. Also, Business Wire, April 3, 2006.

7. Hagel for Senate Committee, Federal Election Commission.

8. Cite TK

9. Chuck Hagel, “Global Climate Change Negotiations: A Lead Weight on our Nation’s future Economic Growth,”

Environmental News, Aug. 1, 1997.

10. “Briefing on Global Warming,the Other Sideof the Story,” National Center for Policy Analysis, Sep. 29, 1997

11. Congressional Record, July 25, 1997, p. S. 8114.

can be not only maddening, but a waste of time, because there might be none.

Step nine: examine expenditures. Because all of the sites focus on contributions, notexpenditures, this can be tough. But if there’s a bureau in Washington or some other way ofdispatching a research assistant to the Federal Election Commission, it can be worth it, becausethere is virtually no constraint on how money can be spent. Candidates buys cars (and repairs forthem), clothing, dinners, and vacations. They give money to the Boy Scouts and the MissAmerica Pageant, local colleges and universities, state, local and national committees, as well asto other candidates. Washington is awash in vested interest money, and some of the best storiescan be just how and where it is spent. Hagel’s cash, however, went mostly to one place: himself.

Step ten: add it up, and trust the facts. Whether Hagel received money becauseindustry liked his views, or whether he adopted those views for the sake of raising money isimpossible to say. Indeed, trying to find a brown paper bag stuffed with money trading hands inexchange for a vote may miss the point.

Page 24: MILKING THE CASH COWMILKING THE CASH COW A powerful factor in my decision was the searing reality that I would have had to spend half of every day between now and the next election

12. Congressional Record, July 25, 1997, p. S. 8133.

13. Congressional Record, July 25, 1997, p. S. 8138.

14. Newell, P., Climate for change: non-state actors and the global politics of the greenhouse. Cambridge

University Press (2000).

15. Congressional Record, Oct. 3, 1997, p. S. 10308.

16. How to find out who these people are? Again, a search engine helps. The second hit on www.go.com/ for

“William O'Keefe” said exactly who he was.

17. More than 55 percent of the nation’s electricity is generated from coal, two-thirds of which is moved by

railroads. Utilities account for more than 40 percent of total railroad volume and one-sixth of the railroad industry’s

total revenue. Gerald Vaninetti, “Coal train blues,” Electric Perspectives, July/August 1997.

18. Look for clusters, or “bundles.” This is when a single lobbyist collects checks from his fellow-lobbyists, then

delivers to the officeholder, a signal that a candidate has been adopted by an industry. So do fund-raisers (find these

by looking for “in-kind contributions,” payments to caterers or hotels—which are usually at the end of the list of

donations).

Look for donations clustered on or close to the same date in Tray.com’s “Breakout of recipients by date.”

On April 2, 1998, Hagel collected $15,300 from 19 individuals, almost all from Texas and associated with the oil

industry.

19. Michael Baron e and Grant Ujifusa, The Almanac of American Politics 1992, p.648, National Journal,

Washington, D.C., 1991.

20. “Contributions by PAC and candidate committees to Rep. Dingell, John D. (D-Mich.) (Incumbent, 16th District)

for election cycle 1997-1998, CQ MoneyLine.

21. Testimony of John D. Dingell, Subcommittee on International Economic Policy, Export and Trade Promotion,

Foreign Relations Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C., June 19, 1997.

22. John H. Cushman, Jr., “White House Begins Push for New Global Warming Pact,” The New York Times, July

16, 1997.

23. Federal Election Commission records and CQ MoneyLine.com.

24. Kevin Sullivan, “Four U.S. Senators Lobbying in Kyoto,” The Washington Post, Dec. 3, 1997.

25. http://www.vote-smart.org

26. Boucher’s contributors included the following: ACTION COM FOR RURAL ELECTRIFICATION, ACTION

COM FOR RURAL ELECTRIFICATION, ACXIOM CORPORATION ASSOCIATES PAC, AICPA EFFECTIVE

LEGISLATION COM, ALLETE PAC, ALSTON & BIRD PAC, ALTRIA GROUP, INC. PAC, ALTRIA GROUP,

INC. PAC, AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL PAC, AMERICAN

COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY PAC, AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY, AMERICAN FINANCIAL

SERVICES ASSN PAC, AMERICAN IRON AND STEEL INSTITUTE PAC, AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS

UNION PAC, AMERICAN PUBLIC POWER ASSOCIATION PAC, AMERICAN RESORT DEVELOPMENT

ASSOCIATION, AMGEN PAC, ARCH COAL INC PAC, ASSURANT INC. POLITICAL ACTION

COMMITTEE, AT&T INC. FEDERAL PAC, BABCOCK & WILCOX COMPANY, BANK OF AMERICA

CORPORATION, BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, BARNES &

THORNBERG PAC, BASF CORP. EMPLOYEES PAC, BP CORPORATION NORTH AMERICA, INC. PAC,

BRACEWELL & GUILIANI, LLP PAC, BRANCH BANKING & TRUST COMPANY, BUSINESS SOFTWARE

Page 25: MILKING THE CASH COWMILKING THE CASH COW A powerful factor in my decision was the searing reality that I would have had to spend half of every day between now and the next election

ALLIANCE PAC, CALPINE CORPORATION PAC, CAPITAL ONE ASSOCIATES, CHARLES SCHWAB

CORPORATION PAC, CHECKFREE CORPORATION PAC, CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS INC.,

COMCAST CORP PAC, CONSTELLATION ENERGY GROUP PAC, COVANTA ENERGY GROUP, INC

.PAC, CSX CORPORATION GOOD GOVERNMENT FUND, DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION PAC,

DAIRY FARMERS OF AMERICA DEPAC, DOMINION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE, DOW

CHEMICAL COMPANY EMPLOYEES PAC, DOW LOHNES PLLC (DLA PAC), DTAG PAC, DTE ENERGY

CO POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE, SUEZ ENERGY NORTH AMERICA, INC PAC, SUNOCO, INC.

PAC, SUNOCO, INC. PAC, SWIDLER BERLIN LLP PAC, TESORO PETROLEUM CORP PAC, TRUCKING

PAC, TXU CORPORATION PAC, UNITED STATES STEEL CORP PAC, UNITED STATES TELECOM

ASSOCIATION, USAA GROUP PAC, VAN NESS FELDMAN PC PAC, VERIZON COMMUNICATION INC.

PAC, VISA USA POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE, WACHOVIA CORPORATION EMPLOYEES PAC,

WAL-MART STORES, INC.PAC, WASHINGTON MUTUAL POLITICAL ACTION COMM., WASTE

MANAGEMENT PAC, WILLIAMS COMPANIES INC. PAC, WINDPAC, WINDSTREAM

COMMUNICATIONS PAC, WYETH GOOD GOVERNMENT FUND, XCEL ENERGY EMPLOYEE PAC, XO

COMMUNICATIONS PAC, YAHOO! INC PAC, ELECTRIC DELIVERY PAC OF TXC CORP., ELECTRIC

POWER SUPPLY ASSOCIATION PAC, EMBARQ PAC, ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR PAC, ERNST &

YOUNG POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE, EXELON CORPORATION PAC, EXPERIAN NORTH

AMERICAN, INC. PAC, FINANCIAL SERVICES ROUNDTABLE PAC, GENENPAC, GENERAL ELECTRIC,

EASTERN REGION PAC, GENERAL ELECTRIC, EASTERN REGION PAC, HONEYWELL PAC, HSBC

NORTH AMERICA PAC, IDT CORPORATION PAC, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL,

INTERNATIONAL TRUCK AND ENGINE CORP PAC, IPSCO ENTERPRISES, INC. PAC, J.P. MORGAN

CHASE & CO. FEDERAL PAC, JOHN DEERE PAC, KELLEY DRYE COLLIER SHANNON PAC,

KENNECOTT UTAH COPPER CORP PAC, KOCHPAC, KPMG PAC, LABORERS POLITICAL LEAGUE,

LASALLE BANK PAC, LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS PAC, MACHINISTS NON-PARTISAN POLITICAL

LEAGUE, MARATHON OIL CORPORATION PAC, MELLON FINANCIAL CORPORATION PAC,

MICROSOFT CORPORATION PAC, MIDAMERICAN ENERGY COMPANY PAC, MIRANT CORPORATION

PAC, NATIONAL ASSOC. OF CONVENIENCE STORE PAC, NATIONAL COMMUNITY PHARMACISTS

ASSOC., NATIONAL MARINE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCI, NATIONAL PETROCHEMICAL & REFINERS

ASSOC, NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COOPERATIVE, NRG ENERGY PAC, NUCLEAR ENERGY

INSTITUTE, OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, PEABODY ENERGY PAC, PFIZER INC. PAC,

PNM RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS GROUP, PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL GROUP FEDPAC, PUBLIC SERVICES

ENTERPRISE GROUP, INC., QUEST DIAGNOSTICS EMPLOYEE PAC, QWEST PAC, R. J. REYNOLDS

PAC, RELIANT ENERGY, INC PAC, RELIANT ENERGY, INC PAC, S. C. JOHNSON & SON, INC PAC,

SALT RIVER PROJECT, SEMPRA ENERGY EMPLOYEE PAC, SEMPRA ENERGY EMPLOYEE PAC, SES

AMERICOM PAC, INC., SIEMENS CORPORATION PAC, SONNENSCHEIN POLITICAL ACTION

COMMITTEE, SOUTHERN CO. EMPLOYEE PAC, SOUTHERN CO. EMPLOYEE PAC, SPECTRA ENERGY

PAC, SPRINT NEXTEL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE, EARTHLINK, INC. PAC, LIMITED

INC./INTIMATE BRANDS INC PAC, BARNES & THORNBERG PAC, CAPITAL ONE ASSOCIATES,

ALLTEL CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMM, TDS TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORP PAC, TECO

ENERGY, INC PAC, XO COMMUNICATIONS PAC, PROGRESS ENERGY EMPLOYEES FEDERAL PAC,

ERNST & YOUNG POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE, FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP FEDERAL COMM.,

KEYSPAN ENERGY PAC, CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS INC., CORNING INCORPORATED

EMPLOYEES, AK STEEL HOLDING CORPORATION PAC, MERCK & CO., INC. PAC, NUVOX INC PAC,

SIEMENS CORPORATION PAC, SMURFIT-STONE PAC, DELPHI CORP PAC, ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR

PAC, HONEYWELL PAC, LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY, J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO. FEDERAL

PAC, AMERICAN PUBLIC POWER ASSOCIATION PAC, CENTURYTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. PAC,

SOUTHERN CO. EMPLOYEE PAC, SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC, MIDAMERICAN ENERGY COMPANY

PAC, INTERNATIONAL ASSOC.OF FIRE FIGHTERS PAC, INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY PAC,

DELL COMPUTER CORP PAC, DOMINION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE, MARATHON OIL

CORPORATION PAC, NATIONAL PETROCHEMICAL & REFINERS ASSOC, NUCLEAR ENERGY

INSTITUTE, AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY, AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION PAC, ARCH

COAL INC PAC, AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS POLITICAL ALL, UNITED AUTO WORKERS (UAW V

CAP), MWW GROUP PAC, NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION COALPAC, DAVITA, INC PAC,

NATIONAL THOROUGHBRED RACING ASSOCIATION, NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION, QWEST

PAC, SEARS HOLDINGS CORPORATION PAC, WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY PAC, ERNST & YOUNG

Page 26: MILKING THE CASH COWMILKING THE CASH COW A powerful factor in my decision was the searing reality that I would have had to spend half of every day between now and the next election

POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, GOOGLE NETPAC, INTEGRA PAC,

UNITE HERE, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL, IPSCO ENTERPRISES, INC. PAC,

KELLEY DRYE COLLIER SHANNON PAC, AMERICAN CABLE ASSOCIATION PAC, AT&T INC.

FEDERAL PAC, NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION, PEABODY ENERGY PAC, RJR POLITICAL

ACTION COMMITTEE, UNITED STATES CELLULAR CORP PAC, SWIDLER BERLIN LLP PAC,

MEADWESTVACO CORPORATION PAC, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHAIN DRUG STORE, DOW

LOHNES PLLC (DLA PAC), EARTHLINK, INC. PAC, AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS POLITICAL ALL,

EMPLOYEE OF NORTHROP GRUMMAN ENGPAC, HOME DEPOT, INC. PAC, CHEVRON

CORPORATION PAC, CITIGROUP, INC. PAC, CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS PAC, ACTION COM

FOR RURAL ELECTRIFICATION, TXU CORPORATION PAC, VAN NESS FELDMAN PC PAC, XCEL

ENERGY EMPLOYEE PAC, SOUTHERN CO. EMPLOYEE PAC, CSX CORPORATION GOOD

GOVERNMENT FUND, DIRECT VOICE - PAC OF THE DIRECT MKTING, DRUMMOND COMPANY INC.

PAC, EMBARQ PAC, FIRST ENERGY PAC, HOME DEPOT, INC. PAC, AMEREN FED PAC, AMERICAN

FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY &, AMERICAN FOREST AND PAPER ASSOCIATION, AMGEN PAC,

BABCOCK & WILCOX COMPANY, BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, COMPORIUM

COMMUNICATIONS PAC, COMPUTER & COMM INDUSTRY ASSOC, COVAD COMMUMICATIONS DSL

PAC, DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP, PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER PAC, USTEAM PAC, TXU

CORPORATION PAC, TXU CORPORATION PAC, MORGAN STANLEY PAC, SWISHER INTERNATIONAL,

INC PAC, EL PASO CORPORATION PAC, GENERAL ELECTRIC, EASTERN REGION PAC, PLUM CREEK

TIMBER COMPANY, INC, PPL PEOPLE FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT, QUALCOMM, INC. PAC, WAL-

MART STORES, INC.PAC, ZENECA PAC, MCMORAN EXPLORATION CO PAC, MEADWESTVACO

CORPORATION PAC, MIRANT CORPORATION PAC, ACXIOM CORPORATION ASSOCIATES PAC,

AFLAC INCORPORATED PAC, ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS, AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION,

AMERICAN PODIATRIC MEDICAL ASSOC., AMVEST CORPORATION, AREVA PAC, ASHLAND INC.

POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE, INTERNATL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, INTERNATIONAL

BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKER, INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF SHOPPING CENTER, JOHN

DEERE PAC, JOHNSON & JOHNSON, KOPPERS, INC. PAC, KPMG PAC, MAGAZINE PUBLISHERS OF

AMERICA PAC, MCGUIREWOODS CONSULTING LLC PAC, MICROSOFT CORPORATION PAC, MIRANT

CORPORATION PAC, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS, NATIONAL CABLE &

TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSO, NATIONAL COMMUNITY PHARMACISTS ASSOC., NATIONAL

EMERGENCY MEDICINE PAC, NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL, NATIONAL RIFLE

ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL STONE , SAND & GRAVEL ASSOC, BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY,

CELANESE CORPORATION PAC, CHEVRON CORPORATION PAC, COMCAST CORP PAC, COMM.ON

LETTER CARRIERS POL. EDUCATION, CUMMINS INC. PAC, CWA- COPE PCC, DAIMLERCHRYSLER

CORPORATION PAC, DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP FED PAC, DIRECTVGROUP, INC PAC, DOW

CHEMICAL COMPANY EMPLOYEES PAC, DTE ENERGY CO POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE,

ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATION CORP PAC, ELI LILLY & COMPANY PAC, FLUOR CORPORATION PAC,

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, GENERAL MOTORS CORP, GODADDY.COM

PAC, GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC. PAC, GOOGLE NETPAC, HEADWATERS, INCORPORATED PAC,

HOLLAND & KNIGHT, PFIZER INC. PAC, PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH MANUFACTURERS,

PHYSICAL THERAPY PAC, POWER PAC EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE, PRICE WATERHOUSE

COOPERS, LLP, PROCTER AND GAMBLE CO. GOOD GOVT. COM, PROFESSIONALS IN ADVERTISING

PAC, PROFESSIONALS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE, PROGRESS ENERGY EMPLOYEES FEDERAL

PAC, QWEST PAC, ROBERT A. C. TALLEY, STEPTOE & JOHNSON PAC, T-MOBILE PAC, SI

INTERNATIONAL, INC. PAC, TECO ENERGY INC EMPLOYEES PAC, THE GLAXOSMITHKLINE PAC,

TIME WARNER CABLE PAC, UNITED AUTO WORKERS (UAW V CAP), UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL

WORKERS UNION, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES STEEL CORP PAC,

UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, USTEAM PAC, VALERO POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE,

WELLPOINT HEALTH NETWORKS, INC., WESTMORELAND COAL COMPANY PAC, WHIRLPOOL

CORP PAC, XM SATELLITE RADIO PAC, YAHOO! INC PAC, ZENECA PAC, NATIONAL VENTURE

CAPITAL ASSOCIATION, NOVARTIS PAC, PETROLEUM MARKETERS ASSOCI OF AMERICA,

GENERAL DYNAMICS VOLUNTARY, GENERAL ELECTRIC, EASTERN REGION PAC, HEADWATERS,

INCORPORATED PAC, HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY PAC, INTEL CORP. PAC, INTERNATIONAL

BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKER, INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY PAC, INTERSTATE

NATURAL GAS ASSOCIATION, J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO. FEDERAL PAC, JOHN DEERE PAC, JOY

Page 27: MILKING THE CASH COWMILKING THE CASH COW A powerful factor in my decision was the searing reality that I would have had to spend half of every day between now and the next election

GLOBAL INC PAC, KANSAS CITY POWER & LIGHT PAC, MCGUIREWOODS CONSULTING LLC PAC,

MERCK & CO., INC. PAC, MONSANTO CITIZENSHIP FUND, MORGAN STANLEY PAC, NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS PAC, NATIONAL GRID USA PAC, NATIONAL MINING

ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL PROPANE GAS ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION,

NATIONAL VENTURE CAPITAL ASSOCIATION, NEW YORK MERCANTILE EXCHANGE PAC,

NISOURCE INC PAC, NUCOR CORPORATION PAC, PATTON BOGGS PAC, PG&E CORPORATION

ENERGY PAC, PHELPS DODGE EMPLOYEES FUND, PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORP.,

PINNACLE WEST PAC, PPL PEOPLE FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT, PROGRESS ENERGY EMPLOYEES

FEDERAL PAC, PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL INC. PAC, ROCK-TENN COMPANY PAC, SI

INTERNATIONAL, INC. PAC, SIEMENS CORPORATION PAC, SOCIETY OF INDEPENDENT GASOLINE

MARKETER, SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC, SYNIVERSE TECHNOLOGIES PAC, TECO ENERGY INC

EMPLOYEES PAC, TXU CORPORATION PAC, GENENPAC, EBAY INC. COMM. FOR RESPONSIBLE

INTERNET, EBAY INC. COMM. FOR RESPONSIBLE INTERNET, EDISON INTERNATIONAL PAC,

EDISON INTERNATIONAL PAC, ENTERGY CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COM, EXELON

CORPORATION PAC, EXPERIAN NORTH AMERICAN, INC. PAC, EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION PAC,

FIRST ENERGY PAC, FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY PAC, FOUNDATION COAL PAC,

FURNITURE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE, ABB EFEG FUND, AFLAC INCORPORATED PAC, AGL

RESOURCES INC. PAC, AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FIELD, ALLEGHENY POWER PAC,

ALLIANCE RESOURCES PARTNERS & AFFILIATES, ALLIANT ENERGY EMPLOYEES, ALLTEL

CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMM, ALSTOM PAC INC, AMAZON.COM HOLDINGS, INC.,

AMEREN FED PAC, AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER, AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER, AMERICAN GAS

ASSOCIATION PAC, AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION PAC, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN

RAILROADS PAC, AT&T INC. FEDERAL PAC, AUTOMOTIVE AFTERMARKET PAC, BABCOCK &

WILCOX COMPANY, UBS AMERICAS FUND FOR BETTER GOVT, UNION PACIFIC CORPORATION

FUND, UNITED AUTO WORKERS (UAW V CAP), UNITED AUTO WORKERS (UAW V CAP), UNITED

MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, UNITED PARCEL SERVICE OF AMERICA PAC, VERISIGN , INC. PAC,

WACHOVIA CORPORATION EMPLOYEES PAC, WALT DISNEY PRODUCTION CO. EMPLOYEES PAC,

WASHINGTON GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. PAC, WILLIAMS COMPANIES INC. PAC, WISCONSIN

ELECTRIC/WISCONSIN ENERGY COMP, XCEL ENERGY EMPLOYEE PAC, YAHOO! INC PAC, BANK OF

AMERICA CORPORATION, CAPITAL ONE ASSOCIATES, CELLULAR TELECOMMUCATIONS &

INTERNET, CH2M HILL COMPANIES, LTD. PAC, CISCO SYSTEMS INC FEDERAL PAC, CITIGROUP,

INC. PAC, CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS PAC, CONSTELLATION ENERGY GROUP PAC,

CONSTRUCTIVE CITIZENSHIP PROGRAM OF TI, CONSUMER ELECTRONICS ASSOCIATION PAC,

CONSUMER ELECTRONICS ASSOCIATION PAC, CONSUMER ELECTRONICS ASSOCIATION PAC,

DIRECTV, INC PAC, DOMINION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE, DOW LOHNES PLLC (DLA PAC),

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION PAC, EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, EASTMANPAC OF EASTMAN

CHEMICAL CO, EASTMANPAC OF EASTMAN CHEMICAL CO, CEMENT KILN RECYCLING COALITION

PAC, CONSUMER ELECTRONICS ASSOCIATION PAC, ALLETE PAC, NISOURCE INC PAC, PROGRESS

ENERGY EMPLOYEES FEDERAL PAC, KELLOGG COMPANY PAC, HUNTSMAN L.L. PAC,

MCGUIREWOODS CONSULTING LLC PAC, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS PAC, CSX

CORPORATION GOOD GOVERNMENT FUND, DTE ENERGY CO POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE,

GENENPAC, ABB EFEG FUND, AFLAC INCORPORATED PAC, AMAZON CORPORATE LLC, CORNING

INCORPORATED EMPLOYEES, BRICK INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION BRICK PAC, GENERAL MOTORS

CORP. PAC, GROCERY MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICA, INC., SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND

FINANCIAL ASSOC, SOUTHERN CO. EMPLOYEE PAC, UNITED AUTO WORKERS (UAW V CAP),

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE OF AMERICA PAC, VERISIGN , INC. PAC, PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY &

WALKER PAC, PPL PEOPLE FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT, PROGRESS ENERGY EMPLOYEES FEDERAL

PAC, XM SATELLITE RADIO PAC, SAFETY-KLEEN CORP PAC, NORTHEAST UTILITIES PAC,

NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE, POWER PAC EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE, CELANESE

CORPORATION PAC, CISCO SYSTEMS INC FEDERAL PAC, CONSOL ENERGY INC PAC, DELL

COMPUTER CORP PAC, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKER, AICPA EFFECTIVE

LEGISLATION COM, ALLEGHENY POWER PAC, AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER, AMERICAN

ELECTRIC POWER, AMERICAN GAS ASSOCIATION PAC, HDR PAC, DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION

PAC, EXELON CORPORATION PAC, PPL PEOPLE FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT, AMERICAN MEAT

INSTITUTE PAC, AMERICAN PHYSICAL THERAPY ASSOC. PAC, CHEVRON CORPORATION PAC,

Page 28: MILKING THE CASH COWMILKING THE CASH COW A powerful factor in my decision was the searing reality that I would have had to spend half of every day between now and the next election

DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY EMPLOYEES PAC, EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, ELECTRIC DELIVERY

PAC OF TXC CORP., FIRST ENERGY PAC, MERCK & CO., INC. PAC, ALLIANCE RESOURCES

PARTNERS & AFFILIATES, AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY, GENERAL ELECTRIC, EASTERN

REGION PAC, SIEMENS CORPORATION PAC, T-MOBILE PAC, WALT DISNEY PRODUCTION CO.

EMPLOYEES PAC, COLLEGE OF AMERICAN PATHOLOGISTS, NATIONAL RESTAURANT

ASSOCIATION PAC, PEABODY ENERGY PAC, PG&E CORPORATION ENERGY PAC, FREEPORT-

MCMORAN COOPER & GOLD INC., SI INTERNATIONAL, INC. PAC, SUNOCO, INC. PAC,

INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY PAC, JOHN DEERE PAC, KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART PAC,

GENERAL DYNAMICS VOLUNTARY, KANSAS CITY POWER & LIGHT PAC, MICROSOFT

CORPORATION PAC, MORGAN STANLEY PAC, NATIONAL PROPANE GAS ASSOCIATION,

GODADDY.COM PAC, PEABODY ENERGY PAC, PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORP.,

DEAN FOODS COMPANY PAC, THE DOCTORS COMPANY PAC, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF

AMERICA, WISCONSIN ELECTRIC/WISCONSIN ENERGY COMP, AREVA PAC, BABCOCK & WILCOX

COMPANY, CGI GROUP INC PAC, ARCH COAL INC PAC, BEAR, STERNS & CO. INC PAC, TXU

CORPORATION PAC, ACTION FUND OF LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS, AMERICAN CABLE

ASSOCIATION PAC, AMERICAN LIGHTING ASSOCIATION PAC, HOLCIM US INC. PAC, NATIONAL

RIFLE ASSOCIATION, NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION, PFIZER INC. PAC, NATIONAL CABLE &

TELECOM ASSOC, NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION COALPAC, AT&T INC. FEDERAL PAC, EDISON

INTERNATIONAL PAC, FOUNDATION COAL PAC, WELLPOINT HEALTH NETWORKS, INC.,

DOMINION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE, ENERGYSOLUTIONS, INC PAC, ENTERGY

CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COM, J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO. FEDERAL PAC, J.P. MORGAN

CHASE & CO. FEDERAL PAC, JOHN DEERE PAC, XCEL ENERGY EMPLOYEE PAC, TECO ENERGY,

INC PAC, VERIZON COMMUNICATION INC. PAC, CONSTELLATION ENERGY GROUP PAC, PEPSICO,

INC. PAC, CTIA-THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION, EASTMANPAC OF EASTMAN CHEMICAL CO, WAL-

MART STORES, INC.PAC, OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, YAHOO! INC PAC,

EASTMANPAC OF EASTMAN CHEMICAL CO, INTERNATIONAL ASSOC.OF FIRE FIGHTERS PAC,

KRAFT FOODS, INC. PAC, UNITED PARCEL SERVICE OF AMERICA PAC, DIRECTVGROUP, INC PAC,

SOUTHERN CO. EMPLOYEE PAC, AUTOMOTIVE AFTERMARKET PAC, LECLAIRRYAN PAC, PATTON

BOGGS PAC, HONEYWELL PAC, NRG ENERGY PAC, EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, EASTMANPAC

OF EASTMAN CHEMICAL CO, ELECTRONIC RETAILING ASSOCIATION PAC, INTEL CORP. PAC,

SPECTRA ENERGY PAC, INTERACTIVE CORP PAC, PROCTER AND GAMBLE CO. GOOD GOVT. COM,

AMAZON CORPORATE LLC, DIRECTVGROUP, INC PAC, DUPONT GOOD GOVENMENT FUND,

ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY ASSOCIATION PAC, NATIONAL GROUND WATER ASSOCIATION,

NATIONAL MARINE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCI, AT&T INC. FEDERAL PAC, CONSUMER

ELECTRONICS ASSOCIATION PAC, GOOGLE NETPAC, JC PENNY COMPANY, INC., NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS, XO COMMUNICATIONS PAC, REALTORS PAC, T-MOBILE PAC,

UNITED PILOTS PAC, VERIZON WIRELESS/ VERIZON COMM. INC PAC, GOOGLE NETPAC, MIRANT

CORPORATION PAC, NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOC., ALLTEL CORPORATION

POLITICAL ACTION COMM, CARPENTERS LEGISLATIVE IMPROVEMENT COMM, CBS

CORPORATION PAC, DELTA AIRLINES PAC, AICPA EFFECTIVE LEGISLATION COM, AIR LINE PILOTS

ASSOCIATION, INTL PAC, DIRECTVGROUP, INC PAC, HOME DEPOT, INC. PAC, MASSACHUSETTS

MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS PAC, PUBLIC

SERVICES ENTERPRISE GROUP, INC., SPRINT NEXTEL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE, ACTION

COM FOR RURAL ELECTRIFICATION, CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS INC., EBAY INC. COMM.

FOR RESPONSIBLE INTERNET, INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS ASSOCIATION, PPL PEOPLE FOR GOOD

GOVERNMENT, RELIANT ENERGY, INC PAC, SYNIVERSE TECHNOLOGIES PAC, AMERICAN

BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION PAC, AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL PAC, CONSUMER ELECTRONICS

ASSOCIATION PAC, AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION PAC, AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, CWA-

COPE PCC, INTERNATL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY

PAC, NATIONAL TURKEY FEDERATION PAC, INTEGRA PAC, PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS, LLP,

SUEZ ENERGY NORTH AMERICA, INC PAC, TECO ENERGY, INC PAC, UNITED STEELWORKERS OF

AMERICA, WACHOVIA CORPORATION EMPLOYEES PAC, AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION PAC,

CALPINE CORPORATION PAC, CARPENTERS LEGISLATIVE IMPROVEMENT COMM,

CONSTELLATION ENERGY GROUP PAC, CONTINENTAL AIRLINES EMPL FUND PAC

Page 29: MILKING THE CASH COWMILKING THE CASH COW A powerful factor in my decision was the searing reality that I would have had to spend half of every day between now and the next election

27. http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Virginia_U.S._House_election,_2006#VA-09.

28. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracewell_&_Giuliani

29. “Ed Krenik, Scott Segal Named Best Hired Guns,” May 13, 2008,

http://www.bracewellgiuliani.com/index.cfm/fa/news.release/item/14ea7180-0ab0-4047-a2e7-4520134a28d6/Ed_Kr

enik_Scott_Segal_Named_Best_Hired_Guns.cfm.

30. Business Wire, “Nation's Leading Air Quality Policy and Compliance Expert Joins Bracewell & Giuliani,” Oct

26, 2006.

31. http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml.

32. http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml.

33. “WEPCO Listed Among Big donors to GOP’s Policy Issues ‘Forum’,” Madison, Wi. Capital Times, July 31,

1997, p 1A.

34. ”Tri-state-area lobbyists,” Gannett News Service, July 1, 1997.

35. Jeffrey St. Clair, “U.S.-Environment: Energy Companies Blow Off Smog Rules,” Inter Press Service English

News Wire, Jan. 28, 1997.