Woof JDN,
 That is the genius behind the Lefts' political correctness. They can define anything, in part or as a whole, for any amount of time, as being some terrible thing. Political correctness is going to insure our ultimate defeat in any war we have to undertake if we don't secure the victory. And if you can find anywhere in the history of man where at least a short term form of occupation or form of imperialism wasn't used to successfully do it, I'd like you to name it. You completely ignored what I actually said and redefined it as being oil for blood. I said the Iraqi's should pay for what we have spent there, meaning the cost of their reconstruction, not the cost of our blood and treasure or for our profit and I clarified that in a follow up post which you ignored all together so you could continue your attack and add to it the asinine crap about Cuba just to further distort the debate and malign me personally; all the while not directly addressing me. That is a very disrespectful way of debate and verge's on being dishonest. However, time will tell as to what is going to be the out come in Iraq, the die has been cast, and I'm afraid it's going to be much worse than if we had kept at least a presence there. @JDN THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER DEBATE BETWEEN ME AND YOU ON THIS SUBJECT.
              P.C.

Woof JDN,
 I don't deny that, and I know those labels, just like being called Hitler or racist can be applied broadly enough to discredit any solution to any problem. Nothing happens in war without some pain but that doesn't mean the pain lasts forever. The reality is, one: Iraq should pay for it's own reconstruction because they can afford it, and it is they that benefit from it not us. I didn't say load up the ships then set fire to what's left or let's make a profit off the deal, but quite frankly we couldn't afford to do this on our own, and two: our enemies are going to grab the oil for themselves after we leave and they are going to set fire to the place. So short term name calling or long term failure. The President has picked failure.
                                                     P.C.
 

Woof,
 
 I said way back when, that we would give them a chance at a free society and in the end we would just walk away from it and leave them to their own designs. I also said that they didn't have a chance in hell of keeping it free after we left. I'm glad Saddam is gone, I'm glad we killed a lot of terrorist fighters there. I feel sorry for the Iraqi people that do want freedom. We should have done it like we did Japan, but there were too many people invested in it's failure back here at home to have had that kind of success. It takes commitment to do things right, unfortunately our News Media and Press are committed to an ideology that breeds failures like this then they will turn their back on the massacre to come and have no shame in saying they are not to blame, much like the million or so slaughtered after we pulled out of Vietnam. It won't come as immediate as Vietnam but in time it will.

 The President was correct in not celebrating this as victory in Iraq, because it is not a victory, it's a retreat from the frontlines of the war on Western civilization by the Islamic Fascist's. We should be building more bases in Iraq, right in Iran's backyard, not shutting them down. Iraq should be paying us in oil for every cent we have spent there too. History has shown us that you must win a peace and that you cannot retreat your way to it. Retreats, most often end in massacre's. For you Liberal, so called, peace activist's out there that have facilitated this result, and are celebrating this as being the end of the Iraq war; the war there is just starting, thanks to you.
                                             P.C.

Mexico says captured cartel leader had arsenal
By E. EDUARDO CASTILLO | AP – Tue, Dec 13, 2011Email
…
MEXICO CITY (AP) — Mexican authorities said Tuesday that an alleged founder of the Zetas drug cartel had an arsenal of 169 weapons when he was captured Monday, and may have been linked to the abduction of nine Mexican marines.

Navy spokesman Jose Luis Vergara said suspect Raul Lucio Hernandez Lechuga oversaw Zetas operations around the Gulf coast state of Veracruz, where nine marines disappeared earlier this year.

Vergara said a suspect was killed and a marine wounded in a firefight that erupted during Hernandez Lechuga's capture Monday in the Veracruz state city of Cordoba. The bust was the result of a yearlong intelligence operation, Vergara said.

Marines found 133 rifles, five grenade launchers, 29 grenades and 36 pistols at the scene of the raid near a highway. Marines also found bulletproof vests with the letter "Z'', the zetas symbol, on the front.

Vergara said Hernandez Lechuga was one of Mexico's 37 most wanted drug traffickers, and that with his arrest, 22 of those 37 have either been killed or detained.

The Zetas have been linked to some of the apparent abductions of Mexican marines, but Vergara didn't say what specific evidence authorities had of Hernandez Lechuga's involvement in the cases.

The apparent abductions of Mexican navy personnel have been shrouded in mystery, with the navy previously acknowledging that three marines and a navy cadet were abducted by suspected drug cartel gunmen in August in Veracruz, the state's largest city.

Later that month, the navy said it had found four bodies in a pit on the outskirts of Veracruz city, and that the remains might be those of the missing marines, but it never publicly confirmed that was the case.

At a Tuesday news conference where Hernandez Lechuga and four alleged associates were paraded before the media, Vergara said a total of nine marines had disappeared, but didn't say whether any of them had been found.

Mexican drug cartels have kidnapped and killed military personnel before, but such incidents remain relatively rare.

Hernandez Lechuga was the leader of the Zetas in about 10 states, including Veracruz. The federal government had offered a reward of 15 million pesos, or about $1.2 million, for information leading to his arrest. Vergara said the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration was also offering a $1 million reward for Hernandez Lechuga, known by the nickname "Lucky."

The Zetas organization was formed by a small group of elite soldiers based in Tamaulipas state, across the border from Texas, who deserted to work for the Gulf drug cartel in the 1990s.

The Zetas split from their former allies in the Gulf cartel last year, setting off bloody fights throughout Mexico as they sought to expand south.

In Veracruz, the Zetas are believed to be locked in a bloody turf battle with groups allied with the Sinaloa cartel.

Also Tuesday, gunmen killed a town's deputy mayor and her bodyguard and wounded the town's police chief and his family while they were in the northern city of Chihuahua, authorities said.

Attackers opened fire on the two cars being used by the officials from the town of Gran Morelos, said the Chihuahua state prosecutors' spokesman, Carlos Gonzalez.

He said deputy mayor Idalia Ayala and her bodyguard died in one car. Police chief Miguel Gomez was in the second with his wife and two children, and all were wounded and taken to a hospital, Gonzalez said.

Gomez was named police chief after last month's arrest of Gran Morelos' top cop. Authorities said soldiers caught the police chief while he and police officers from the nearby town of Belisario Dominguez met with a boss for La Linea, a gang of hit men for the Juarez Cartel.

In neighboring Coahuila state, gunmen killed the director of the prison in the capital city of Saltillo, authorities said.

Serafin Pena Santos was ambushed Tuesday afternoon as he drove through a residential area of the northern city, state prosecutors said in a statement.

Prosecutors didn't give a motive in the killing, but said the assailants used automatic rifles, weapons commonly used by Mexico's drug traffickers.

___

Associated Press writers Ricardo Chavez in Ciudad Juarez and Oscar Villalba in Piedras Negras contributed to this report.

                                                          P.C.

Exclusive: Iran hijacked US drone, says Iranian engineer
In an exclusive interview, an engineer working to unlock the secrets of the captured RQ-170 Sentinel says they exploited a known vulnerability and tricked the US drone into landing in Iran.
By Scott Peterson, Payam Faramarzi* | Christian Science Monitor – 11 hrs agoEmail

Iran guided the CIA's "lost" stealth drone to an intact landing inside hostile territory by exploiting a navigational weakness long-known to the US military, according to an Iranian engineer now working on the captured drone's systems inside Iran.

Iranian electronic warfare specialists were able to cut off communications links of the American bat-wing RQ-170 Sentinel, says the engineer, who works for one of many Iranian military and civilian teams currently trying to unravel the drone’s stealth and intelligence secrets, and who could not be named for his safety.

Using knowledge gleaned from previous downed American drones and a technique proudly claimed by Iranian commanders in September, the Iranian specialists then reconfigured the drone's GPS coordinates to make it land in Iran at what the drone thought was its actual home base in Afghanistan.


"The GPS navigation is the weakest point," the Iranian engineer told the Monitor, giving the most detailed description yet published of Iran's "electronic ambush" of the highly classified US drone. "By putting noise [jamming] on the communications, you force the bird into autopilot. This is where the bird loses its brain."

The “spoofing” technique that the Iranians used – which took into account precise landing altitudes, as well as latitudinal and longitudinal data – made the drone “land on its own where we wanted it to, without having to crack the remote-control signals and communications” from the US control center, says the engineer.

The revelations about Iran's apparent electronic prowess come as the US, Israel, and some European nations appear to be engaged in an ever-widening covert war with Iran, which has seen assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, explosions at Iran's missile and industrial facilities, and the Stuxnet computer virus that set back Iran’s nuclear program.

Now this engineer’s account of how Iran took over one of America’s most sophisticated drones suggests Tehran has found a way to hit back. The techniques were developed from reverse-engineering several less sophisticated American drones captured or shot down in recent years, the engineer says, and by taking advantage of weak, easily manipulated GPS signals, which calculate location and speed from multiple satellites.

Western military experts and a number of published papers on GPS spoofing indicate that the scenario described by the Iranian engineer is plausible.

"Even modern combat-grade GPS [is] very susceptible” to manipulation, says former US Navy electronic warfare specialist Robert Densmore, adding that it is “certainly possible” to recalibrate the GPS on a drone so that it flies on a different course. “I wouldn't say it's easy, but the technology is there.”

In 2009, Iran-backed Shiite militants in Iraq were found to have downloaded live, unencrypted video streams from American Predator drones with inexpensive, off-the-shelf software. But Iran’s apparent ability now to actually take control of a drone is far more significant.

Iran asserted its ability to do this in September, as pressure mounted over its nuclear program.

Gen. Moharam Gholizadeh, the deputy for electronic warfare at the air defense headquarters of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), described to Fars News how Iran could alter the path of a GPS-guided missile – a tactic more easily applied to a slower-moving drone.

“We have a project on hand that is one step ahead of jamming, meaning ‘deception’ of the aggressive systems,” said Gholizadeh, such that “we can define our own desired information for it so the path of the missile would change to our desired destination.”

Gholizadeh said that “all the movements of these [enemy drones]” were being watched, and “obstructing” their work was “always on our agenda.”

That interview has since been pulled from Fars’ Persian-language website. And last month, the relatively young Gholizadeh died of a heart attack, which some Iranian news sites called suspicious – suggesting the electronic warfare expert may have been a casualty in the covert war against Iran.

Iran's growing electronic capabilities
Iranian lawmakers say the drone capture is a "great epic" and claim to be "in the final steps of breaking into the aircraft's secret code."

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told Fox News on Dec. 13 that the US will "absolutely" continue the drone campaign over Iran, looking for evidence of any nuclear weapons work. But the stakes are higher for such surveillance, now that Iran can apparently disrupt the work of US drones.

US officials skeptical of Iran’s capabilities blame a malfunction, but so far can't explain how Iran acquired the drone intact. One American analyst ridiculed Iran’s capability, telling Defense News that the loss was “like dropping a Ferrari into an ox-cart technology culture.”

Yet Iran’s claims to the contrary resonate more in light of new details about how it brought down the drone – and other markers that signal growing electronic expertise.

A former senior Iranian official who asked not to be named said: "There are a lot of human resources in Iran.... Iran is not like Pakistan."

“Technologically, our distance from the Americans, the Zionists, and other advanced countries is not so far to make the downing of this plane seem like a dream for us … but it could be amazing for others,” deputy IRGC commander Gen. Hossein Salami said this week.

According to a European intelligence source, Iran shocked Western intelligence agencies in a previously unreported incident that took place sometime in the past two years, when it managed to “blind” a CIA spy satellite by “aiming a laser burst quite accurately.”

More recently, Iran was able to hack Google security certificates, says the engineer. In September, the Google accounts of 300,000 Iranians were made accessible by hackers. The targeted company said "circumstantial evidence" pointed to a "state-driven attack" coming from Iran, meant to snoop on users.

Cracking the protected GPS coordinates on the Sentinel drone was no more difficult, asserts the engineer.

US knew of GPS systems' vulnerability
Use of drones has become more risky as adversaries like Iran hone countermeasures. The US military has reportedly been aware of vulnerabilities with pirating unencrypted drone data streams since the Bosnia campaign in the mid-1990s.

Top US officials said in 2009 that they were working to encrypt all drone data streams in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan – after finding militant laptops loaded with days' worth of data in Iraq – and acknowledged that they were "subject to listening and exploitation."

Perhaps as easily exploited are the GPS navigational systems upon which so much of the modern military depends.

"GPS signals are weak and can be easily outpunched [overridden] by poorly controlled signals from television towers, devices such as laptops and MP3 players, or even mobile satellite services," Andrew Dempster, a professor from the University of New South Wales School of Surveying and Spatial Information Systems, told a March conference on GPS vulnerability in Australia.

"This is not only a significant hazard for military, industrial, and civilian transport and communication systems, but criminals have worked out how they can jam GPS," he says.

The US military has sought for years to fortify or find alternatives to the GPS system of satellites, which are used for both military and civilian purposes. In 2003, a “Vulnerability Assessment Team” at Los Alamos National Laboratory published research explaining how weak GPS signals were easily overwhelmed with a stronger local signal.

“A more pernicious attack involves feeding the GPS receiver fake GPS signals so that it believes it is located somewhere in space and time that it is not,” reads the Los Alamos report. “In a sophisticated spoofing attack, the adversary would send a false signal reporting the moving target’s true position and then gradually walk the target to a false position.”

The vulnerability remains unresolved, and a paper presented at a Chicago communications security conference in October laid out parameters for successful spoofing of both civilian and military GPS units to allow a "seamless takeover" of drones or other targets.

To “better cope with hostile electronic attacks,” the US Air Force in late September awarded two $47 million contracts to develop a "navigation warfare" system to replace GPS on aircraft and missiles, according to the Defense Update website.

Official US data on GPS describes "the ongoing GPS modernization program" for the Air Force, which "will enhance the jam resistance of the military GPS service, making it more robust."

Why the drone's underbelly was damaged
Iran's drone-watching project began in 2007, says the Iranian engineer, and then was stepped up and became public in 2009 – the same year that the RQ-170 was first deployed in Afghanistan with what were then state-of-the-art surveillance systems.

In January, Iran said it had shot down two conventional (nonstealth) drones, and in July, Iran showed Russian experts several US drones – including one that had been watching over the underground uranium enrichment facility at Fordo, near the holy city of Qom.

In capturing the stealth drone this month at Kashmar, 140 miles inside northeast Iran, the Islamic Republic appears to have learned from two years of close observation.

Iran displayed the drone on state-run TV last week, with a dent in the left wing and the undercarriage and landing gear hidden by anti-American banners.

The Iranian engineer explains why: "If you look at the location where we made it land and the bird's home base, they both have [almost] the same altitude," says the Iranian engineer. "There was a problem [of a few meters] with the exact altitude so the bird's underbelly was damaged in landing; that's why it was covered in the broadcast footage."

Prior to the disappearance of the stealth drone earlier this month, Iran’s electronic warfare capabilities were largely unknown – and often dismissed.

"We all feel drunk [with happiness] now," says the Iranian engineer. "Have you ever had a new laptop? Imagine that excitement multiplied many-fold." When the Revolutionary Guard first recovered the drone, they were aware it might be rigged to self-destruct, but they "were so excited they could not stay away."

* Scott Peterson, the Monitor's Middle East correspondent, wrote this story with an Iranian journalist who publishes under the pen name Payam Faramarzi and cannot be further identified for security reasons.

                                                 P.C.

Woof dreatx,
 Certain members of our society are targeted by criminals because they can't fight back so well, and to use a knife or impact weapon you still need to be able to block blows and get around their blocks to make contact with the weapon. Often there are more than one attacker and while you're tied up with one of them going toe to toe, trying to stick your knife in him, his buddies are stabbing you to death or pull out their guns and shoot you. If you have your wife and family with you, what's happening to them while you are knife fighting, are you going to hold all them bad guys at knife point or worse stick point? One of them is going to grab your kid. There are other reasons why concealed firearms are needed for personal protection out on the street, but one that is often ignored is the deterrent factor. If the bad guys can't tell who's armed then even a little old lady doesn't look so helpless to them.
                                                           P.C.

Exclusive: Iran hijacked US drone, says Iranian engineer

In an exclusive interview, an engineer working to unlock the secrets of the captured RQ-170 Sentinel says they exploited a known vulnerability and tricked the US drone into landing in Iran.
By Scott Peterson, Payam Faramarzi* | Christian Science Monitor – 11 hrs agoEmail
 Iran guided the CIA's "lost" stealth drone to an intact landing inside hostile territory by exploiting a navigational weakness long-known to the US military, according to an Iranian engineer now working on the captured drone's systems inside Iran.

Iranian electronic warfare specialists were able to cut off communications links of the American bat-wing RQ-170 Sentinel, says the engineer, who works for one of many Iranian military and civilian teams currently trying to unravel the drone’s stealth and intelligence secrets, and who could not be named for his safety.

Using knowledge gleaned from previous downed American drones and a technique proudly claimed by Iranian commanders in September, the Iranian specialists then reconfigured the drone's GPS coordinates to make it land in Iran at what the drone thought was its actual home base in Afghanistan.


"The GPS navigation is the weakest point," the Iranian engineer told the Monitor, giving the most detailed description yet published of Iran's "electronic ambush" of the highly classified US drone. "By putting noise [jamming] on the communications, you force the bird into autopilot. This is where the bird loses its brain."

The “spoofing” technique that the Iranians used – which took into account precise landing altitudes, as well as latitudinal and longitudinal data – made the drone “land on its own where we wanted it to, without having to crack the remote-control signals and communications” from the US control center, says the engineer.

The revelations about Iran's apparent electronic prowess come as the US, Israel, and some European nations appear to be engaged in an ever-widening covert war with Iran, which has seen assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, explosions at Iran's missile and industrial facilities, and the Stuxnet computer virus that set back Iran’s nuclear program.

Now this engineer’s account of how Iran took over one of America’s most sophisticated drones suggests Tehran has found a way to hit back. The techniques were developed from reverse-engineering several less sophisticated American drones captured or shot down in recent years, the engineer says, and by taking advantage of weak, easily manipulated GPS signals, which calculate location and speed from multiple satellites.

Western military experts and a number of published papers on GPS spoofing indicate that the scenario described by the Iranian engineer is plausible.

"Even modern combat-grade GPS [is] very susceptible” to manipulation, says former US Navy electronic warfare specialist Robert Densmore, adding that it is “certainly possible” to recalibrate the GPS on a drone so that it flies on a different course. “I wouldn't say it's easy, but the technology is there.”

In 2009, Iran-backed Shiite militants in Iraq were found to have downloaded live, unencrypted video streams from American Predator drones with inexpensive, off-the-shelf software. But Iran’s apparent ability now to actually take control of a drone is far more significant.

Iran asserted its ability to do this in September, as pressure mounted over its nuclear program.

Gen. Moharam Gholizadeh, the deputy for electronic warfare at the air defense headquarters of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), described to Fars News how Iran could alter the path of a GPS-guided missile – a tactic more easily applied to a slower-moving drone.

“We have a project on hand that is one step ahead of jamming, meaning ‘deception’ of the aggressive systems,” said Gholizadeh, such that “we can define our own desired information for it so the path of the missile would change to our desired destination.”

Gholizadeh said that “all the movements of these [enemy drones]” were being watched, and “obstructing” their work was “always on our agenda.”

That interview has since been pulled from Fars’ Persian-language website. And last month, the relatively young Gholizadeh died of a heart attack, which some Iranian news sites called suspicious – suggesting the electronic warfare expert may have been a casualty in the covert war against Iran.

Iran's growing electronic capabilities
Iranian lawmakers say the drone capture is a "great epic" and claim to be "in the final steps of breaking into the aircraft's secret code."

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told Fox News on Dec. 13 that the US will "absolutely" continue the drone campaign over Iran, looking for evidence of any nuclear weapons work. But the stakes are higher for such surveillance, now that Iran can apparently disrupt the work of US drones.

US officials skeptical of Iran’s capabilities blame a malfunction, but so far can't explain how Iran acquired the drone intact. One American analyst ridiculed Iran’s capability, telling Defense News that the loss was “like dropping a Ferrari into an ox-cart technology culture.”

Yet Iran’s claims to the contrary resonate more in light of new details about how it brought down the drone – and other markers that signal growing electronic expertise.

A former senior Iranian official who asked not to be named said: "There are a lot of human resources in Iran.... Iran is not like Pakistan."

“Technologically, our distance from the Americans, the Zionists, and other advanced countries is not so far to make the downing of this plane seem like a dream for us … but it could be amazing for others,” deputy IRGC commander Gen. Hossein Salami said this week.

According to a European intelligence source, Iran shocked Western intelligence agencies in a previously unreported incident that took place sometime in the past two years, when it managed to “blind” a CIA spy satellite by “aiming a laser burst quite accurately.”

More recently, Iran was able to hack Google security certificates, says the engineer. In September, the Google accounts of 300,000 Iranians were made accessible by hackers. The targeted company said "circumstantial evidence" pointed to a "state-driven attack" coming from Iran, meant to snoop on users.

Cracking the protected GPS coordinates on the Sentinel drone was no more difficult, asserts the engineer.

US knew of GPS systems' vulnerability
Use of drones has become more risky as adversaries like Iran hone countermeasures. The US military has reportedly been aware of vulnerabilities with pirating unencrypted drone data streams since the Bosnia campaign in the mid-1990s.

Top US officials said in 2009 that they were working to encrypt all drone data streams in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan – after finding militant laptops loaded with days' worth of data in Iraq – and acknowledged that they were "subject to listening and exploitation."

Perhaps as easily exploited are the GPS navigational systems upon which so much of the modern military depends.

"GPS signals are weak and can be easily outpunched [overridden] by poorly controlled signals from television towers, devices such as laptops and MP3 players, or even mobile satellite services," Andrew Dempster, a professor from the University of New South Wales School of Surveying and Spatial Information Systems, told a March conference on GPS vulnerability in Australia.

"This is not only a significant hazard for military, industrial, and civilian transport and communication systems, but criminals have worked out how they can jam GPS," he says.

The US military has sought for years to fortify or find alternatives to the GPS system of satellites, which are used for both military and civilian purposes. In 2003, a “Vulnerability Assessment Team” at Los Alamos National Laboratory published research explaining how weak GPS signals were easily overwhelmed with a stronger local signal.

“A more pernicious attack involves feeding the GPS receiver fake GPS signals so that it believes it is located somewhere in space and time that it is not,” reads the Los Alamos report. “In a sophisticated spoofing attack, the adversary would send a false signal reporting the moving target’s true position and then gradually walk the target to a false position.”

The vulnerability remains unresolved, and a paper presented at a Chicago communications security conference in October laid out parameters for successful spoofing of both civilian and military GPS units to allow a "seamless takeover" of drones or other targets.

To “better cope with hostile electronic attacks,” the US Air Force in late September awarded two $47 million contracts to develop a "navigation warfare" system to replace GPS on aircraft and missiles, according to the Defense Update website.

Official US data on GPS describes "the ongoing GPS modernization program" for the Air Force, which "will enhance the jam resistance of the military GPS service, making it more robust."

Why the drone's underbelly was damaged
Iran's drone-watching project began in 2007, says the Iranian engineer, and then was stepped up and became public in 2009 – the same year that the RQ-170 was first deployed in Afghanistan with what were then state-of-the-art surveillance systems.

In January, Iran said it had shot down two conventional (nonstealth) drones, and in July, Iran showed Russian experts several US drones – including one that had been watching over the underground uranium enrichment facility at Fordo, near the holy city of Qom.

In capturing the stealth drone this month at Kashmar, 140 miles inside northeast Iran, the Islamic Republic appears to have learned from two years of close observation.

Iran displayed the drone on state-run TV last week, with a dent in the left wing and the undercarriage and landing gear hidden by anti-American banners.

The Iranian engineer explains why: "If you look at the location where we made it land and the bird's home base, they both have [almost] the same altitude," says the Iranian engineer. "There was a problem [of a few meters] with the exact altitude so the bird's underbelly was damaged in landing; that's why it was covered in the broadcast footage."

Prior to the disappearance of the stealth drone earlier this month, Iran’s electronic warfare capabilities were largely unknown – and often dismissed.

"We all feel drunk [with happiness] now," says the Iranian engineer. "Have you ever had a new laptop? Imagine that excitement multiplied many-fold." When the Revolutionary Guard first recovered the drone, they were aware it might be rigged to self-destruct, but they "were so excited they could not stay away."

* Scott Peterson, the Monitor's Middle East correspondent, wrote this story with an Iranian journalist who publishes under the pen name Payam Faramarzi and cannot be further identified for security reasons.

                                            P.C.

Woof,
 The short answer is because those guns were counted as illegal guns that were traced back to America and those numbers were used to call for more gun control laws and restrictions in the U.S.
                                     P.C.

Woof dreatx,
 
 You will probably have trouble hashing the statistic's out on that one. Most private and government entities that are interested in such numbers usually only want to use them for political fodder, and since most big cities (where most of the crimes and deaths occur), are ran by Liberals, they are generally only interested in keeping records on gun deaths committed by violent criminals. They are not all that interested in how many people are stabbed or beaten to death and they are definitely not interested in how many people legally and successfully defend themselves against violence, by any method; gun or otherwise.

 You see if they started keeping those kinds of records then that would show how many innocent lives were potentially saved by the use of a weapon in the hands of a law abiding citizen. They are afraid of that number because then they wouldn't be able to justify their calls for more gun control. Why would they want more gun control that restricts law abiding citizens from having guns, when the crooks and murderer's just break those laws, leaving citizens defenseless?

 Well, they want you to need government protection, that way they can hire government employee's (cops, fire fighters, teachers, all unionized of course), that will also be dependant on a government check and benefits, then after they have wasted your tax dollars and need more, they can threaten you with taking the police off the street and let the riots, looting and burning begin. That's only half of it though; you see they need criminals to make this work, so they crowd millions of people into certain areas of these big liberal city's, make sure that all the jobs dry up or get sent overseas, then put a government roof over their head and give them just enough food stamps to keep them alive, make them angry at the world by telling them slavery from 200 hundred years ago put them there, then just set back and wait until the despair, depression, and hopelessness of their situation drives them to self medicate with illegal drugs and alcohol and turn to crime to get the money they need to buy the things they need and want.

 Of course drug users, attract drug dealers, and things get violent when they compete with each other, so they need gangs and the gangs raise the kids, because daddy is in jail and mom is stoned. You keep the borders wide open so the drugs keep coming and as a added benefit you get illegal immigrants and they fill any jobs left and also become depended on government handouts. You don't let prayer or the Ten Commandments in the schools because prayer might give them hope and the Commandments might contradict what they learn in the gangs. You know, all that 'thou shalt not kill' crap. Of course they won't be in school long anyway because most will drop out, which doesn't bother the teachers, so long as they get more pay and benefits and if they don't, they'll strike with the cops and fire fighters.

 Now the government has a nice little round robin, closed system, to manipulate and control, all for their own corrupt reasons and benefit. It's really a brilliant scheme because the elite in the government get all the power and money and then they blame all the problems on guns, or slavery from 200 hundred years ago, or greedy corporations, or global warming or guns (did I say guns twice?). They are really creative when it comes to finding something to blame while they keep accumulating power and control. Well, I got little off your question there but to answer it. No, no one knows how that breaks down.
                                            
                                  P.C.

Woof,
 The answer is next.
            P.C.

Woof JDN,
 First you claim that Americans aren't concerned about the thousands of murders taking place in Mexico and now you want Americans to ignore one of our government agency's that has help facilitate some of those deaths as well as the death of one of our Border Patrol agents. If it was a mistake, do you want it to happen again? If people do ignore it, that will almost guarantee it will happen again. If it was a legit sting that was botched by some kind of half ass political play and interference from the Administration, don't you think something like that should be ferreted out? Do you think people inside this Administration and the government are going to do that without any pressure from We the People? Of course not. You're an intelligent guy but some of your post's aren't congruent enough for anyone to nail down what your viewpoint is and they leave some of us feeling somewhat schizophrenic in trying to figure out how or even what to respond to. I think you are conflicted on various points of the issue and need to work those out for yourself. I'm not attacking you or telling you what to think but I believe you have some important points to make and once you reslove and more precisely define how you feel about them I think you'll find that you are not as embattled here by the other poster's as it seems right now. I think part of what you are saying is that you don't want this to turn into a political witchhunt if in fact it was just an operation they lost control of, and you also seem to be saying even if there was some failings by higher ups no one really has the moral high ground to beat them over the head with it because stuff like this happens all the time regardless of who's in office and there is little if any evidence of intentional wrong doing so far. On the other hand you accuse and lament that American's don't care about what happens in Mexico but at the same time they should ignore this story and not be concerned about the reasoning or motovations that went into this operation that violated Mexico's sovereignty and adds to the violence of the cartels against eachother and innocent citizens, then you say it's awful and terrible that this happened. So right now what I'm getting from all this is that: It's bad that this happened, American's are heartless, there's no evidence it was politically motivated even though it involved illegal guns being moved across the border, which is a political hot topic of this Administration and an issue they have been using as a reason for more gun control but none of that should be looked at, and no one should be held accountable if it was a mistake and American's shouldn't care if it was a mistake or not.
                                        P.C.

Woof JDN,
 Really??? Come off it man.
                  P.C.

Woof GM,
 Ha! Good update.
                P.C.

Iran claims its experts almost done recovering data from captured US drone
Nasser Karimi, The Associated Press  Dec 12, 2011 13:45:00 PM
0

TEHRAN, Iran - Iranian experts are in the final stages of recovering data from the U.S. surveillance drone captured by the country's armed forces, state TV reported Monday.
Tehran has flaunted the capture of the RQ-170 Sentinel, a top-secret aircraft with stealth technology, as a victory for Iran and a defeat for the United States in a complicated intelligence and technological battle.
President Barack Obama said Monday that the U.S. was pressing Iran to return the aircraft, which U.S. officials say malfunctioned and was not brought down by Iran. But a senior commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard said on Sunday that the country would not send it back, adding that "no one returns the symbol of aggression."
Iranian lawmaker Parviz Sorouri, a member of the parliament's national security and foreign policy committee, said Monday the extracted information will be used to file a lawsuit against the United States for what he called the "invasion" by the unmanned aircraft.
Sorouri also claimed that Iran has the capability to reproduce the drone through reverse engineering, but he did not elaborate.
State TV broadcast images Thursday of Iranian military officials inspecting what it identified as the drone. Iranian state media have said the unmanned spy aircraft was detected and brought down over the country's east, near the border with Afghanistan.
Officers in the Revolutionary Guard, Iran's most powerful military force, have claimed the country's armed forces brought down the surveillance aircraft with an electronic ambush, causing minimum damage to the drone.
American officials have said that U.S. intelligence assessments indicate that Iran neither shot the drone down, nor used electronic or cybertechnology to force it from the sky. They contend the drone malfunctioned. The officials spoke anonymously in order to discuss the classified program.
U.S. officials are concerned others may be able to reverse engineer the chemical composition of the drone's radar-deflecting paint or the aircraft's sophisticated optics technology that allows operators to positively identify terror suspects from tens of thousands of feet in the air.
They are also worried adversaries may be able to hack into the drone's database, although it is not clear whether any data could be recovered. Some surveillance technologies allow video to stream through to operators on the ground but do not store much collected data. If they do, it is encrypted.
Separately, in comments to the semi-official ISNA news agency, Sorouri said Iran would soon hold a navy drill to practice the closure of the strategic Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, which is the passageway for about 40 per cent of the world's oil tanker traffic.
Despite Sorouri's comments and past threats that Iran could seal off the waterway if the U.S. or Israel moved against Iranian nuclear facilities, no such exercise has been officially announced.
"Iran will make the world unsafe" if the world attacks Iran, Sorouri said.
Both the U.S. and Israel have not rule out military option against Iran's controversial nuclear program, which the West suspects is aimed at making atomic weapons. Iran denies the charge, saying its nuclear activities are geared toward peaceful purposes like power generation.
In another sign of the increasing tensions between Iran and the U.S., Tehran said Monday it has asked Interpol to help seek the arrest of two former U.S. officials it accuses of supporting the assassinations of Iranian officials.
Iran's state prosecutor, Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejehei, told reporters that Iran has filed charges against retired U.S. Army Gen. Jack Keane and former CIA agent Reuel Marc Gerecht.
Ejehei said Iran sent a request to Interpol in Paris to help pursue the two Americans through its office in Washington.
Iran says the two men urged the Obama administration to use covert action against Iran and kill some of its top officials, including Brig. Gen. Ghassem Soleimani commander of the Quds Force, the special foreign operations unit of the Revolutionary Guard.

Woof,
 This, along with a Sentinel stealth done losing it's satellite tether and gliding to a landing in Iran, might be of concern.

By Jason Ryan
@JasonRyanABC
Follow on Twitter
Nov 16, 2011 8:11pm
US Satellites Compromised by Malicious Cyber Activity
 
On at least two occasions, hackers have taken over U.S. satellites and targeted their command-and-control systems, a report by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission revealed today.
The incidents involved two Earth observation satellites. While it may be difficult to trace who hacked the satellites, U.S. officials acknowledged the incidents had to come from a nation power.
U.S. officials cannot clearly trace the incidents to China, but the report released by the by congressionally mandated commission noted that Chinese military writings made reference to attacks on ground-based space communications facilities.
“Chinese military writings advocate attacks on space-to ground communications links and ground-based satellite control facilities in the event of a conflict. Such facilities may be vulnerable,” the report noted, “In recent years, two U.S. government satellites have experienced interference apparently consistent with the cyber exploitation of their control facility.”
The report noted that some of the malicious cyber activity targeting the satellites involved NASA’s Terra EOS satellite being targeted in June 2008 and again in October 2008. The June incident resulted in the satellite being interfered with for two minutes and the October incident lasted at least nine minutes.
The report noted that in both instances, “The responsible party achieved all steps required to command the satellite but did not issue commands.”
NASA confirmed in a separate statement: “NASA experienced two suspicious events with the Terra spacecraft in the summer and fall of 2008. We can confirm that there was no manipulation of data, no commands were successfully sent to the satellite, and no data was captured. NASA notified the Department of Defense, which is responsible for investigating any attempted interference with satellite operations.”
The report noted that the Landsat-7 satellite operated by the U.S. Geological Survey experienced similar interference and events in 2007 and 2008 but added that the entity behind that incident did not achieve the ability to control the satellite.

Artist's rendering of the Terra Satellite (source: NASA)

The report mentions the serious implications the intrusions could have on the satellite systems, particularly if they were directed against more sensitive systems such as military or communications satellites.
“If executed successfully, such interference has the potential to pose numerous threats, particularly if achieved against satellites with more sensitive functions. For example, access to a satellite’s controls could allow an attacker to damage or destroy the satellite,” the report read.
“The attacker could also deny or degrade as well as forge or otherwise manipulate the satellite’s transmission,” the report added. “A high level of access could reveal the satellite’s capabilities or information, such as imagery, gained through its sensors. Opportunities may also exist to reconnoiter or compromise other terrestrial or space based networks used by the satellite.”

JEFF ST. JOHN: NOVEMBER 21, 2011
Reports Claim First-Ever Cyber Attack on US Utility
The first cyber attack on utility infrastructure may have finally arrived via a hacked SCADA system and a broken-down water pump in rural Illinois.


We’ve been reporting for years how linking the internet to grid communications and control technology could open the country’s utilities to cyber attack. On Friday came reports of what may be the first such hack to cause physical damage to the country’s electric, water or gas infrastructure -- a burned-out water pump at a small utility in Illinois.

That’s not such a big deal in terms of damage caused. But if the report is true, it indicates that nefarious actors may have strung together several key stages of security vulnerabilities to infiltrate, then take control of, a piece of automated utility infrastructure -- and that could be a very big deal indeed.

Here’s the story. Earlier this month, workers at a small utility in central Illinois found a problem with the SCADA industrial controls that manage their water system, including a damaged water pump. An investigation by an IT services company found that the SCADA system had been hacked into by a computer in Russia, according to Joe Weiss, managing partner of cybersecurity firm Applied Control Solutions in Cupertino, Calif.

Weiss, who cited a report he said came from the Illinois Statewide Terrorism and Intelligence Center (ISTIC), said that unknown hackers had taken over control of the SCADA system and turned the pump on and off until it burned out. The hackers had apparently stolen entry credentials from a company that makes software to access the SCADA system -- and Weiss said the same hackers could be planning future attacks using the same means and methods.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has told multiple news agencies reporting on this matter that it has no evidence that indicates there is a risk to utilities or public safety. Still, DHS and the FBI are investigating the matter.

Breaking Down the Risks

We need to wait for more facts to emerge on this murky matter. But there’s no getting around the fact that security is a major challenge for utilities that are seeking to secure legacy control systems that are being hooked up to the internet for the first time. Let’s break down the alleged SCADA hack in Illinois, and see how it could have happened, taking as examples some of the cybersecurity problems that have been identified for utilities over the past few years.

First, where could potential attackers have found the credentials they needed to access a utility SCADA system? One significant possibility is that the hackers took advantage of poor human management of security by fooling employees into turning over critical passwords or other credential information that they could exploit. That kind of “social engineering” is still a key concern for utility security, and requires employee training as much as software expertise to prevent.

Human failures can also open newly networked utility systems to remote attacks. Tom Parker, vice president at computer security firm FusionX, showed at a Black Hat conference in August how he could use simple code and Google searches to theoretically take control of a water treatment facility’s remote terminal units (RTUs), particularly when the RTUs are protected by the password “1234” -- the easiest password to guess besides the word “password” itself.

Even if SCADA system operators aren’t using idiotic passwords and are taking proper measures to protect their security credentials, there are harder-to-prevent ways to pull access and security data out of them. One scary possibility is that the hackers had accessed the utility’s SCADA system for months beforehand, and are currently worming their way into others, using more sophisticated cyber-intrusion tools.

Worming Into SCADA Systems?

Take Duqu and Stuxnet -- two words that are probably meaningless to most people, but which strike fear into SCADA system operators around the world. First came Stuxnet, a virus that is believed to have been targeting Iran’s nuclear materials program by infecting Windows computers and thence infiltrating SCADA systems built by Siemens, all with the goal of causing malfunctions in uranium enrichment centrifuge equipment.

It was just about a year ago that cybersecurity experts first discovered Stuxnet, but it’s believed that the virus may have been introduced years beforehand -- meaning that SCADA systems around the world may be carrying a version of it right now. While the hope is that the virus was targeting only Iranian centrifuges, the idea that similar viruses could use the same techniques to do more damage remains high on the list of concerns for smart grid cybersecurity experts.

More recently, those concerns have refocused on a computer virus known as Duqu. Whether or not it’s related to Stuxnet remains a point of contention, but it appears to operate in a similar way, by exploiting a vulnerability in Windows to lodge itself inside servers and collect data passing through them, which could allow for espionage or gathering security data for further exploitation.

The Duqu virus has been shifting around the world, from India to Europe, Africa and Indonesia (and reportedly back to Iran), as security experts seek to track it down and eliminate it. While no exploitation has been found in the utility industry as of yet, its ability to infect Windows machines should give it access to almost any industry out there.

Using Controls to Wreak Havoc

Unfortunately, once hackers have gotten access to a SCADA system, there are plenty of actions they can take to damage the system they’ve hijacked. Back in 2007, reports emerged of a DHS experiment that showed how the control system of gas-fired generator at the Department of Energy’s Idaho National Lab could be hacked in a way that destroyed the generator, using a mock-up of a typical power plant’s control system.

The U.S. utility industry has had four years since that demonstration to try to fix any similar vulnerabilities in their power plant controls systems, but it’s unclear if they’ve made much progress. The North American Electricity Reliability Council (NERC), an industry group in charge of setting critical infrastructure protection (CIP) guidelines for U.S. and Canadian utilities, has just this year begun auditing utilities on the compliance they’ve been self-reporting over the past few years.

NERC recently held a grid security exercise for utilities seeking to comply with its “critical infrastructure protection” program, which might provide some examples of the security precautions that are being tackled.

While outside attacks are the subject of much of our recent worries, it was an inside job that gave the world a sense of just how much havoc a SCADA system takeover could wreak. In 2000, a disgruntled former employee of a Queensland, Australia water treatment plant decided to remotely access the system and release millions of gallons of sewage into nearby streams and parks. Though he served two years in jail for the act, that didn’t stop it from happening.

To guard against these kinds of attacks, experts recommend multiple layers of security to detect and prevent such unusual and knowingly self-destructive commands. Preventing intrusion is the first line of defense, but stopping an attack in progress will be equally important. After all, the IT industry’s experience with hackers has shown that it’s almost impossible to anticipate all the clever ways hackers are working on their next exploits.

There’s little doubt that U.S. national security officials are worried about the potential threats that could come from connecting SCADA systems to the internet. Will utilities decide to cope with the threat by unplugging those systems, thus essentially turning back the clock on the smart grid? Or will they be able to manage the new security challenges that come along with the benefits of networking and integrating the grid? Looks like we’ll be talking a lot more about these subjects, thanks to a broken-down water pump in Illinois.

Woof,
 Let's see if the State's are at the mercy of the distant, inept, and corrupt Federal government (exactly why the Revolutionary war was fought). The headline comes at the end: Kagan recluses herself!!!!


High court to review tough Arizona immigration law
By MARK SHERMAN | AP – 8 hrs ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court stepped into the fight Monday over a tough Arizona law that requires local police to help enforce federal immigration laws — pushing the court deeper into hot, partisan issues of the 2012 election campaign.
The court's election-year docket now contains three politically charged disputes, including President Barack Obama's health care overhaul and Texas redistricting.
The debate over immigration already is shaping presidential politics, and now the court is undertaking a review of an Arizona law that has spawned a host of copycat state laws targeting illegal immigrants.
The court will review a federal appeals court ruling that blocked several provisions in the Arizona law. One of those requires that police, while enforcing other laws, question a person's immigration status if officers suspect he is in the country illegally.
The case is the court's biggest foray into immigration law in decades, said Temple University law professor Peter Spiro, an expert in that area.
The Obama administration challenged the Arizona law by arguing that regulating immigration is the job of the federal government, not states. Similar laws in Alabama, South Carolina and Utah also are facing administration lawsuits. Private groups are suing over immigration measures adopted in Georgia and Indiana.
"This case is not just about Arizona. It's about every state grappling with the costs of illegal immigration," Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, said following the court's announcement Monday.
Fifty-nine Republicans in Congress, including presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, filed a brief with the court backing the Arizona law.
The immigration case, like the challenge to Obama's health care overhaul, pits Republican-led states against the Democratic administration in an argument about the reach of federal power. The redistricting case has a similarly partisan tinge to it, with Republicans who control the state government in Texas facing off against Democrats and minority groups that tend vote Democratic.
In the immigration arena, the states say that the federal government isn't doing enough to address a major problem and that border states are suffering disproportionately.
The issue has been widely discussed by the Republican candidates for president. They have mostly embraced a hard line to avoid accusations that they support any kind of "amnesty" for the some 12 million illegal immigrants estimated to be living in the U.S.
Newt Gingrich was most recently criticized by his opponents for saying he would grant legal status to some with longstanding family and community ties, and Gingrich has since endorsed the South Carolina law that allows police to demand a person's immigration status. That law is among the four state laws that have been challenged by the administration.
Brewer signed the Arizona immigration measure into law in April 2010. The administration sued three months later to block it from taking effect.
In April, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a federal judge's ruling halting enforcement of several provisions of the law. Among the blocked provisions: requiring all immigrants to obtain or carry immigration registration papers; making it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job and allowing police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without warrants.
In October, the federal appeals court in Atlanta blocked parts of the Alabama law that forced public schools to check the immigration status of students and allowed police to file criminal charges against people who were unable to prove their citizenship.
Lawsuits in South Carolina and Utah are not as far along.
The administration argued that the justices should have waited to see how other courts ruled on the challenges to other laws before getting involved. Still, following the court's announcement Monday, White House spokesman Jay Carney said, "We look forward to arguing our point of view in that case when the time comes."
Spiro, the Temple University immigration expert, said the court easily could have passed on the Arizona case for now. "They could have waited for the more extreme case to come from Alabama, which really outflanked the Arizona law," Spiro said.
He predicted the court would uphold the police check of immigration status but perhaps not the measure making it a crime to be without immigration documents.
Arguments probably will take place in late April, which would give the court roughly two months to decide the case
Justice Elena Kagan will not take part case, presumably because of her work on the issue when she served in the Justice Department in the Obama administration.
The case is Arizona v. U.S., 11-182.

Woof,
 It certainly shows how our News Media and Press have completely failed us. I guess they think this kind of information is just more than we can understand. I'm just an ol' country boy from Kentucky and even I can grasp the highlights of this accounting. We the People had better wake up to what's going on here, GM is absolutely correct. This is Rome at the end of the Republic.
                                                 P.C.

Woof,
 This url leads to the PDF file of all the information of the previous post's, and is easy to read. I'm leaving the other post's in, even though the formatting is poor, because the visual effect of scrolling down the list of the millions, even billions of dollars paid out by these failed companies to our politicans is just stunning and if the original is taken down for some reason, we'll still have the info here.

  www.wallstreetwatch.org/reports/sold_out.pdf
                                                  P.C.

  

Woof, 13th Post;

2008
Appendix
218
Accounting Firms: KPMG LLP
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $8,486,392
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $19,103,000
KPMG Campaign Contributions:277
2008 Top Recipients278
TOTAL: $1,746,293
1. Barack Obama (D) $67,500
2. Hillary Clinton (D) $40,900
3. John McCain (R) $22,490
4. Chris Dodd (D) $21,000
5. Elizabeth Dole (R) $12,300
6. Steve Chabot (R) $10,300
7. Jim Ryun (R) $10,300
8.
Michele Marie
Bachmann (R) $10,000
9. Melissa Bean (D) $10,000
9. Allen Boyd (D) $10,000
9. John Campbell (R) $10,000
9. Michael Castle (R) $10,000
9. James Clyburn (D) $10,000
9. Norm Coleman (R) $10,000
9. Susan Collins (R) $10,000
9. Mike Conaway (R) $10,000
9. John Cornyn (R) $10,000
9. Joseph Crowley (D) $10,000
9. Artur Davis (D) $10,000
277 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Campaign contribution totals accessed February
2009. Individual recipient numbers do
not include the 4th Quarter of 2008.
278 Based on highest 1,000 contributions and
PAC money.
9. Lincoln Davis (D) $10,000
9. Barney Frank (D) $10,000
9. Jim Gerlach (R) $10,000
9. Jeb Hensarling (R) $10,000
9. Michael Johanns (R) $10,000
9. Paul Kanjorski (D) $10,000
9. Ron Kind (D) $10,000
9. Ron Klein (D) $10,000
9. Tim Mahoney (D) $10,000
9. Carolyn Maloney (D) $10,000
9. Jim Marshall (D) $10,000
9. Jim Matheson (D) $10,000
9. Dennis Moore (D) $10,000
9. Chris Murphy (D) $10,000
9. Steve Pearce (R) $10,000
9. Edwin Perlmutter (D) $10,000
9. Charles Rangel (D) $10,000
9. Harry Reid (D) $10,000
9. Peter Roskam (R) $10,000
9. Ed Royce (R) $10,000
9. Paul Ryan (R) $10,000
9. David Scott (D) $10,000
9.
Christopher Shays
(R) $10,000
9. Lamar Smith (R) $10,000
9. John Tanner (D) $10,000
9. Mike Thompson (D) $10,000
Appendix 219
9. Melvin Watt (D) $10,000
2006 Top Recipients279
TOTAL: $1,320,683
1. Heather Wilson (R) $15,000
2. Max Baucus (D) $13,233
3. Chris Dodd (D) $13,000
3. James Talent (R) $13,000
5. Rick Santorum (R) $11,200
6. Patrick McHenry (R) $10,704
7. Spencer Bachus (R) $10,000
7. Roy Blunt (R) $10,000
7. Conrad Burns (R) $10,000
7. Eric Cantor (R) $10,000
7. Hillary Clinton (D) $10,000
7. Bob Corker (R) $10,000
7.
Michael Fitzpatrick
(R) $10,000
7. Barney Frank (D) $10,000
7. Jeb Hensarling (R) $10,000
7. Jon Kyl (R) $10,000
7. Jim Matheson (D) $10,000
7. Raymond Meier (R) $10,000
7. Dennis Moore (D) $10,000
7.
Marilyn Musgrave
(R) $10,000
7. Rick O'Donnell (R) $10,000
7. Rick Renzi (R) $10,000
7. Tom Reynolds (R) $10,000
7. David Scott (D) $10,000
7. E Clay Shaw Jr (R) $10,000
7. Gordon Smith (R) $10,000
7. Patrick Tiberi (R) $10,000
279 Based on highest 1,000 contributions and
PAC money.
2004 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,459,303
1. Charles Schumer (D) $32,000
2. Richard Shelby (R) $25,000
3. John Kerry (D) $22,750
4. Chris Dodd (D) $19,000
5. Peter Coors (R) $18,000
6. Mike Conaway (R) $16,000
7. James DeMint (R) $15,201
8. Richard Baker (R) $15,000
8. Jeb Hensarling (R) $15,000
10.
Christopher S 'Kit'
Bond (R) $12,000
10. George W Bush (R) $12,000
12. Gresham Barrett (R) $11,500
13. Mel Martinez (R) $11,000
14. Spencer Bachus (R) $10,000
14. Bob Beauprez (R) $10,000
14. Roy Blunt (R) $10,000
14. Eric Cantor (R) $10,000
14.
Shelley Moore Capito
(R) $10,000
14. Vito Fossella (R) $10,000
14. Katherine Harris (R) $10,000
14. Bill Jones (R) $10,000
14. Sue Kelly (R) $10,000
14. Michael Oxley (R) $10,000
14. Jim Ryun (R) $10,000
2002 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,740,139
1. Saxby Chambliss (R) $16,050
2. Mike Ferguson (R) $14,500
3. Norm Coleman (R) $12,500
3. Felix J Grucci Jr (R) $12,500
Appendix
220
5. Jim McCrery (R) $11,750
6. Phil Gramm (R) $11,000
7. Connie Morella (R) $10,450
8. Lamar Alexander (R) $10,250
8.
Charles "Chip"
Pickering Jr (R) $10,250
10. Roy Blunt (R) $10,000
10.
Shelley Moore Capito
(R) $10,000
10. Vito Fossella (R) $10,000
10. Robin Hayes (R) $10,000
10. Tim Hutchinson (R) $10,000
10. Chris John (D) $10,000
10. Sue Kelly (R) $10,000
10. Mark Kennedy (R) $10,000
10. Candice Miller (R) $10,000
10. Dennis Moore (D) $10,000
10. Michael Oxley (R) $10,000
10. Mike Rogers (R) $10,000
10. John Shadegg (R) $10,000
10. Rob Simmons (R) $10,000
10. John Sununu (R) $10,000
10. John Thune (R) $10,000
2000 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,371,159
1. George W Bush (R) $89,567
2. Charles Schumer (D) $42,948
3. Spencer Abraham (R) $14,999
4. Rick Lazio (R) $14,550
5. Chris Dodd (D) $14,000
6. George Allen (R) $10,943
7. William Roth Jr (R) $10,500
8. John Ashcroft (R) $10,000
8. Slade Gorton (R) $10,000
8. Rod Grams (R) $10,000
11. Rick Santorum (R) $9,000
12. Rudy Giuliani (R) $8,999
13. Conrad Burns (R) $8,500
14. David Phelps (D) $8,000
15. John Ensign (R) $7,775
16. James Rogan (R) $7,725
17. Dick Armey (R) $7,500
18. Jane Harman (D) $7,400
19. Al Gore (D) $7,300
20. Heather Wilson (R) $7,225
1998 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $848,815
1. Thomas Bliley Jr (R) $10,000
1. Billy Tauzin (R) $10,000
3. Barbara Mikulski (D) $8,219
4. Lauch Faircloth (R) $8,000
5. Ron Wyden (D) $7,795
6. Paul Coverdell (R) $7,500
7. Rick White (R) $6,225
8. Robert Bennett (R) $6,000
8. John Boehner (R) $6,000
8. Molly Bordonaro (R) $6,000
8. Heather Wilson (R) $6,000
12. Matt Fong (R) $5,750
13. Don Nickles (R) $5,500
14. Alfonse D'Amato (R) $5,300
15. Dick Armey (R) $5,000
15. Brian Bilbray (R) $5,000
15. Jim Bunning (R) $5,000
15. Christopher Cox (R) $5,000
15. Tom DeLay (R) $5,000
15. Peter Fitzgerald (R) $5,000
Appendix 221
15. Newt Gingrich (R) $5,000
15. Trent Lott (R) $5,000
15. Bill Redmond (R) $5,000
Appendix
222
KPMG Lobbying Expenses:280
2008
TOTAL: $2,985,000
KPMG LLP $2,525,000
KPMG LLP > $10,000*
Velasquez Group $200,000
Public Strategies $130,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
Clark & Assoc $50,000
Mayer, Brown et al > $10,000*
2007
TOTAL: $2,590,000
KPMG LLP $2,130,000
KPMG LLP > $10,000*
Velasquez Group $180,000
Public Strategies $120,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
Clark & Assoc $40,000
Mayer, Brown et al $40,000
2006
TOTAL: $2,190,000
KPMG LLP $1,650,000
KPMG LLP $40,000
Velasquez Group $180,000
Public Strategies $120,000
Mayer, Brown et al $80,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
Clark & Assoc $40,000
280 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying amounts accessed February 2009.
* Not included in totals
2005
TOTAL: $1,210,000
KPMG LLP $890,000
KPMG LLP $40,000
Public Strategies $120,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
Clark & Assoc $40,000
Velasquez Group $40,000
2004
TOTAL: $1,838,000
KPMG LPP $1,368,000
KPMG LPP $60,000
KPMG LPP > $10,000*
Clark & Weinstock $200,000
Velasquez Group $140,000
Public Strategies $50,000
Clark & Assoc $20,000
2003
TOTAL: $1,575,000
KPMG LLP $925,000
KPMG LLP > $10,000*
KPMG LLP $180,000
Clark & Weinstock $180,000
Velasquez Group $160,000
Public Strategies $90,000
McGovern & Smith $40,000
Clark & Assoc > $10,000*
* Not included in totals
Appendix 223
2002
TOTAL: $1,850,000
KPMG LLP $1,430,000
KPMG LLP $40,000
KPMG LLP $60,000
KPMG LLP $10,000
Public Strategies $160,000
Clark & Weinstock $100,000
McGovern & Smith $20,000
Capitol Tax Partners $20,000
Thelen, Reid et al $10,000
Clark & Assoc > $10,000*
2001
TOTAL: $1,455,000
KPMG LLP $1,175,000
KPMG LLP > $10,000*
KPMG LLP $80,000
Public Strategies $120,000
Palmetto Group $80,000
2000
TOTAL: $1,580,000
KPMG LLP $1,340,000
KPMG LLP $80,000
Palmetto Group $100,000
Mayer, Brown et al $60,000
1999
TOTAL: $1,190,000
KPMG LLP $850,000
Palmetto Group $280,000
Mayer, Brown et al $40,000
* Not included in totals
Spectrum Group $20,000
1998
TOTAL: $640,000
KPMG LLP $600,000
Mayer, Brown et al $40,000
Spectrum Group > $10,000*
* Not included in totals
Appendix
224
KPMG Covered Official Lobbyists:281
Firm / Name of Lobbyist Covered Official Position Year(s)
Clark & Assoc.
Sam Geduldig Dir of Coalitions, House Fin. Serv Comm. 2007-2008
Sr Advisor, Majority Whip Roy Blunt
Clark & Weinstock
Ed Kutler Asst, Office of Speaker, House of Reps 2007-2008
Asst, House Republican Whip
Johathan Schwantes Gen Counsel, Senate Judiciary Comm 2007-2008
Sandra Stuart Asst Sec for Legislative Affairs, DoD 2008
Chief of Staff, Rep. Vic Fazio
Vin Weber Member of Congress (MN) 2007-2008
Margaret McGlinch Chief of Staff, Rep. Tim Walz 2008
Legislative Dir, Rep. Richard Neal
Legislative Counsel, Sen. Harry Reid
Kent Bonham Policy Dir, Sen Chuck Hagel 2002-2003
Juleanna Glover Weiss Press Secretary, Vice President 2002-2003
Brian Bieron Policy Director, House Rulse Comm. 2002
Timothy Morrison Assoc Dir, Presidential Personnel 2002
Anne Urban Legislative Dir, Sen. Robert Kerrey 2002
Capital Tax Partners
William Fant Deputy Asst Sc for Leg Affairs, Treasury 2002-2003
Joseph Mikrut Tax Legislative Counsel, Treasury 2002-2003
Jonathan Talisman Asst Treasury Secretary for Tax Policy 2002-2003
Public Strategies, Inc
Wallace Henderson Counsel, Rep. Tauzin 2001-2002
Mayer, Brown & Platt
Jeffrey Lewis Legislative Asst, Sen. Breaux 1999-2000
281Source: Senate Office of Public Records <http://soprweb.senate.gov/>. Accessed January 2009.
Appendix 225
Accounting Firms: Pricewaterhouse
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $10,800,772
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $44,291,084
Pricewaterhouse Campaign
Contributions:282
2008 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,652,971
1. Barack Obama (D) $205,318
2. Hillary Clinton (D) $190,200
3. John McCain (R) $166,970
4. Mitt Romney (R) $90,150
5. Chris Dodd (D) $64,800
6. Rudy Giuliani (R) $16,250
7. Susan M Collins (R) $16,100
8. Norm Coleman (R) $13,050
9. Elizabeth Dole (R) $12,000
10. Steny H Hoyer (D) $11,000
11. Dean F Andal (R) $10,500
11. Mike Conaway (R) $10,500
13. Keith S Fimian (R) $10,200
14. John Edwards (D) $10,100
15.
Michele Marie
Bachmann (R) $10,000
15. Spencer Bachus (R) $10,000
15. Max Baucus (D) $10,000
15. Melissa Bean (D) $10,000
15. Judy Biggert (R) $10,000
282 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Campaign contribution totals accessed February
2009. Individual recipient numbers do
not include the 4th Quarter of 2008.
15. John Boehner (R) $10,000
2006 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,388,604
1. Tom Davis (R) $71,208
2. Mark Kennedy (R) $35,600
3. Rick Santorum (R) $23,546
4. Richard Baker (R) $23,488
5. Tom Carper (D) $20,499
6. Spencer Bachus (R) $20,000
7. Joe Lieberman (I) $17,000
8. Deborah Pryce (R) $14,750
9. Mike Ferguson (R) $14,150
10. George Allen (R) $13,850
11. James M Talent (R) $13,000
12. Mike DeWine (R) $11,600
13.
Michael Fitzpatrick
(R) $11,000
13. Jon Kyl (R) $11,000
15. Tom DeLay (R) $10,500
16. Barney Frank (D) $10,250
16. Nancy L Johnson (R) $10,250
16. Tom Reynolds (R) $10,250
16.
Christopher Shays
(R) $10,250
20. E Clay Shaw Jr (R) $10,204
Appendix
226
2004 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,882,353
1. George W. Bush (R) $513,750
2. John Kerry (D) $73,000
3. Richard C Shelby (R) $61,250
4. Michael G Oxley (R) $50,550
5. Charles Schumer (D) $27,476
6. Mike Conaway (R) $17,000
7. James W DeMint (R) $12,500
8. Arlen Specter (R) $12,350
9. Chuck Grassley (R) $12,000
9. Scott Paterno (R) $12,000
9. John Thune (R) $12,000
12. Johnny Isakson (R) $11,000
13. Mark Kennedy (R) $10,500
14. Spencer Bachus (R) $10,000
14. Richard Baker (R) $10,000
14. Roy Blunt (R) $10,000
14. Max Burns (R) $10,000
18. Rick Renzi (R) $10,000
19. Richard Burr (R) $9,750
20. Eric Cantor (R) $9,500
2002 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,357,480
1. Norm Coleman (R) $13,500
2. Roy Blunt (R) $11,000
3. Connie Morella (R) $10,750
4. John E Sununu (R) $10,500
5. Dennis Hastert (R) $10,000
5. Mark Kennedy (R) $10,000
5. Michael G Oxley (R) $10,000
8. James M Talent (R) $9,950
9. Elizabeth Dole (R) $9,500
9. John Thune (R) $9,500
11. Max Baucus (D) $9,000
12. Phil Crane (R) $8,566
13. Tim Hutchinson (R) $8,000
14. Ken Lucas (D) $7,950
15. Susan M Collins (R) $7,750
16. Wayne Allard (R) $7,500
16. Jim Mcrery (R) $7,500
16. Dennis Moore (D) $7,500
19. Robin Hayes (R) $7,000
19. William Jefferson (D) $7,000
2000 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,868,674
1. George W Bush (R) $131,798
2. Rick A Lazio (R) $53,086
3. Bill Bradley (D) $51,550
4. Rudy Giuliani (R) $41,150
5. Charles Schumer (D) $33,974
6. Spencer Abraham (R) $29,550
7. Al Gore (D) $23,630
8. John McCain (R) $19,080
9. John Ashcroft(R) $12,500
10. Edward Kennedy (D) $12,250
11. James E Rogan (R) $11,950
11. William Roth Jr (R) $11,950
13. Chris Dodd (D) $11,750
14. Ernie Fletcher (R) $11,000
15.
Steven Kuykendall
(R) $10,750
16. E Clay Shaw Jr (R) $10,270
17. Rod Grams (R) $10,000
17. Dennis Hastert (R) $10,000
17. Billy Tauzin (R) $10,000
20. Sherrod Brown (D) $9,999
Appendix 227
1998 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,650,690
1. Alfonse D'Amato (R) $25,970
2. Chris Dodd (D) $17,800
3.
George Voinovich
(R) $15,500
3. Billy Tauzin (R) $15,000
5. Lauch Faircloth (R) $14,000
5. Martin Frost (D) $14,000
7. Sherrod Brown (D) $13,948
8. Rick White (R) $13,825
9. Newt Gingrich (R) $13,800
10. Paul Coverdell (R) $13,500
10. Anna Eshoo(D) $13,500
10. Ron Wyden (D) $13,500
13. Robert F Bennett (R) $13,000
13. Matt Fong (R) $13,000
15. Thomas Bliley Jr. (R) $12,500
16. Michael Coles (D) $11,750
17.
Christopher S 'Kit'
Bond (R) $11,500
18. Don Nickles (R) $11,000
19. Harry Reid (D) $10,000
20. Christopher Cox (R) $9,111
Appendix
228
Pricewaterhouse Lobbying
Expenditures:283
2008
TOTAL: $3,165,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $2,340,000
Quinn, Gillespie & Assoc $370,000
Rich Feuer Group $160,000
American Capitol Group $125,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
Clark & Assoc $50,000
Commonwealth Group > $10,000*
Covington & Burling > $10,000*
Donna McLean Assoc > $10,000*
Mayer, Brown et al > $10,000*
Patton Boggs LLP > $10,000*
Cypress Advocacy $40,000
2007
TOTAL: $3,630,584
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $2,650,584
Quinn, Gillespie & Assoc $600,000
Rich Feuer Group $80,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
American Capitol Group $60,000
Clark & Assoc $40,000
Donna McLean Assoc $40,000
Mayer, Brown et al $40,000
Patton Boggs LLP $40,000
283 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying amounts accessed February 2009.
* Not included in totals
2006
TOTAL: $4,413,500
PriceWaterHouseCoopers $3,333,500
Quinn, Gillespie & Assoc $600,000
Patton Boggs LLP $240,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
Mayer, Brown et al $80,000
Clark & Assoc $40,000
Donna McLean Assoc $40,000
2005
TOTAL: $13,600,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $12,580,000
Quinn, Gillespie & Assoc $600,000
Patton Boggs LLP $200,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
Thelen, Redi & Priest $60,000
Donna McLean Assoc $40,000
Clark & Assoc $40,000
2004
TOTAL: $2,505,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $1,660,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers > $10,000*
Quinn, Gillespie & Assoc $580,000
Thelen, Reid & Priest $105,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
Public Strategies $40,000
Donna McLean Assoc $20,000
Clark & Assoc $20,000
* Not included in totals
Appendix 229
2003
TOTAL: $2,390,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $1,680,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers > $10,000*
Quinn, Gillespie & Assoc $560,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
Thelen, Reid & Priest $70,000
Clark & Assoc > $10,000*
2002
TOTAL: $4,445,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $3,160,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $155,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $260,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers > $10,000*
Alcalde & Fay $200,000
Quinn, Gillespie & Assoc $540,000
Clark & Weinstock $100,000
Arnold & Porter $20,000
Thelen, Reid et al $10,000
Clark & Assoc > $10,000*
2001
TOTAL: $4,560,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $1,240,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $560,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $700,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $840,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $120,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $360,000
Alcalde & Fay $220,000
Quinn, Gillespie & Assoc $460,000
Cathy Abernathy Consult. $60,000
* Not included in totals
2000
TOTAL: $2,186,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $580,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $800,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $360,000
Quinn, Gillespie & Assoc $350,000
Mayer, Brown et al $60,000
Fleishman-Hillard Inc $36,000
Downey-McGrath Group > $10,000*
Alcalde & Fay > $10,000*
1999
TOTAL: $2,316,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $1,220,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $1,000,000
Mayer, Brown et al. $40,000
Fleishman-Hillard Inc $36,000
McDonald, Jack H $20,000
Dierman, Wortley et al > $10,000*
Downey McGrath Group > $10,000*
1998
TOTAL: $1,080,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $620,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $60,000
Coopers & Lybrand $340,000
Mayer, Brown et al $40,000
Downey Chandler Inc $20,000
* Not included in totals
Appendix
230
Pricewaterhouse Covered Official Lobbyists:284
Firm / Name of Lobbyist Covered Official Position Year(s)
PWC Leasing Corp.
Barabara M. Angus
Business Tax Counsel, Joint Committee on
Taxation 1999
Kenneth J. Kies Chief of Staff, Joint Committee on Taxation 1999
Mayer, Brown, & Platt
Jeffery Lewis Legislative Assitant to Senator Breaux 1999-2000
Quinn Gillespie Associates
LLC
John M. Quinn White House Counsel, Chief of Staff to VP 2000
Bruce Andrews Legislative Director, Rep. Tim Holden 2000
Section 170 Coalition
Tim Hanford
Tax Counsel, Committee on Ways and
Means 2001
PwC Structured Finance
Coalition
Tim Hanford
Tax Counsel, Committee on Ways and
Means 2001
John Meager
Special Counsel, Committee on Ways and
Means 2001
PwC Leasing Coalition
Tim Hanford
Tax Counsel, Committee on Ways and
Means 2001
Dierman, Wortley et al
Norman D'Amours Chairman National Credit Union Admin 2002
Clark & Weinstock
Brian Bieron Policy Director, House Rules Committee 2002
284 Source: Senate Office of Public Records <http://soprweb.senate.gov/>. Accessed January 2009.
Appendix 231
Kent Bonham Policy Director for Sen. Chuck Hagel 2002-2003
Juleanna Glover Weiss Press Secretary to the Vice President 2002-2003
Jonathan Schwantes
General Counsel, Senate Judiciary Committee
2007
Pricewaterhouse Coopers
Beverly Bell Administrative Assistant, Rep. Don Johnson 2003
Amy Best Deputy Director of Public Affairs 2005-2006
Laura Cox Managing Executive External Affairs 2005-2006
Michael O'Brien Legislative Affairs Specialist 2005-2006
Donna Mclean Assoc.
Donna Mclean
US Dept. of Transportation, Asst Sec for
Budeget & Programs & CFO 2004-2006
Quinn Gillespie Associates
LLC
Mike Hacker Communications Dir. (Rep. John Dingell) 2004-2005
Amy Cunniffe Special Asst. to the Pres for Leg. Affairs 2005-2006
Elizabeth Hogan Speical Asst, Dept of Commerce 2005-2006
Kevin Kayes Chief Counsel Senator Reid 2006-2007
Allison Giles
Chief of Staff, House Ways and Means
Committee 2007
Christopher Mccannell Chief of Staff, Congressman Joe Crowley 2007
Patton Boggs LLP
Stephen Mchale Deputy Administrator, TSA 2005
Clark, Lytle, & Geduldig
Sam Geduldig Dir of Coalitions, House Fin Serv Com 2007-2008
Sr Advisor, Majority Whip Roy Blunt 2007-2008Gr

 I just wanted to get all this in the record.
                              P.C.

Woof, 12th Post;

190
Hedge Funds: Farallon Capital Management
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $1,058,953
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $1,005,000
Farallon Campaign Contributions:261
2008 All Recipients
TOTAL: $372,863
1. Hillary Clinton (D) $94,600
2. Barack Obama (D) $15,550
3. David Obey (D) $13,800
3. Chris Dodd (D) $13,800
4. Rahm Emanuel (D) $10,200
5. John McCain (R) $8,900
6. Howard Berman (D) $8,600
7. John Thune (R) $7,100
8. Tim Johnson (D) $4,600
8. Gary Trauner (D) $4,600
9. Mark Warner (D) $3,300
10. Donna Edwards (D) $2,000
11. Charles Rangel (D) $1,000
12. Allyson Schwartz (D) $500
13. Mitt Romney (R) $250
2006 All Recipients
TOTAL: $328,890
1. Hillary Clinton (D) $33,190
2. Kent Conrad (D) $8,400
261 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Campaign contribution totals accessed February
2009. Individual recipient numbers do
not include the 4th Quarter of 2008.
3. Rahm Emanuel (D) $8,000
4. Evan Bayh (D) $6,300
5. John Thune (R) $4,400
6. Judy Aydelott (D) $4,200
6. John Hall (D) $4,200
8. Joe Sestak (D) $2,100
8. Ken Lucas (D) $2,100
8. Chris Carney (D) $2,100
8. Michael Arcuri (D) $2,100
8. Edwin Perlmutter (D) $2,100
8. Charles Brown (D) $2,100
8. Chris Murphy (D) $2,100
15. Dianne Feinstein (D) $1,000
15. Howard Berman (D) $1,000
16. Patrick Murphy (D) $500
2004 All Recipients
TOTAL: $233,950
1. John Kerry (D) $14,000
2. Tom Daschle (D) $9,250
3. Russell Feingold (D) $4,000
3. Chris John (D) $4,000
3. Tony Knowles (D) $4,000
3. Brad Carson (D) $4,000
7. Lisa Quigley (D) $2,500
8. Erskine Bowles (D) $2,000
8. Howard Dean (D) $2,000
Appendix 191
8. Ken Salazar (D) $2,000
8. Inez Tenenbaum (D) $2,000
8. Joe Lieberman (D) $2,000
8. Harold Ford, Jr (D) $2,000
8. Betty Castor (D) $2,000
15. Rob Bishop (R) $1,200
16. Robert Bennett (R) $1,000
17. Jamie Metzl (D) $500
2002 All Recipients
TOTAL: $97,250
1. John Kerry (D) $17,000
2. Tom Daschle (D) $7,500
3. John P Murtha (D) $4,000
4. Howard Berman (D) $2,500
5. Robert Bennett (R) $1,000
5. Rahm Emanuel (D) $1,000
5. Howard Berman (D) $1,000
5. John Thune (R) $1,000
9.
Steven Peter Andreasen
(D) $750
2000 All Recipients
TOTAL: $18,500
1. Norm Dicks (D) $9,000
2. Bill Bradley (D) $5,000
3. John McCain (R) $1,000
3. Ed Bernstein (D) $1,000
3. Nancy Pelosi (D) $1,000
1998 All Recipients
TOTAL: $7,500
1. John McCain (R) $1,000
1. Matt Fong (R) $1,000
3. Dick Lane (D) $750
4. Matt Fong (R) $250
Appendix
192
Farallon Lobbying Expenses:262
2004-2008
N/A
2003
TOTAL: $310,000
Timmons & Co. $310,000
2002
TOTAL: $335,000
Timmons & Co. $335,000
2001
TOTAL: $360,000
Fleischman & Walsh $40,000
Timmons & Co. $320,000
1998-2000
N/A
262 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying amounts accessed February 2009.
Appendix 193
Farallon Covered Official Lobbyists:263
Firm / Name of Lobbyist Covered Position Year(s)
Fleischman & Walsh
Louis Dupart
Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust,
Business Rights & Competition
2001,
2003-2005
Timmons & Co.
Richard Tarplin Asst Secretary for Legislation, Dept of HHS 2001-2004
263 Source: Senate Office of Public Records <http://soprweb.senate.gov/>. Accessed January 2009.
Appendix
194
Hedge Funds: Och-Ziff Capital Management
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $338,552
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $200,000
Och-Ziff Campaign Contributions:264
2008 All Recipients
TOTAL: $106,300
1. Mark Pryor (D) $11,500
2. Barack Obama (D) $7,900
3. Hillary Clinton (D) $6,800
4. John Thune (R) $4,600
5. Mitt Romney (R) $2,300
5. Eric Cantor (R) $2,300
7. Rahm Emanuel (D) $1,000
7. Norm Coleman (R) $1,000
7. Joe Biden (D) $1,000
2006 All Recipients
TOTAL: $82,650
1.
Sheldon Whitehouse
(D) $3,000
2. Olympia Snowe (R) $2,000
2. James Talent (R) $2,000
2. George Allen (R) $2,000
5. Mitch McConnell (R) $1,000
5. Eric Cantor (R) $1,000
5. Rahm Emanuel (D) $1,000
5. Robert Menendez (D) $1,000
264 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Campaign contribution totals accessed February
2009. Individual recipient numbers do
not include the 4th Quarter of 2008.
5. Jon Kyl (R) $1,000
5. Bill Nelson (D) $1,000
11. Chris Shays (R) $250
2004 All Recipients
TOTAL: $95,002
1. John Kerry (D) $14,802
2. Tom Daschle (D) $3,000
2. Charles Schumer (D) $3,000
4. Evan Bayh (D) $2,000
4. Steny Hoyer (D) $2,000
4. Charles Rangel (D) $2,000
4. Rahm Emanuel (D) $2,000
4. Barack Obama (D) $2,000
4. Joe Lieberman (D) $2,000
10. Patty Murray (D) $1,000
10. Barbara Boxer (D) $1,000
10. James DeMint (R) $1,000
10. John McCain (R) $1,000
10. Jamie Metzl (D) $1,000
10. Peter Deutsch (D) $1,000
10. Daniel Inouye (D) $1,000
10. Denise Majette (D) $1,000
Appendix 195
2002 All Recipients
TOTAL: $26,600
1. Charles Schumer (D) $3,000
2. Denise Majette (D) $2,000
3. Tom Harkin (D) $1,000
3. Arlen Specter (R) $1,000
2000 All Recipients
TOTAL: $26,000
1. Charles Schumer (D) $8,000
2. Hillary Clinton (D) $2,000
3. Conrad Burns (R) $1,000
1998 All Recipients
TOTAL: $2,000
1. Charles Schumer (D) $1,000
1. Russell Feingold $1,000
Appendix
196
Och-Ziff Lobbying Expenses:265
2007-2008
N/A
2006
TOTAL: $40,000
Navigant Consulting $40,000
2005
TOTAL: $80,000
Navigant Consulting $80,000
2004
TOTAL: $60,000
Navigant Consulting $60,000
2003
TOTAL: $20,000
Navigant Consulting $20,000
1998-2002
N/A
Och-Ziff Covered Official Lobbyists:
N/A
265 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying amounts accessed February 2009.
Appendix 197
Hedge Funds: Renaissance Technologies
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $1,560,895
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $740,000
Renaissance Campaign Contributions:266
2008 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $721,250
1. Hillary Clinton (D) $59,600
2. Barack Obama (D) $39,250
3. Chris Dodd (D) $16,450
4. Timothy Bishop (D) $12,000
5. Tom McClintock (R) $6,900
6. Jeff Merkley (D) $6,100
7. John McCain (R) $5,100
8. Rudy Giuliani (R) $4,850
9. Nancy Pelosi (D) $4,600
9. Charles Rangel (D) $4,600
9. Sean Parnell (R) $4,600
9. Steve Pearce (R) $4,600
9. Steve Israel (D) $4,600
9. Gary Ackerman (D) $4,600
15. Scott Kleeb (D) $2,300
15. Jeanne Shaheen (D) $2,300
15. Gabrielle Giffords (D) $2,300
15. Harry Mitchell (D) $2,300
15. Bob Lord (D) $2,300
15. Ann Kirkpatrick (D) $2,300
266 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Campaign contribution totals accessed February
2009. Individual recipient numbers do
not include the 4th Quarter of 2008.
15. Dina Titus (D) $2,300
15. Bart Gordon (D) $2,300
15. Dan Maffei (D) $2,300
15. Jerry McNerney (D) $2,300
15. Rahm Emanuel (D) $2,300
15. Steve Buehrer (R) $2,300
15. Andy Harris (R) $2,300
15. Paul Broun Jr (R) $2,300
15. Bob Schaffer (R) $2,300
15. Charlie Ross (R) $2,300
15. Woody Jenkins (R) $2,300
15.
Christopher L Hackett
(R) $2,300
15. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) $2,300
2006 All Recipients
TOTAL: $364,700
1. Hillary Clinton (D) $21,125
2. Timothy Bishop (D) $4,200
2. Chris Dodd (D) $4,200
2. Michael McGavick (R) $4,200
2. Ben Cardin (D) $4,200
6. Steve Israel (D) $4,100
7. John Yarmuth (D) $2,100
7. Michael Steele (R) $2,100
7. John Gard (R) $2,100
Appendix
198
7. Michael Bouchard (R) $2,100
7. Sharron Angle (R) $2,100
7. Adrian Smith (R) $2,100
7. Rick O'Donnell (R) $2,100
7. William Sali (R) $2,100
7. Chris Chocola (R) $2,100
16. John Sununu (R) $2,000
17. Francine Busby (D) $1,000
17. Claire McCaskill (D) $1,000
17. Debbie Stabenow (D) $1,000
20. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) $500
20. Scott Kleeb (D) $500
20. Tammy Duckworth (D) $500
2004 All Recipients
TOTAL: $239,950
1. John Kerry (D) $8,200
2. Timothy Bishop (D) $7,500
2. Hillary Clinton (D) $7,500
4. George Bush (R) $4,000
5. Betty Castor (D) $2,000
5. Joe Lieberman (D) $2,000
5. Michael Oxley (R) $2,000
5. Steve Israel (D) $2,000
9. Stephanie Herseth (D) $1,000
9. Patricia Lamarch (3) $1,000
11. Howard Dean (D) $550
12. Inez Tenenbaum (D) $500
12. Daniel Montiardo (D) $500
12. Allyson Schwartz (D) $500
12. Tom Daschle (D) $500
2002 All Recipients
TOTAL: $92,445
1. Charles Schumer (D) $15,000
2.
Vivian Viloria-Fisher
(D) $4,000
3. Steve Israel (D) $2,000
3. Denise Majette (D) $2,000
5. Hillary Clinton (D) $1,000
5. Frank Lautenberg (D) $1,000
7.
Jill Long Thompson
(D) $300
8.
Martha Fuller Clark
(D) $250
8. Carol Roberts (D) $250
8. Stephanie Herseth (D) $250
8. Jim Maloney (D) $250
8. Rick Larsen (D) $250
8. Rush Holt (D) $250
8. Jay Inslee (D) $250
2000 All Recipients
TOTAL: $49,550
1. Hillary Clinton (D) $14,700
2. John McCain (R) $1,000
2. Bill Bradley (D) $1,000
1998 All Recipients
TOTAL: $93,000
1. Charles Schumer (D) $4,000
Appendix 199
Renaissance Lobbying Expenditures:267
2008
TOTAL: >$10,000*
E-Copernicus > $10,000*
2005-2006
N/A
2004
TOTAL: $200,000
Liz Robbins Assoc. $200,000
2003
TOTAL: $220,000
Liz Robbins Assoc. $220,000
2002
TOTAL: $220,000
Liz Robbins Assoc. $220,000
2001
TOTAL: $100,000
Liz Robbins Assoc. $100,000
1998-2000
N/A
Renaissance Official Covered Lobbyists:
N/A
267 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying amounts accessed February 2009.
* Not included in totals
Appendix
200
Accounting Firms: Arthur Andersen
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $3,324,175
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $1,900,000
Arthur Andersen
Campaign Contributions:268
2006-2008
N/A
2004 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $86,586
1. George W Bush (R) $12,950
2. John Edwards (D) $7,000
3. John Kerry (D) $6,750
4. George Allen (R) $1,000
4. Orrin G Hatch (R) $1,000
4. Paul Kanjorski (D) $1,000
4. Jim Moran (D) $1,000
4. David Vitter (R) $1,000
9. Bob Graham (D) $500
9. Nancy Johnson (R) $500
9. Pete Sessions (R) $500
12. Barack Obama (D) $300
13. Mike Ferguson (R) $250
13. Barbara Mikulski (D) $250
13.
George Nethercutt Jr
(R) $250
13. Earl Pomeroy (D) $250
13. David Scott (D) $250
268 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Campaign contribution totals accessed February
2009.
2002 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $705,263
1. Rahm Emanuel (D) $11,250
2. Billy Tauzin (R) $10,000
3. Tom Harkin (D) $9,000
4. Wayne Allard (R) $7,500
5. Ron Wyden (D) $7,050
6. Mike Ferguson (R) $6,950
7. Max Baucus (D) $6,500
7. Walter B Jones Jr (R) $6,500
9. Ken Bentsen (D) $6,250
10. Jim McCrery (R) $6,000
10.
Charles "Chip"
Pickering Jr (R) $6,000
12. Christopher Cox (R) $5,500
13. Dick Armey (R) $5,335
14. John Shadegg (R) $5,250
15. Martin Frost (D) $5,000
15. Dennis Hastert (R) $5,000
15. Jim Moran (D) $5,000
15. Harry Reid (D) $5,000
19. Dennis Moore (D) $4,750
20. Vito Fosella (R) $4,500
Appendix 201
2000 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,564,270
1. George W Bush (R) $150,900
2. Rick A Lazio (R) $44,550
3. Charles Schumer (D) $34,334
4. Bill Bradley (D) $30,600
5. Jon Kyl (R) $20,101
6. Al Gore (D) $19,350
7. Spencer Abraham (R) $17,650
8. John Ensign (R) $17,000
9. John McCain (R) $14,750
10. John Ashcroft (R) $11,500
11. Chris Dodd (D) $10,500
12. Mel Carnahan (D) $9,000
12. Billy Tauzin (R) $9,000
14. E Clay Shaw Jr (R) $8,500
15. Rudy Giuliani (R) $8,250
16. Rod Grams (R) $8,199
17. Lamar Alexander (R) $8,000
17. Cal Dooley (D) $8,000
19. Peter Fitzgerald (R) $7,565
20. George Allen (R) $7,500
1998 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $968,056
1. Alfonse D'Amato (R) $27,000
2. Evan Bayh (D) $13,750
3. Matt Fong (R) $13,536
4. Paul Coverdell (R) $10,700
5. Ron Wyden (D) $10,650
6.
Carol Moseley Braun
(D) $9,750
7. Peter Fitzgerald (R) $9,350
8. John Ensign (R) $8,350
9.
George Voinovich
(R) $8,250
10. Sherrod Brown (D) $8,187
11. Lauch Faircloth (R) $8,000
11. Billy Tauzin (R) $8,000
13. Robert F Bennett (R) $7,805
14. Joe Barton (R) $7,500
15. Fritz Holings (D) $7,460
16.
Leslie Ann Touma
(R) $7,250
17. Rick White (R) $7,200
18. Barbara Mikulski (D) $7,000
19. Jim Bunning (R) $6,874
20.
Christopher S 'Kit'
Bond (R) $6,250
Appendix
202
Arthur Andersen Lobbying
Expenditures:269
1999-2008
N/A
1998
TOTAL: $1,900,000
Arthur Andersen & Co $1,600,000
Johnson, Madigan et al $120,000
Mayer, Brown et al $40,000
OB-C Group $140,000
269 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying amounts accessed February 2009.
Appendix 203
Arthur Andersen Covered Official Lobbyists:270
Firm / Name of Lobbyist Covered Official Position Year (s)
Mayer, Brown et al
Rothfeld, Charles A
House Sub Comm on Select US Role/Iranian
Arms Transfers to Croatia & Bosnia 1998
OB-C Group
Mellody, Charles J Aide, House Ways & Means Comm. 1998
270 Source: Senate Office of Public Records <http://soprweb.senate.gov/>. Accessed January 2009.
Appendix
204
Accounting Firms: Deloitte & Touche
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $12,120,340
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $19,606,455
Deloitte Campaign Contributions:271
2008 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,420,112
1. Barack Obama (D) $177,598
2. John McCain (R) $90,850
3. Hillary Clinton (D) $68,300
4. Mitt Romney (R) $58,550
5. Chris Dodd (D) $51,250
6. Norm Coleman (R) $26,750
7. Rudy Giuliani (R) $24,800
8. Christopher Shays (R) $21,800
9. Saxby Chambliss (R) $12,300
10. Max Baucus (D) $11,000
10. Barney Frank (D) $11,000
10. Michael McCaul (R) $11,000
13. Mike Conaway (R) $10,500
13. Vito Fossella (R) $10,500
15. Spencer Bachus (R) $10,000
15. Roy Blunt (R) $10,000
15. John Boehner (R) $10,000
15. Allen Boyd (D) $10,000
15. John Campbell (R) $10,000
15. Chris Cannon (R) $10,000
271 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Campaign contribution totals accessed February
2009. Individual recipient numbers do
not include the 4th Quarter of 2008.
2006 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,180,294
1. Mark Kennedy (R) $42,100
2. Spencer Bachus (R) $32,500
3. Chris Dodd (D) $29,000
4.
Christopher Shays
(R) $22,900
5. Richard Baker (R) $20,921
6. Tom Price (R) $20,000
7. Sherrod Brown (D) $19,160
8. Vito Fossella (R) $18,400
9. Henry Bonilla (R) $18,000
10. Hillary Clinton (D) $17,970
11. Rick Santorum (R) $16,950
12. John Campbell (R) $16,500
13. Jon Kyl (R) $14,600
14. George Allen (R) $14,000
15. Joe Lieberman ( I) $13,500
16. Daniel K Akaka (D) $13,000
17. Deborah Pryce (R) $12,498
18. Eric Cantor (R) $12,000
18. David Dreier (R) $12,000
18. Ben Nelson (D) $12,000
Appendix 205
2004 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,233,483
1. George W Bush (R) $290,450
2. John Kerry (D) $73,152
3. Charles Schumer (D) $39,999
4. Richard C Shelby (R) $28,500
5. Chris Dodd (D) $27,750
6. Vito Fossella (R) $23,300
7. Mark Kennedy (R) $19,700
8. John Thune (R) $15,450
9.
Robert "Bob"
Conaway (D) $15,000
10. James W DeMint (R) $13,850
11. Daniel K Inouye (D) $13,500
12. Eric Cantor (R) $13,000
13. Patty Murray (D) $12,050
14. Tom Latham (R) $12,000
15. Joseph Crowley (D) $11,000
15. David Vitter (R) $11,000
17. Richard Burr (R) $10,798
18. Tom Davis (R) $10,500
19. Erskine Bowles (D) $10,250
20. Spencer Bachus (R) $10,000
2002 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,873,011
1. Mike Enzi (R) $44,249
2. Vito Fossella (R) $16,500
3. Connie Morella (R) $15,172
4. Mark Kennedy (R) $14,000
5. Eric Cantor (R) $12,999
6. Norm Coleman (R) $12,884
7. Elizabeth Dole (R) $12,750
8. Billy Tauzin (R) $12,000
9. John Thune (R) $11,800
10. Felix Grucci Jr (R) $11,200
11. James Talent (R) $11,000
12. Anne Northup (R) $10,500
13. Max Baucus (D) $10,000
13. Thad Cochran (R) $10,000
13. Susan Collins (R) $10,000
13. J D Hayworth (R) $10,000
13. Tim Hutchinson (R) $10,000
13. Dennis Moore (D) $10,000
13.
Charles “Chip”
Pickering Jr (R) $10,000
20. Sue Kelly (R) $9,999
2000 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,982,826
1. George W Bush (R) $83,850
2. Charles Schumer (D) $48,500
3. Rick A Lazio (R) $48,250
4. Hillary Clinton (D) $40,750
5. Rudy Giuliani (R) $38,700
6. Spencer Abraham (R) $30,000
7. Bill Bradley (D) $25,000
8. John McCain (R) $18,200
9. Charles Rangel (D) $14,750
10. Chris Dodd (D) $14,500
11. Mike DeWine (R) $13,650
12. Vito Fossella (R) $12,750
13. Edolphus Towns (D) $11,000
14. E Clay Shaw, Jr (R) $10,800
15. James E Rogan (R) $10,724
16. Jim Maloney (D) $10,500
16. Brad Sherman (D) $10,500
18. John Ashcroft (R) $10,450
19. James M Jeffords (R) $10,000
19. Steven Kuykendall (R) $10,000
Appendix
206
1998 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,430,614
1. Chris Dodd (D) $66,145
2. Alfonse D'Amato (R) $45,000
3. Charles Schumer (D) $28,450
4. Ron Wyden (D) $22,850
5. Vito Fossella (R) $20,050
6. Matt Fong (R) $13,050
7. Lauch Faircloth (R) $12,875
8.
George Voinovich
(R) $12,000
9. Chuck Grassley (R) $11,500
10. Anna Eshoo (D) $10,000
10. Rick White (R) $10,000
12. Don Nickles (R) $9,500
13.
Christopher S 'Kit'
Bond (R) $9,000
13. Collin C Peterson (D) $9,000
13. Heather Wilson (R) $9,000
16.
Carol Moseley Braun
(D) $8,800
17. Robert F Bennett (R) $8,000
17.
Ben Nighthorse
Campbell (R) $8,000
17. Trent Lott (R) $8,000
20. Paul Coverdell (R) $7,500
Appendix 207
Deloitte Lobbing Expenditures:272
2008
TOTAL: $1,140,000
Deloitte & Touche $650,000
Clark & Assoc $50,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
Johnson, Madigan et al $240,000
Mayer, Brown et al > $10,000*
BGR Holding $120,000
2007
TOTAL: $2,220,000
Deloitte & Touche $440,000
Clark & Assoc $40,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
Deloitte LLP $1,060,000
Johnson, Madigan et al $240,000
Mayer, Brown et al $40,000
BGR Holding $120,000
Tew Cardenas $200,000
2006
TOTAL: $1,960,000
Deloitte & Touche $360,000
Clark & Assoc $40,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
Deloitte LLP $840,000
Johnson, Madigan et al $240,000
Mayer, Brown et al $80,000
MWW Group > $10,000*
Barbour, Griffith & Rogers $120,000
272 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying amounts accessed February 2009.
* Not included in totals
Tew Cardenas LLP $200,000
2005
TOTAL: $1,440,000
Clark & Assoc $20,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
Deloitte Tax $860,000
Johnson, Madigan et al $240,000
Barbour, Griffith & Rogers $120,000
Tew Cardenas LLP $120,000
2004
TOTAL: $1,520,000
Deloitte Tax $20,000
Barbour, Griffith & Rogers $120,000
Holland & Knight $100,000
Tew Cardenas LLP $60,000
Clark & Assoc $20,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
Deloitte Tax $840,000
Johnson, Madigan et al $240,000
Public Strategies $40,000
2003
TOTAL: $1,125,000
Deloitte Tax $660,000
Holland & Knight $145,000
Clark & Assoc $20,000
Clark & Weinstock $60,000
Johnson, Madigan et al $240,000
Appendix
208
2002
TOTAL: $1,677,455
Deloitte & Touche $1,107,455
Clark & Assoc $60,000
Clark & Weinstock $100,000
Thelen, Reid et al $10,000
Velasquez Group $240,000
Johnson, Madigan et al $160,000
2001
TOTAL: $2,625,000
Deloitte & Touche $300,000
Deloitte & Touche $160,000
Dewey Ballantine LLP $1,600,000
Ickes & Enright Group $25,000
Johnson, Madigan et al $320,000
Velasquez Group $220,000
2000
TOTAL: $4,609,000
Deloitte & Touche $2,524,000
Deloitte & Touche $240,000
Dewey Ballantne LLP $1,180,000
Greenberg Traurig LLP $60,000
Ickes & Enright Group $65,000
Johnson, Madigan et al $280,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
Mayer, Brown et al $60,000
Velasquez Group $120,000
1999
TOTAL: $870,000
Deloitte & Touche $440,000
Greenberg Traurig LLP $130,000
Ickes & Enright Group $20,000
Deloitte LLP $240,000
Mayer, Brown et al $40,000
1998
TOTAL: $420,000
Deloitte & Touche $360,000
Deloitte & Touche > $10,000*
Latham & Watkins $20,000
Mayer, Brown et al $40,000
* Not included in totals
Appendix 209
Deloitte Covered Official Lobbyists:273
Firm / Name of Lobbyist Covered Official Position Year(s)
Clark & Assoc.
Sam Geduldig Dir of Coalitions, House Fin. Serv. Comm 2008
Sr. Advisor, Majority Whip Roy Blunt
Clark & Weinstock
Ed Kutler Asst, Office of the Speaker, House of Reps 2006-2008
Asst, House Republic Whip
Vin Weber Member of Congress (MN) 2006-2008
Jon Schwantes Gen. Counsel, Sen. Judiciary Comm. 2007-2008
Margaret McGlinch Chief of Staff, Rep. Tim Walz 2007-2008
Leg. Director, Rep. Richard Neal
Leg. Counsel, Sen. Harry Reid
Leg. Aide, Sen. Daniel Moynihan
Sandra Stuart Asst Sec for Leg Affairs, Dept. of Defense 2006-2008
Chief of Staff, Rep. Vic Fazio
Brian Bieron Policy Director, House Rules Comm. 2002
Kent Bonham Policy Director, Sen. Chuck Hagel 2002
Juleanna Glover Weiss Press Secretary to the Vice President 2003
Timothy Morrison Assoc. Dir, Presidential Personnel 2003
Clark Lytle & Geduldig
Sam Geduldig Dir. Of Coalitions, House Fin. Serv Comm 2007
Sr Advisor, Majority Whip Roy Blunt
Deloitte & Touche LLP
Janet Hale Undersecretary for Mgt, DHS 2007
William Ezzell Partner 2007
Cindy Stevens Director 2007
Charles Heeter Principal 2007
273 Source: Senate Office of Public Records <http://soprweb.senate.gov/>. Accessed January 2009.
Appendix
210
Holland & Knight
Leigh A. Bradley Gen Counsel, Dept of Veterans Affairs 2003
Tillie Fowler Former U.S. Representative 2003
Chris DeLacy Leg. Aide, Sen. John Warner 2003
David Gilliland Chief of Staff, Rep. Tillie Fowelr 2003
Mayer, Brown et al
Jeffrey Lewis Legislative Asst, Sen Breaux 2001-2000
Appendix 211
Accounting Firms: Ernst & Young
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $12,482,407
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $25,108,536
Ernst & Young
Campaign Contributions:274
2008 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,170,392
1. Rudy Giuliani (R) $292,350
2. Hillary Clinton (D) $165,692
3. Barack Obama (D) $150,207
4. John McCain (R) $105,606
5. Chris Dodd (D) $70,750
6. Mitt Romney (R) $37,800
7. John Cornyn (R) $19,550
8. Max Baucus (D) $18,850
9. John Boehner (R) $13,500
9. Norm Coleman (R) $13,500
11. Susan M Collins (R) $13,300
12. Charles B Rangel (D) $13,287
13. Eric Cantor (R) $12,100
14. Chris Van Hollen (D) $11,000
15. Barney Frank (D) $10,900
16. Spencer Bachus (R) $10,000
16. Elizabeth Dole (R) $10,000
16. Steny H Hoyer (D) $10,000
16. Jay Rockefeller (D) $10,000
274 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Campaign contribution totals accessed February
2009. Individual recipient numbers do
not include the 4th Quarter of 2008.
16. David Scott (D) $10,000
2006 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,592,550
1. Hillary Clinton (D) $81,500
2. Rudy Giuliani (R) $46,200
3. Ben Cardin (D) $23,003
4. Richard Baker (R) $20,250
5. Mike DeWine (R) $20,100
6. John Boehner (R) $19,300
7. Rick Santorum (R) $16,700
8. George Allen (R) $15,650
9. Mark Kennedy (R) $15,250
10. Deborah Pryce (R) $14,650
11. Joe Lieberman (I) $14,200
12. Jon Kyl (R) $13,500
13. Tom DeLay (R) $12,100
14. James M Talent (R) $11,999
15. Barney Frank (D) $11,750
16. Jim McCrery (R) $11,500
17. Eric Cantor (R) $11,200
18. John Campbell (R) $11,000
18. Anne Northrup (R) $11,000
20.
Michael Fitzpatrick
(R) $10,500
Appendix
212
2004 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,140,864
1. George W. Bush (R) $305,140
2. John Kerry (D) $101,425
3.
George Voinovich
(R) $43,600
4. Charles Schumer (D) $38,250
5. Richard C Shelby (R) $33,700
6. Richard Burr (R) $24,061
7. Pete Sessions (R) $20,097
8. Michael G. Oxley (R) $19,800
9. Chris John (D) $17,978
10. Hillary Clinton (D) $16,500
11. Mel Martinez (R) $16,261
12. John Thune (R) $15,000
13. Tom Daschle (D) $14,000
14. Arlen Specter (R) $13,750
15.
Christopher S 'Kit'
Bond (R) $13,000
15. Lisa Murkowski (R) $13,000
17. Steny H Hoyer (D) $11,000
18. Evan Bayh (D) $10,500
18. James DeMint (R) $10,500
18. John Tanner (D) $10,500
2002 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,012,978
1. Charles Schumer (D) $63,550
2. John Cornyn (R) $16,700
3. Max Baucus (D) $16,261
4. Jay Rockefeller (D) $12,550
5. Saxby Chambliss (R) $12,500
5. Norm Coleman (R) $12,500
7. Mary L Landrieu (D) $12,250
8. James M Talent (R) $12,000
9. John Thune (R) $11,300
10. Connie Morella (R) $10,999
11. Anna Eshoo (D) $10,500
11. Rob Portman (R) $10,500
13. Dennis Moore (D) $10,200
14. Susan M Collins (R) $10,169
15. Roy Blunt (R) $10,000
15. Mark Kennedy (R) $10,000
15. Michael G Oxley (R) $10,000
18. Jennifer Dunn (R) $9,916
19. E Clay Shaw, Jr (R) $9,750
20. Robert Torricelli (D) $9,250
2000 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,845,336
1. George W. Bush (R) $181,949
2. Al Gore (D) $136,675
3. Bill Bradley (D) $67,750
4. Rick A Lazio (R) $30,850
5. Hillary Clinton (D) $30,450
6. Dianne Feinstein (D) $17,150
7. Mike DeWine (R) $15,750
8. John McCain (R) $14,525
9. George Allen (R) $14,450
10. Sherrod Brown (D) $14,000
10. Robert Torricelli (D) $14,000
12. John Ashcroft (R) $13,999
13. Spencer Abraham (R) $13,000
14. Bill Frist (R) $12,500
15. Charles S. Robb (D) $12,450
16. Chris Dodd (D) $12,250
17. Richard Gephardt (D) $12,000
17. Orrin G Hatch (R) $12,000
19. John R Kasich (R) $11,500
Appendix 213
20. E Clay Shaw, Jr. (R) $11,250
1998 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,720,281
1. Charles Schumer (D) $26,700
2. Alfonse D'Amato (R) $13,750
3. Newt Gingrich (R) $12,000
4.
Christopher S 'Kit'
Bond (R) $11,750
4. John Linder (R) $11,750
6.
George Voinovich
(R) $11,450
6. Rick White (R) $11,450
8. Barbara Boxer (D) $11,000
9. Peter Fitzgerald (R) $10,500
10. John Breaux (D) $10,249
11. Evan Bayh (D) $10,000
11. Thomas Bliley Jr (R) $10,000
11. Paul Coverdell (R) $10,000
11. Tom DeLay (R) $10,000
11. Jennifer Dunn (R) $10,000
11. John Ensign (R) $10,000
11. Martin Frost (D) $10,000
11. Chuck Grassley (R) $10,000
11. Fritz Hollings (D) $10,000
20. Anna Eshoo (D) $9,999
Appendix
214
Ernst & Young
Lobbying Expenditures:275
2008
TOTAL: $3,173,056
Ernst & Young $2,103,056
RR&G $240,000
Elmendrof Strategies $200,000
Glover Park Group $160,000
American Continental
Group $120,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
Clark & Assoc $60,000
Mayer, Brown et al >$10,000*
Jolly/Rissler $210,000
2007
TOTAL: $3,560,480
Ernst & Young $2,440,480
RR&G $240,000
Glover Park Group $200,000
Elmendorf Strategies $200,000
American Continental
Group $120,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
Clark & Assoc $40,000
Mayer, Brown et al $40,000
Jolly/Rissler Inc $200,000
2006
TOTAL: $1,741,500
Ernst & Young $861,500
RR&G $160,000
275 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying amounts accessed February 2009.
* Not included in totals
Glover Park Group $140,000
Alpine Group $140,000
American Continental
Group $120,000
Mayer, Brown et al $80,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
Clark & Assoc $40,000
Jolly/Rissler Inc $120,000
2005
TOTAL: $2,549,640
Ernst & Young $1,749,640
Alpine Group $200,000
Glover Park Group $160,000
American Continental
Group $120,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
Bryan Cave Strategies $40,000
Clark & Assoc $40,000
Thelen, Reid & Priest $20,000
Jolly/Rissler Inc $140,000
2004
TOTAL: $2,650,000
Ernst & Young $1,790,000
Alpine Group $220,000
Harbour Group $140,000
Clark & Weinstock $140,000
American Continental
Group $120,000
Clark & Assoc $60,000
Public Strategies $40,000
Jolly/Rissler Inc $140,000
Appendix 215
2003
TOTAL: $2,880,000
Ernst & Young $1,980,000
Public Strategies $180,000
Clark & Weinstock $180,000
Alpine Group $160,000
American Continental
Group $120,000
Clark & Assoc $80,000
Jolly/Rissler Inc $80,000
Harbour Group $60,000
Barrett, Michael F. Jr $40,000
2002
TOTAL: $2,573,860
Ernst & Young $2,343,860
American Continental
Group $120,000
Clark & Weinstock $100,000
Thelen, Reid et al $10,000
Clark & Assoc > $10,000*
2001
TOTAL: $1,600,000
Ernst & Young $1,320,000
American Continental
Group $80,000
Mayer, Brown et al $60,000
2000
TOTAL: $1,340,000
Ernst & Young $1,200,000
American Continental
Group $80,000
Mayer, Brown et al $60,000
* Not included in totals
1999
TOTAL: $1,400,000
Ernst & Young $1,200,000
Fleishman-Hillard $100,000
Mayer, Brown et al $100,000
1998
TOTAL: $1,640,000
Ernst & Young $1,420,000
Fleishman-Hillard $180,000
Mayer, Brown et al $40,000
Appendix
216
Ernst & Young Covered Official Lobbyists:276
Firm / Name of Lobbyist Covered Official Position Year(s)
Mayer, Brown, & Platt
Jeffery Lewis Legislative Assitant to Senator Breaux 1999-2001
Clark and Weinstock
Brian Bieron Policy Director, House Rules Committee 2002
Kent Bonham Policy Director for Sen. Chuck Hagel 2002-2003
Juleanna Glover Weiss Press Secretary to the Vice President 2002-2003
Jonathan Schwantes
General Counsel, Senate Judiciary Committee
2007
Ed Kutler
Assistant Office of the Speaker House of
Reps 2008
Assistant, House Republic Whip
Sandra Stuart Asst. Sec. for Leg Affairs, DoD 2008
Chief of Staff, Rep. Vic Fazio
Vin Weber Member of Congress (MN) 2008
Margaret McGlinch Chief of Staff, Rep. Tim Walz, 2008
Leg. Director, Rep. Richard Neal
Legislative Aide, Sen Daniel Moynihan
Leg. Counsel, Sen Harry Reid
Jolly/Rissler Inc.
Thomas R. Jolly Chairman 2003-2004
Glover Park Group
Joyce Brayboy Chief of Staff, Rep. Mel Watt 2007
Joel Johnson Chief of Staff, Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, 2008
Exec. Director, House Democratic Study
Group
Assistant Secretary of the Minority US
Senate
Staff Director, Democratic Leadership
Committee, Special Assistant to the Presi-
276 Source: Senate Office of Public Records <http://soprweb.senate.gov/>. Accessed January 2009.
Appendix 217
dent for Policy, Communications
Susan Brophy Chief of Staff, Rep. Byron Dorgan 2008
Chief of Staff Senator Tim Wirth
Deputy Assistant to the President for Legislative
Affairs
Clark, Lytle, & Geduldig
Sam Geduldig
Dir of Coalitions, House Fin Serv Com, Sr
Advisor, Majority Whip Roy Blunt

Woof, 11th Post;

Appendix 165
Commercial Banks: JP Morgan Chase & Co.
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $15,714,953
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $49,372,915
JP Morgan Campaign
Contributions:243
2008 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $4,247,991
1. Barack Obama (D) $559,210
2. Hillary Clinton (D) $272,694
3. John McCain (R) $205,657
4. Rudy Giuliani (R) $94,300
5. Mitt Romney (R) $78,250
6. Chris Dodd (D) $68,950
7. Harry Reid (D) $53,300
8. John Cornyn (R) $48,598
9. Charles B. Rangel (D) $47,900
10. Rahm Emanuel (D) $44,700
11. Mary L. Landrieu (D) $41,399
12. Steny H. Hoyer (D) $34,300
13. Spencer Bachus (R) $33,000
14. Richard C. Shelby (R) $31,500
15. Dave Camp (R) $30,500
16. Fred Thompson (R) $29,450
17. Jack Reed (D) $27,850
18. Norm Coleman (R) $26,900
19. Tim Johnson (D) $26,495
20. Eric Cantor (R) $24,000
243 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Campaign contribution totals accessed February
2009. Individual recipient numbers do
not include the 4th Quarter of 2008.
2006 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,163,356
1. Hillary Clinton (D) $113,965
2. Richard Baker (R) $45,100
3. Tom Carper (D) $38,268
4. Michael G. Oxley (R) $35,100
5. Chris Dodd (D) $31,300
6. Mitch McConnell (R) $31,000
7. Mel Martinez (R) $30,600
8. Tim Johnson (D) $29,600
9. Steny H. Hoyer (D) $29,500
10. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D) $27,100
11. Max Baucus (D) $27,000
12. Kent Conrad (D) $25,000
13. Joe Lieberman (I) $23,901
14. Mike DeWine (R) $23,500
15. John E. Sununu (R) $22,500
16. Orrin G. Hatch (R) $21,000
17. Christopher Shays (R) $19,366
18. Melissa Bean (D) $18,542
19.
David McSweeney
(R) $17,950
20. Debbie Stabenow (D) $15,650
Appendix
166
2004 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $3,042,399
1. John Kerry (D) $200,565
2. George W. Bush (R) $187,150
3. Erskine B. Bowles (D) $59,750
4. Jay Helvey (R) $54,750
5. Charles Schumer (D) $47,550
6. Barack Obama (D) $47,300
7. Michael G. Oxley (R) $36,250
8. Richard C. Shelby (R) $35,000
9. Chris Dodd (D) $30,500
10. Tom Daschle (D) $28,450
11. Spencer Bachus (R) $20,000
12. John Edwards (D) $19,750
13. Jeb Hensarling (R) $19,500
14. Tom Carper (D) $19,411
15. Blanche Lincoln (D) $18,357
16. Martin Frost (D) $17,250
17. Michael N. Castle (R) $17,000
18. Pete Sessions (R) $16,800
19. Richard Baker (R) $16,500
20. Howard Dean (D) $16,161
2002 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,277,188
1. Charles Schumer (D) $160,000
2. Ron Kirk (D) $85,400
3. Max Baucus (D) $41,604
4. Erskine B. Bowles (D) $38,556
5. John Kerry (D) $37,000
6. Richard Baker (R) $24,000
7. Amo Houghton (R) $21,000
8. Wayne Allard (R) $20,000
8. Spencer Bachus (R) $20,000
10. Jim Maloney (D) $17,000
11. Mike Enzi (R) $16,000
11. Carolyn Maloney (D) $16,000
13. Ken Bentsen (D) $15,000
13. Phil English (R) $15,000
13. Bart Gordon (D) $15,000
13. Pat Toomey (R) $15,000
17. John Edwards (D) $14,500
18. Michael G. Oxley (R) $14,000
18. Rob Portman (R) $14,000
20. Tom Strickland (D) $13,146
2000 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,502,414
1. Bill Bradley (D) $133,255
2. Rick A. Lazio (R) $122,361
3. George W. Bush (R) $101,205
4. Charles Schumer (D) $89,250
5. Hillary Clinton (D) $53,750
6. Phil Gramm (R) $36,250
7. Al Gore (D) $36,050
8. Rudy Giuliani (R) $24,850
9. John McCain (R) $24,703
10. Richard G. Lugar (R) $24,550
11.
Peter Staub Wareing
(R) $21,500
12. Spencer Abraham (R) $21,250
13.
Kay Bailey Hutchison
(R) $21,000
14. John J. LaFalce (D) $19,750
15. Richard Baker (R) $17,000
16. Tom Campbell (R) $14,250
17. Pat Toomey (R) $13,500
18. Martin Frost (D) $13,000
18. Marge Roukema (R) $13,000
Appendix 167
20. Bill McCollum (R) $12,500
1998 Top Reciepients
TOTAL: $1,481,605
1. Alfonse D'Amato (R) $32,850
2. Charles Schumer (D) $27,650
3. Lauch Faircloth (R) $24,500
4. Rick A. Lazio (R) $19,350
5. Chris Dodd (D) $19,023
6.
Kay Bailey Hutchison
(R) $16,500
6. John J. LaFalce (D) $16,500
8.
Christopher S. 'Kit'
Bond (R) $13,000
8. Chuck Hagel (R) $13,000
10. Robert F. Bennett (R) $12,500
10. Tom Daschle (D) $12,500
12. Bill McCollum (R) $12,000
13. Martin Frost (D) $11,250
13. Pete King (R) $11,250
15. Richard Baker (R) $11,000
15. Bart Gordon (D) $11,000
17. Michael N. Castle (R) $10,550
17. Dick Armey (R) $10,500
19. Paul E. Gillmor (R) $10,000
19. Sue Kelly (R) $10,000
Appendix
168
JP Morgan Lobbying Expenses:244
2008
TOTAL: $6,336,000
JP Morgan Chase & Co $5,390,000
OB-C Group $240,000
Equale & Assoc $147,500
BKSH & Assoc $120,000
Richard F Hohlt $130,000
Triangle Assoc $88,000
Mayer, Brown et al $80,000
Walter Group $80,500
Fennel Consulting $50,000
David L Horne LLC $10,000
B&D Consulting > $10,000*
2007
TOTAL: $6,452,500
JP Morgan Chase & Co $5,440,000
OB-C Group $240,000
BKSH & Assoc $140,000
Richard F Hohit $95,500
Triangle Assoc $80,000
Mayer, Brown et al $80,000
David L Horne LLC $60,000
Equale & Assoc $60,000
Fennel Consulting $52,000
American Continental
Group $40,000
Walter Group $40,000
Wilmer, Cutler &
Pickering $40,000
B&D Consulting $20,000
244 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying amounts accessed February 2009.
* Not included in totals
Bryan Cave LLP $20,000
Thaxton, Richard R $45,000
2006
TOTAL: $7,204,040
JP Morgan Chase & Co $6,120,000
American Continental
Group $200,000
Tongour Simpson Group $140,000
BKSH & Assoc $120,000
Mayer, Brown et al $100,000
Triangle Assoc $80,000
Zeliff Enterprises $80,000
Richard F Hohlt $74,800
Private/Public Solutions $62,500
Angus & Nickerson $40,000
B&D Consulting $36,740
David L Horne LLC $20,000
Fennel Consulting $20,000
OB-C Group $20,000
Thaxton, Richard R $90,000
2005
TOTAL: $4,448,500
JP Morgan Chase & Co $3,540,000
Mayer, Brown et al $140,000
B&D Sagamore $120,000
BKSH & Assoc $120,000
Tongour Simpson Group $100,000
Richard F Hohit $83,500
Zeliff Enterprises $80,000
Triangle Assoc $70,000
Patton Boggs LLP $60,000
Angus & Nickerson $20,000
Appendix 169
Clark & Weinstock $20,000
Kerrigan & Assoc > $10,000*
Thaxton, Richard R $95,000
2004
TOTAL: $5,072,500
JP Morgan Chase & Co $3,580,000
Bank One Corp $415,000
Clark & Weinstock $310,000
B&D Sagamore $140,000
Mayer, Brown et al $140,000
BKSH & Assoc $120,000
Zeliff Enterprises $80,000
Richard F Hohit $67,500
Patton Boggs LLP $60,000
Triangle Assoc $40,000
Kerrigan & Assoc $40,000
Covington & Burling > $10,000*
Thaxton, Richard R $60,000
Brownstein, Hyatt et al $20,000
2003
TOTAL: $8,246,575
JP Morgan Chase & Co $6,706,575
BankOne Corp $720,000
Patton Boggs LLP $220,000
Williams & Jensen 140,000
BKSH & Assoc $120,000
B&D Sagamore $100,000
Richard F Hohit $80,000
Kerrigan & Assoc $40,000
Triangle Assoc > $10,000*
Covington & Burling $40,000
* Not included in totals
Thaxton, Richard R $60,000
Carmen Group $20,000
2002
TOTAL: $5,062,800
JP Morgan Chase & Co $4,700,000
B&D Sagamore $120,000
BKSH & Assoc $96,000
Williams & Jensen $80,000
Richard F Hohit $66,800
Triangle Assoc > $10,000*
Kerrigan & Assoc > $10,000*
2001
TOTAL: $6,550,000
JP Morgan Chase & Co $6,300,000
BKSH & Assoc $88,000
Richard F Hohit $62,000
B&D Sagamore $60,000
Williams & Jensen $40,000
1998-2000
N/A
* Not included in totals
Appendix
170
JP Morgan Covered Official Lobbyists:245
Firm / Name of Lobbyist Covered Official Position Year(s)
Carmen Group, Inc
Hoitsma, Gary Press Secretary, Senator Inhofe 2003
Wassmer, Victoria
Program Examiner, Transport Branch,
OMB 2003
Clark & Wienstock
Godes, Niles Chief of Staff to Sen. Byron Dorgan 2003
Lehman, Dirksen
Spec. Asst. for Legal Affairs for the President
2003
Angus & Nickerson
Angus, Barbara
Tax Counsel, Committee on Ways and
Means 2005-2006
Nickerson, Gregory
International Tax Counsel, Dept. of Treasury
2005-2006
Zeliff Enterprises
Zeliff, William H.
Former member of Congress: NH 1991-
1997 2005-2006
OB-C Group LLC
Stevenson, Robert Sen. Bill Frist Communications Director 2006
Private Public Solutions
Moffett, Anthony J. Former Member of Congress 2006
BKSH & Associates
Turner, Pam
Asst. Sec for LA Homeland Security,
2003-2006 2008
Dep Asst to Pres for LA 82-89
245 Source: Senate Office of Public Records <http://soprweb.senate.gov/>. Accessed January 2009.
Appendix 171
Fennel Consulting
Fennel, Melody Assistant Secretary, HUD 2005-2008
Appendix
172
Commercial Banks: Wachovia Corp.
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $3,946,727
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $11,996,752
Wachovia Campaign
Contributions:246
2008 Top Recipients247
TOTAL: $934,381
1. Barack Obama (D) $178,382
2. John McCain (R) $155,658
3. Hillary Clinton (D) $77,000
4. Rudy Giuliani (R) $49,400
5. Mitt Romney (R) $36,550
6. Robin Hayes (R) $18,929
7. Eric Cantor (R) $17,750
8. Elizabeth Dole (R) $16,700
9. Mark Warner (D) $15,550
10. Lindsey Graham (R) $15,400
11. Patrick McHenry (R) $15,350
11. Sue Myrick (R) $15,350
13. James Clyburn (D) $13,500
14. Chris Dodd (D) $12,750
15. Melvin Watt (D) $12,500
16. Artur Davis (D) $10,250
16. Tim Johnson (D) $10,250
18. Spencer Bachus (R) $10,000
246 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Campaign contribution totals accessed February
2009. Individual recipient numbers do
not include the 4th Quarter of 2008.
247 Based on highest 1,000 contributions plus
PAC contributions.
18. David Scott (D) $10,000
18. John Boehner (R) $10,000
2006 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $742,384
1. George Allen (R) $30,650
2. Rick Santorum (R) $26,600
3. Robin Hayes (R) $21,470
4. Sue Myrick (R) $17,700
5. Eric Cantor (R) $16,700
6. Patrick McHenry (R) $15,250
7. Richard Burr (R) $13,250
8. Michael Fitzpatrick (R) $11,050
9. Michael Steele (R) $10,450
10. Vernon Buchanan (R) $10,100
11. Robert Menendez (D) $10,000
11. Deborah Pryce (R) $10,000
11. Jim McCrery (R) $10,000
11. David Dreier (R) $10,000
11. John Boehner (R) $10,000
11. Richard Baker (R) $10,000
11. Spencer Bachus (R) $10,000
18. Jon Kyl (R) $9,000
18. Mitch McConnell (R) $9,000
20. John Spratt Jr (D) $8,800
Appendix 173
2004 Top Recipients248
TOTAL: $1,237,468
1. George W Bush (R) $223,960
2. Erskine Bowles (D) $95,750
3. Richard Burr (R) $76,000
4. John Kerry (D) $33,850
5. Eric Cantor (R) $23,000
6. Robin Hayes (R) $18,750
7. Sue Myrick (R) $16,500
8. Melvin Watt (D) $15,550
9. Arlen Specter (R) $14,300
10. Elizabeth Dole (R) $13,250
10. Jay Helvey (R) $13,250
12. Charlie Condon (R) $12,200
13. Johnny Isakson (R) $10,070
14. Chris Dodd (D) $10,000
14. Tom Carper (D) $10,000
16. John Thune (R) $9,500
17. Mel Martinez (R) $8,700
18. Pete Sessions (R) $8,250
19. Howard Dean (D) $7,460
20. Jim McCrery (R) $7,250
2002 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $790,969
1. Erskine Bowles (D) $77,200
2. Elizabeth Dole (R) $31,325
3. Robin Hayes (R) $19,470
4. Melvin Watt (D) $12,500
5. Richard Burr (R) $11,800
6. Saxby Chambliss (R) $10,500
7. Lindsey Graham (R) $10,250
8. Michael Oxley (R) $10,000
248 Based on highest 1,000 contributions plus
PAC contributions.
8. Richard Baker (R) $10,000
8. Spencer Bachus (R) $10,000
11. Walter Jones Jr (R) $9,500
12. Ed Royce (R) $6,000
12. Eric Cantor (R) $6,000
12. Max Baucus (D) $6,000
15. Calder Clay (R) $5,900
16. Cass Ballenger (R) $5,000
16. Gregory Meeks (D) $5,000
16. Jim Maloney (D) $5,000
16. Sue Myrick (R) $5,000
16. Wayne Allard (R) $5,000
16. Pete King (R) $5,000
2000 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $130,175
1. Elizabeth Dole (R) $9,450
2. Richard Burr (R) $8,450
3. Robin Hayes (R) $8,000
4. Walter Jones Jr (R) $6,500
5. John Edwards (D) $5,250
6. Zell Miller (D) $4,000
6. Sue Myrick (R) $4,000
8. Al Gore (D) $3,250
8. Bill McCullum (R) $3,250
10. Johnny Isakson (R) $3,000
10. Melvin Watt (D) $3,000
12. Lindsey Graham (R) $2,825
13. Bob Barr (R) $2,500
13. George W Bush (R) $2,500
13. Roger Kahn (D) $2,500
13. Trent Lott (R) $2,500
13. Floyd Spence (R) $2,500
18. Charles Norwood (R) $2,250
Appendix
174
19. Bill Bradley (D) $2,000
19. George Allen (R) $2,000
19. Jack Kingston (R) $2,000
19. John Linder (R) $2,000
19. Lamar Alexander (R) $2,000
19. Mack Mattingly (R) $2,000
19. Richard Baker (R) $2,000
19. Saxby Chambliss (R) $2,000
19. William Roth Jr (R) $2,000
19. Doug Haynes (R) $2,000
19. Mike McIntyre (D) $2,000
19. Charles Taylor (R) $2,000
1998 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $102,350
1. Lauch Faircloth (R) $15,100
2. Richard Burr (R) $13,000
3. Max Cleland (D) $7,500
4. Paul Coverdell (R) $5,750
5. Frank Lautenberg (R) $5,000
6. Fritz Hollings (D) $4,600
7. Walter Jones Jr (R) $4,500
8. Michael Coles (D) $4,000
9. Robin Hayes (R) $3,500
9. Mike McIntyre (D) $3,500
11. Melvin Watt (D) $3,250
12. Bob Ethridge (D) $3,000
13. John Linder (R) $2,500
13. Sue Myrick (R) $2,500
15. Charles Taylor (R) $2,250
15. Johnny Isakson (R) $2,250
17. James Clyburn (D) $1,500
18. Bob Graham (D) $1,000
18. Ernest Hollings (D) $1,000
18. John Kasich (R) $1,000
18. Bob Barr (R) $1,000
18. David Price (D) $1,000
18. Dan Page (R) $1,000
18. Howard Coble (R) $1,000
18. Cass Ballenger (R) $1,000
18. Jesse Helms (R) $1,000
18. Michael Fair (R) $1,000
18. John Spratt Jr (D) $1,000
Appendix 175
Wachovia Lobbying Expenditures:249
2008
TOTAL: $2,561,000
Wachovia Corp $1,781,000
C2 Group $200,000
Angus & Nickerson $120,000
Porterfield & Lowenthal $120,000
Public Strategies $80,000
Dixon, Dan $60,000
Jenkins Hill Group $80,000
Capitol Hill Strategies $80,000
Cypress Advocacy $20,000
Barnett, Sivon & Natter $20,000
Sullivan & Cromwell > $10,000*
2007
TOTAL: $2,295,752
Wachovia Corp $1,360,000
Kilpatrick Stockton $365,752
C2 Group $240,000
Capitol Hill Strategies $120,000
Jenkins Hill Group $100,000
Dixon, Dan $40,000
Public Strategies $30,000
Angus & Nickerson $20,000
Cypress Advocacy $20,000
Sullivan & Cromwell > $10,000*
249 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying amounts accessed February 2009.
* Not counted in total
2006
TOTAL: $1,740,000
Wachovia Corp $900,000
Kilpatrick Stockton $400,000
C2 Group $240,000
Capitol Hill Strategies $100,000
Jenkins Hill Group $80,000
Cypress Advocacy $20,000
2005
TOTAL: $1,220,000
Wachovia Corp $840,000
C2 Group $240,000
Jenkins Hill Group $60,000
Kilpatrick Stockton $60,000
Capitol Hill Strategies $20,000
2004
TOTAL: $1,030,000
Wachovia Corp $720,000
C2 Group $240,000
Jenkins Hill Group $70,000
2003
TOTAL: $320,000
Wachovia Corp $220,000
C2 Group $100,000
Appendix
176
2002
TOTAL: $420,000
Wachovia Corp $120,000
Williams & Jensen $300,000
Sullivan & Cromwell > $10,000*
2001
TOTAL: $730,000
Wachovia Corp $10,000
Williams & Jensen $620,000
2000
TOTAL: $480,000
Wachovia Corp > $10,000*
Williams & Jensen $460,000
Groom Law Group $20,000
1999
TOTAL: $600,000
Wachovia Corp $20,000
Williams & Jensen $440,000
Groom Law Group $140,000
Sullivan & Cromwell > $10,000*
Bradley, Arant et al > $10,000*
1998
TOTAL: $600,000
Groom Law Group $20,000
Sullivan & Cromwell > $10,000*
Williams & Jensen $580,000
* Not included in total
Appendix 177
Wachovia Covered Official Lobbyists:250
Firm / Name of Lobbyist Covered Official Position Year(s)
William & Jensen, PC
Bechtel, Phillip
General Counsel - Senate Banking Committee
1999-2002
Landers, David M. Legislative Counsel for Lauch Faircloth 1999-2002
McCarlle, Christine C. Special Assistant to Trent Lott 1999-2002
C2 Group, LLC
Hanson, Michael Chief of Staff to Congressman Sam Johnson 2003-2008
Murray, Jefferies Chief of Staff to Congressman Bud Cramer 2003-2008
Litterst, Nelson Special Asst. to the President for Leg Affairs 2004-2008
Knight, Shahira
Senior Advisor to Chair of Ways & Means
Committee 2006-2008
Elliott, Lesley Deputy Chief of Staff, Secretary of the Senate 2007-2008
Golden West Financial Corp
LaFalce, John Member of Congress 2005
Kilpatrick Stockton LLP
Dekeyser, Armand C/S Sen. Jeff Sessions 2005-2007
Cypress Advocacy
Cave, J. Patrick
Deputy Asst. Sec./ Acting Asst. Sec., Treasury
2005-2008
250 Source: Senate Office of Public Records <http://soprweb.senate.gov/>. Accessed January 2009.
Appendix
178
Commercial Banks: Wells Fargo
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $5,330,022
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $16,637,740
Wells Fargo Campaign Contributions:251
2008 Top Recipients252
TOTAL: $1,448,197
1. Barack Obama (D) $160,089
2. Hillary Clinton (D) $103,322
3. John McCain (R) $42,436
4. Norm Coleman (R) $36,500
5. Mitt Romney (R) $33,200
6. Rudy Giuliani (R) $19,450
7. John Edwards (D) $16,950
8. Max Baucus (D) $14,700
9. Erik Paulsen (R) $12,700
10. Ed Royce (R) $12,300
10. Paul Kanjorski (D) $12,300
12. John Cornyn (R) $11,500
13. John Sununu (R) $11,000
13. Tom Latham (R) $11,000
15. Pete Sessions (R) $10,000
15. Collin Peterson (D) $10,000
15. Nancy Pelosi (D) $10,000
15. George Miller (D) $10,000
15. Steny Hoyer (D) $10,000
251 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Campaign contribution totals accessed February
2009. Individual recipient numbers do
not include the 4th Quarter of 2008.
252 Based on highest 1,000 contributions plus
PAC contributions.
15. James Clyburn (D) $10,000
15. James Clyburn (D) $10,000
15. Spencer Bachus (R) $10,000
15. John Barrasso (R) $10,000
2006 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,054,492
1. Dianne Feinstein (D) $21,750
2. Amy Klobuchar (D) $18,585
3. Rick Santorum (R) $14,750
4. Michael McGavick (R) $14,250
5. Orrin Hatch (R) $13,900
6. Richard Baker (R) $13,500
7. Ed Royce (R) $13,000
8. Jon Kyl (R) $11,250
9. Christopher Shays (R) $11,000
10. Jeffery Lamberti (R) $10,350
11. Deborah Pryce (R) $10,000
11. Nancy Pelosi (D) $10,000
11. Jim McCrery (R) $10,000
11. Robert Byrd (D) $10,000
11. Conrad Burns (R) $10,000
16. Tom Latham (R) $9,750
17. Joe Lieberman (I) $9,200
18. Earl Pomeroy (D) $9,000
18. Spencer Bachus (R) $9,000
Appendix 179
20. Ben Nelson (D) $8,650
2004 Top Recipients253
TOTAL: $1,190,226
1. John Kerry (D) $67,700
2. George W Bush (R) $63,735
3. Chuck Grassley (R) $21,250
4. Tom Daschle (D) $19,250
5. Nancy Pelosi (D) $16,000
6. Howard Dean (D) $13,750
7. Jim Bunning (R) $13,000
7. Randy Neugebauer (R) $13,000
7. Richard Baker (R) $13,000
10. Barney Frank (D) $11,800
11. Bob Beuprez (R) $11,000
12. Lisa Murkowski (R) $10,250
13. Robert Bennett (R) $10,000
13. Michael Oxley (R) $10,000
13. Spencer Bachus (R) $10,000
13. Pete Domenici (R) $10,000
17. Richard Shelby (R) $9,750
18. John Thune (R) $9,400
19. Jeb Hensarling (R) $9,000
20. Mark Kennedy (R) $8,250
2002 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $613,262
1. Wayne Allard (R) $23,550
2. Norm Coleman (R) $18,500
3. John Thune (R) $16,500
4. Richard Baker (R) $12,000
5. Tim Johnson (D) $11,750
253 Based on highest 1,000 contributions plus
PAC contributions.
6. Max Baucus (D) $9,000
7. John Cornyn (R) $8,950
8. Chuck Hagel (R) $8,000
9. Jim Ramstad (R) $6,750
10. Gordon Smith (R) $6,500
11. Larry Craig (R) $6,000
11. Mike Enzi (R) $6,000
11. Jack Reed (D) $6,000
14. Earl Pomeroy (D) $5,750
15. Dick Armey (R) $5,000
15. Chuck Grassley (R) $5,000
17. Mark Kennedy (R) $4,900
18. Nancy Pelosi (D) $4,750
19. Ron Kirk (D) $4,500
19. Silvestre Reyes (D) $4,500
19. Ted Stevens (R) $4,500
19. Michael Oxley (R) $4,500
19. Charlie Gonzalez (D) $4,500
2000 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $676,676
1. Dianne Feinstein (D) $24,000
2. Jim Ramstad (R) $11,400
3. Bill Bradley (D) $10,500
3. Kent Conrad (D) $10,500
5. Jon Kyl (R) $10,250
6. George W Bush (R) $10,000
7. Rod Grams (R) $9,500
8. Bob Kerrey (D) $8,500
8. Bruce Vento (D) $8,500
8. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) $8,250
11. Al Gore (D) $7,550
12. Conrad Burns (R) $7,250
12. John Ensign (R) $7,250
Appendix
180
14. Slade Gorton (R) $6,900
15. Jeff Bingaman (D) $6,750
15. Paul Sarbanes (D) $6,750
17. Hillary Clinton (D) $6,460
18. Charlie Gonzalez (D) $5,500
18. Max Baucus (D) $5,500
18. Rick Lazio (R) $5,500
18. Tom Carper (D) $5,500
1998 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $347,169
1. Robert Bennet (R) $10,550
2. Chuck Grassley (R) $10,000
3. Chris Dodd (D) $8,000
4. Byron Dorgan (D) $7,500
5. Rod Grams (R) $6,500
6. Jeff Sessions (R) $6,000
7. Matt Fong (R) $5,500
8. Bill Clinton (D) $5,000
8. Bob Kerrey (D) $5,000
10. Bruce Vento (D) $4,750
12. Pete Sessions (R) $4,500
12. Steven Kuykendall (R) $4,000
12. Richard Baker (R) $4,000
12. Tom Daschle (D) $4,000
15. Buck McKeon (R) $3,500
15. Blanche Lincoln (D) $3,500
17. Robert Greenlee (R) $3,300
18. John McCain (R) $3,000
18. David Dreier (R) $3,000
18. Earl Pomeroy (D) $3,000
18. Scott McInnis (R) $3,000
18. Rick Lazio (R) $3,000
18. Ray LaHood (R) $3,000
18. Jerry Kleczka (D) $3,000
18. Armando Falcon (D) $3,000
18. Mark Baker (R) $3,000
18. Chuck Hagel (R) $3,000
Appendix 181
Wells Fargo Lobbying
Expenditures:254
2008
TOTAL: $1,674,740
Wells Fargo $1,200,740
Doremus, Theodore A Jr $444,000
Chesapeake Enterprises $30,000
2007
TOTAL: $2,347,000
Wells Fargo $1,919,000
Doremus, Theodore A Jr $428,000
2006
TOTAL: $2,565,000
Wells Fargo $1,765,000
Doremus, Theodore A Jr $400,000
Kilpatrick Stockton $400,000
2005
TOTAL: $2,050,000
Wells Fargo $1,590,000
Doremus, Theodore A Jr $400,000
Kilpatrick Stockton $60,000
2004
TOTAL: $1,680,000
Wells Fargo $1,280,000
Doremus, Theodore A Jr $400,000
254 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying amounts accessed February 2009.
2003
TOTAL: $1,560,000
Wells Fargo $960,000
Doremus, Theodore A Jr $400,000
Davis, Polk & Wardwell $200,000
2002
TOTAL: $820,000
Wells Fargo $620,000
Doremus, Theodore A Jr $200,000
2001
TOTAL: $870,000
Wells Fargo $650,000
HD Vest Financial Services
$20,000
Davis, Pol & Wardwell $100,000
Doremus, Theodore A Jr $100,000
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart > $10,000*
2000
TOTAL: $800,000
Wells Fargo $720,000
Davis, Pol & Wardwell $80,000
1999
TOTAL: $671,000
Wells Fargo $471,000
Davis, Polk & Wardwell $200,000
* Not included in the total amount
Appendix
182
1998
TOTAL: $1,600,000
Norwest Corp $1,180,000
Canfield & Assoc $20,000
Hogan & Hartson > $10,000*
Davis, Polk & Wardwell $200,000
Miller & Chevalier $20,000
Vickers, Linda $180,000
* Not included in the total amount
Appendix 183
Wells Fargo Covered Official Lobbyists:255
Firm / Name of Lobbyist Covered Official Position Year(s)
Kilpatrick Stockton LLP
Dekeyser, Armand C/S Sen. Jeff Sessions 2005-2006
255 Source: Senate Office of Public Records <http://soprweb.senate.gov/>. Accessed January 2009.
Appendix
184
Hedge Funds: Bridgewater Associates
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $274,650
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $855,000
Bridgewater Campaign Contributions:256
2008 All Recipients
TOTAL: $239,400
1. John McCain (R) $69,050
2. Barack Obama (D) $13,700
3.
David John Cappiello
(R) $4,600
4. Rudolph Giuliani (R) $3,300
5. Mitt Romney (R) $2,300
5. Paul Hodes (D) $2,300
7. Christopher Shays (R) $2,000
8. Patrick Murphy $200
2006 All Recipients
TOTAL: $8,750
1. Christopher Shays (D) $2,250
2. Ned Lamont (D) $1,250
3. Paul Hodes (D) $1,000
4. Jon Tester (D) $750
5. Diane Goss Farrell (D) $250
5. James Webb (D) $250
256 Source: Center for Responsive Politics. Campaign
contribution totals accessed February
2009. Individual recipient numbers do not include
the 4th Quarter of 2008.
2004 All Recipients
TOTAL: $25,500
1. George W Bush (R) $250
1. Wesley Clark (D) $250
2002
N/A
2000 All Recipients
TOTAL: $1,000
1. Stephanie Hunter Sanchez (D) $1,000
1998-1999
N/A
Appendix 185
Bridgewater Lobbying Expenses:257
2008
TOTAL: $135,000
Rich Feuer Group $135,000
2007
TOTAL: $220,000
Quinn, Gillespie & Assoc. $60,000
Rich Feuer Group $160,000
2006
TOTAL: $440,000
Quinn, Gillespie & Assoc. $340,000
Rich Feuer Group $100,000
2005
TOTAL: $60,000
Rich Feuer Group $60,000
1998-2004
N/A
Bridgewater Covered Official Lobbyists:
N/A
257 Source: Center for Responsive Politics. Lobbying amounts accessed January 2009 and may not include
4th Quarter amounts.
Appendix
186
Hedge Funds: DE Shaw Group
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $3,100,255
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $680,000
DE Shaw Campaign Contributions:258
2008 All Recipients
TOTAL: $841,541
1. Hillary Clinton (D) $18,650
2. Barack Obama (D) $13,320
3. Max Baucus (D) $3,250
4. Jeff Merkley (D) $2,700
5. Darcy Burner (D) $2,300
5. Kay Hagan (D) $2,300
5. Chellie Pingree (D) $2,300
5. Jerry McNerney (D) $2,300
5. Jeanne Shaheen (D) $2,300
5. Andrew Rice (D) $2,300
5. Jim Himes (D) $2,300
5. Mary Landrieu (D) $2,300
13. Bob Inglis (R) $2,000
13. Susan Collins (R) $2,000
14. Mitch McConnell (R) $2,000
15. Ron Klein (D) $1,500
16. Ron Paul (R) $1,100
17. Heather Wilson (R) $1,000
17. Steny Hoyer (D) $1,000
17. Roger Wicker (R) $1,000
17. James Risch (R) $1,000
17. Micahel Johanns (R) $1,000
258 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Campaign contribution totals accessed February
2009. Individual recipient numbers do
not include the 4th Quarter of 2008.
17. Norm Coleman (R) $1,000
2006 All Recipients
TOTAL: $485,200
1. Bob Casey (D) $4,100
2. Maria Cantwell (D) $4,000
3. Robert Menendez (D) $3,600
4. Healther Wilson (R) $3,000
5. Tim Mahoney (D) $2,100
5. Ben Nelson (D) $2,100
5. Evan Bayh (D) $2,100
8. Jo Bonner (R) $2,000
8. Chet Edwards (D) $2,000
8. Joe Lieberman (I) $2,000
8. Mike Ferguson (R) $2,000
8. Clay Shaw (R) $2,000
8. Mark Pryor (D) $2,000
8. Baron Hill (D) $2,000
8. Darcy Burner (D) $2,000
8. Patricia Madrid (D) $2,000
17. Edwin Perlmutter (D) $1,000
17. Olympia Snowe (R) $1,000
17. Max Baucus (D) $1,000
17. Nancy Johnson (R) $1,000
Appendix 187
2004 All Recipients
TOTAL: $256,250
1. John Kerry (D) $6,250
2. Blanche Lincoln (D) $4,000
2. Patty Murray (D) $4,000
4. Hillary Clinton (D) $2,000
5. Erskine Bowles (D) $1,000
5. Joseph Hoeffel (D) $1,000
5. Charles Rangel (D) $1,000
8. Joe Lieberman (D) $500
2002 All Recipients
TOTAL: $769,296
1. Erskine Bowles (D) $1,000
1. Jeanne Shaheen $1,000
2000
TOTAL: $503,968
1. Richard Gephardt (D) $1,000
2. John McCain (R) $750
1998
TOTAL: $244,000
No contributions to individual candidates
Appendix
188
DE Shaw Lobbying Expenses:259
2008
TOTAL: $20,000
Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti
Inc $20,000
2007
N/A
2006
TOTAL: $70,000
Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti
Inc $30,000
Navigant Consulting $40,000
2005
TOTAL: $110,000
Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti
Inc $30,000
Navigant Consulting $80,000
2004
TOTAL: $80,000
Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti
Inc $20,000
Navigant Consulting $60,000
2003
TOTAL: $20,000
Navigant Consulting $20,000
2002
N/A
259 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying amounts accessed February 2009.
2001
TOTAL: $20,000
Commonwealth Group $20,000
2000
TOTAL: $160,000
DE Shaw & Co $120,000
Commonwealth Group $40,000
1999
TOTAL: $80,000
DE Shaw & Co $40,000
Commonwealth Group $40,000
1998
TOTAL: $120,000
DE Shaw & Co $80,000
Commonwealth Group $40,000
Appendix 189
DE Shaw Covered Official Lobbyists:260
Firm / Name of Lobbyist Covered Position Year(s)
Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti Inc
Kelly Bingel Chief of Staff, Sen. Blanche Lincoln 2005-2006
Elise Finley Pickering
Chief of Staff, Rep. Shaddegg; Exec Director,
RPC 2006
Dean Rosen
Health Policy Director, Senate Majority
Leader 2005-2006
David Thomas Chief of Staff, Rep. Zoe Lofgren 2006
C. Stewart Verdery Jr Asst Sec for Homeland Security 2005
Alex Vogel Chief Council, Senate Majority Leader 2005
260 Source: Senate Office of Public Records <http://soprweb.senate.gov/>. Accessed January 200a

Woof, 10th Post;

Appendix
143
Investment Banks: Morgan Stanley
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $14,367,857
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $20,835,000
Morgan Stanley Campaign
Contributions:234
2008 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $3,573,627
1. Barack Obama (D) $425,502
2. Hillary Clinton (D) $376,980
3. John McCain (R) $258,677
4. Mitt Romney (R) $165,750
5. Rudy Giuliani (R) $133,750
6. Chris Dodd (D) $69,400
7. Fred Thompson (R) $42,800
8. Max Baucus (D) $30,500
9. Mark Kirk (R) $23,850
10. Jack Reed (D) $21,350
11. Mark Warner (D) $19,450
12. Michael N Castle (R) $17,850
13. Niki Tsongas (D) $17,100
14. Rahm Emanuel (D) $16,200
15. Susan M Collins (R) $15,933
16. Bill Richardson (D) $14,900
17. John Boehner (R) $14,300
17. Al Franken (D) $14,300
19. Jim Himes (D) $13,200
19. Scott Kleeb (D) $13,200
234 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Campaign contribution totals accessed February
2009. Individual recipient numbers do
not include the 4th Quarter of 2008.
2006 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,943,033
1. Hillary Clinton (D) $116,060
2. Harold Ford Jr (D) $43,650
3. Chris Dodd (D) $42,200
4. Joe Lieberman (I) $24,700
5. Rick Santorum (R) $19,250
6. Orrin G Hatch (R) $19,000
7. Jon Kyl (R) $17,100
8. Michael N Castle (R) $16,100
9. Mike DeWine (R) $15,600
10. Dennis Hastert (R) $14,100
11.
Kathleen Troia
McFarland (R) $14,000
12. Mark Kirk (R) $13,900
13. Thomas Kean Jr (R) $12,550
14.
Christopher Shays
(R) $12,350
15. Bob Corker (R) $12,200
16. Robert Menendez (D) $12,150
17. Tom Carper (D) $11,880
18. Ned Lamont (D) $11,850
19. Conrad Burns (R) $11,100
20. Scott Kleeb (D) $11,050
Appendix
144
2004 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $3,286,484
1. George W Bush (R) $600,480
2. John Kerry (D) $180,979
3. Charles Schumer (D) $57,000
4. Chris Dodd (D) $46,000
5. Robert Bennett (R) $38,000
6. Dennis Hastert (R) $34,750
7. John Edwards (D) $33,050
8. Erskine Bowles (D) $32,750
9. Howard Dean (D) $29,350
10. Arlen Specter (R) $27,750
11. James DeMint (R) $20,750
12. Barack Obama (D) $20,250
13. Wesley Clark (D) $19,550
14. Tom Daschle (D) $18,000
15. Michael N Castle (R) $17,000
15.
Andrew McKenna
(R) $17,000
17. Richard Burr (R) $16,549
18.
Christopher S 'Kit'
Bond (R) $15,400
19. Evan Bayh (D) $15,000
19. Mel Martinez (R) $15,000
2002 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,899,242
1. Charles Schumer (D) $52,500
2. Erskine Bowles (D) $27,000
3. Elizabeth Dole (R) $23,750
4. Rob Portman (R) $19,000
5. Frank Lautenberg (D) $18,150
6. Saxby Chambliss (R) $16,000
7. Max Baucus (D) $15,500
8. Norm Coleman (R) $15,450
9. Michael N Castle (R) $14,800
10. Evan Bayh (D) $14,450
11. Richard Baker (R) $14,000
11. Lindsey Graham (R) $14,000
13. James M Talent (R) $13,000
14. Mike Ferguson (R) $12,250
15. Billy Tauzin (R) $12,000
16. Roy Blunt (R) $11,000
17. Arlen Specter (R) $10,250
18. Mark Foley (R) $10,200
19. Wayne Allard (R) $10,000
19. Spencer Bachus (R) $10,000
2000 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,656,627
1. George W Bush (R) $148,050
2. Rick A Lazio (R) $139,450
3. Charles Schumer (D) $126,000
4. Bill Bradley (D) $97,850
5. Al Gore (D) $52,300
6. Phil Gramm (R) $41,500
7. John McCain (R) $38,050
8. Hillary Clinton (D) $30,400
9. Tom Campbell (R) $24,500
10. Charles S Robb (D) $23,000
11. Bill McCollum (R) $18,700
12. Spencer Abraham (R) $16,050
13. Rudy Giuliani (R) $15,800
14. William Roth Jr (R) $14,700
15. John J LaFalce (D) $14,000
16. Kent Conrad (D) $13,000
17. Mark Kirk (R) $12,150
17. Carolyn Maloney (D) $12,000
19. Jon S Corzine (D) $11,500
Appendix
145
20. Bob Franks (R) $11,250
1998 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,008,844
1. Lauch Faircloth (R) $48,100
2. Evan Bayh (D) $31,750
3. Charles Schumer (D) $31,500
4. Alfonse D'Amato (R) $30,500
5. Barbara Mikulski (D) $7,500
6. Robert Bennett (R) $7,000
7. Tom Daschle (D) $6,500
8. Jon D Fox (R) $6,250
8. Arlen Specter (R) $6,250
10. Michael N Castle (R) $5,750
11. Chris Dodd (D) $5,225
12. Phil Crane (R) $5,000
12. Edward Kennedy (D) $5,000
12. Rick A Lazio (R) $5,000
12. Trent Lott (R) $5,000
12. Michael G Oxley (R) $5,000
12. Larry Schneider (D) $5,000
12. Billy Tauzin (R) $5,000
19. Rick White (R) $4,800
20. John J LaFalce (D) $4,750
Appendix
146
Morgan Stanley Lobbying Expenditures235:
2008
TOTAL: $3,005,000
Morgan Stanley $2,500,000
Capitol Tax Partners $240,000
Eris Group $120,000
American Capitol Group $45,000
Baptista Group $60,000
Kate Moss Co $40,000
DCI Group > $10,000*
2007
TOTAL: $3,040,000
Morgan Stanley $2,360,000
Capitol Tax Partners $240,000
Eris Group $120,000
American Capitol Group $80,000
Baptista Group $80,000
James E Boland Jr $80,000
Kate Moss Co $40,000
Alston & Bird $40,000
DCI Group > $10,000*
2006
TOTAL: $3,360,000
Morgan Stanley $2,720,000
Capitol Tax Partners $240,000
James E Boland Jr $120,000
Bartlett & Bendall $60,000
Alston & Bird $60,000
Eris Group $60,000
235 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying amounts accessed February 2009.
* Not included in totals
Kate Moss Co $40,000
American Capitol Group $40,000
Baptista Group $20,000
DCI Group > $10,000*
2005
TOTAL: $2,840,000
Morgan Stanley $2,280,000
Capitol Tax Partners $240,000
Bartlett & Bendall $120,000
James E Boland Jr $120,000
Kate Moss Co $40,000
Alston & Bird $40,000
2004
TOTAL: $2,750,000
Morgan Stanley $2,180,000
Capitol Tax Partners $240,000
Bartlett & Bendall $120,000
James E Boland Jr $120,000
Kate Moss Co $50,000
Alston & Bird $40,000
2003
TOTAL: $2,580,000
Morgan Stanley $2,000,000
Capitol Tax Partners $200,000
Bartlett & Bendall $120,000
James E Boland Jr $100,000
Alston & Bird $100,000
Kate Moss Co $60,000
* Not included in totals
Appendix
147
2002
TOTAL: $1,960,000
Morgan Stanley $1,540,000
Capitol Tax Partners $200,000
Alston & Bird $80,000
James E Boland Jr $80,000
Kate Moss Co $60,000
2001
TOTAL: $1,300,000
Morgan Stanley $920,000
James E Boland Jr $80,000
Capitol Tax Partners $80,000
Kate Moss Co $80,000
Alston & Bird $70,000
Palmetto Group $40,000
George C Tagg $30,000
1998-2000
N/A
Appendix
148
Morgan Stanley Covered Official Lobbyists:236
Firm / Name of Lobbyist Covered Official Position Year (s)
Capitol Tax Partners
Fant, William
Deputy Asst Sec. (treasury) for legislative
affairs 2001-2004
Mikrut, Joseph Tax Legislative Counsel - US Treasury 2001-2008
Talisman, Jonathan Assistant Treasury Secretary for Tax Policy 2001-2008
Wilcox, Lawrence
Staff Director, Senate Republican Policy
Committee 2006-2008
McKenny, William Chief of Staff, Rep. Amo Hougton 2004-2008
Grafmeyer, Richard Deputy Chief of Staff - JCT 2003-2008
Dennis, James
Tax Counsel, Sen. Robb - Counsel, Sen.
Bingaman 2008
Javens, Christopher
Tax Counsel, Sen. Grassley, Sen. Finance
Committee 2008
Bartlett & Bendall
Amy D. Smith Deputy Assistant Secretary, US Treasury 2003
Gill, Shane Legislative Director, Rep. Spencer Bachus
2004-2005
2007
Alston & Bird
Martino, Paul G Tax Counsel, Senate Finance Committee 2006
Eris Group
Kadesh, Mark Chief of Staff, Sen. Feinstein 2006-2007
236 Source: Senate Office of Public Records <http://soprweb.senate.gov/>. Accessed January 2009.
Appendix 149
Commercial Banks: Bank of America
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $11,292,260
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $28,635,440
BOA Campaign Contributions:237
2008 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,212,369
1. Barack Obama (D) $230,552
2. John McCain (R) $126,175
3. Hillary Clinton (D) $106,071
4. Rudy Giuliani (R) $69,050
5. Chris Dodd (D) $63,100
6. Mitt Romney (R) $52,550
7. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D) $44,000
8. Michael N. Castle (R) $25,250
9.
Dutch Ruppersberger
(D) $17,200
10. Melissa Bean (D) $16,000
10. Rahm Emanuel (D) $16,000
12. Dick Durbin (D) $13,600
13. Melvin L. Watt (D) $13,500
14. Mark Warner (D) $12,800
15. Barney Frank (D) $12,750
16. Kay R. Hagen (D) $12,600
17. Peter Roskam (R) $11,500
18. Jack Reed (D) $11,321
19. James E. Clyburn (D) $11,000
20. John E. Sununu (R) $10,950
237 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Campaign contribution totals accessed February
2009. Individual recipient numbers do
not include the 4th Quarter of 2008.
2006 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,098,533
1. John M. Spratt Jr. (D) $64,500
2. Hillary Clinton (D) $53,085
3. David McSweeney (R) $33,800
4. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D) $32,400
5. Michael N. Castle (R) $31,250
6. Rick Santorum (R) $21,250
7. Tom Carper (D) $20,130
8. Spencer Bachus (R) $18,500
9. Jack Reed (D) $17,828
10. Pete Sessions (R) $17,700
11. Patrick McHenry (R) $16,999
12.
Dutch Ruppersberger
(D) $16,450
13. Robert Menendez (D) $16,000
14. Melissa Bean (D) $15,130
15.
Michael Fitzpatrick
(R) $15,000
16. Sue Myrick (R) $14,900
17. John E. Sununu (R) $14,607
18. Olympia J. Snowe (R) $14,600
19. Joe Lieberman (I) $14,549
20. James M. Talent (R) $14,500
Appendix
150
2004 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,360,786
1. George W. Bush (R) $195,761
2. John Kerry (D) $126,202
3. John M. Spratt Jr. (D) $50,700
4. Richard Burr (R) $44,100
5. Erskine B. Bowles (D) $43,800
6. Barack Obama (D) $28,500
7. Elizabeth Dole (R) $20,750
8. John Edwards (D) $18,050
9. Melvin L. Watt (D) $17,500
10. Richard Gephardt (D) $17,450
11. Sue Myrick (R) $16,500
12. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D) $16,000
13. Jay Helvey (R) $15,250
14. Michael G. Oxley (R) $15,000
15. Dennis Hastert (D) $14,500
16. Mike Ferguson (R) $13,000
17. David Vitter (R) $12,800
18. Pete Sessions (R) $11,065
19. Tim J. Michels (R) $10,950
20. Johnny Isakson (R) $10,700
2002 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,193,660
1. Charles Schumer (D) $57,500
2. Erskine B. Bowles (D) $37,600
3. Elizabeth Dole (R) $22,150
4. John M. Spratt Jr. (D) $20,750
5. Max Baucus (D) $18,450
6. John Cornyn (R) $11,000
7. Spencer Bachus (R) $10,000
7. Martin Frost (D) $10,000
9. Sue Myrick (R) $9,250
10. David Dreier (R) $9,000
11. Michael G. Oxley (R) $8,500
12. Charlie Gonzalez (D) $8,000
12. Tim Johnson (D) $8,000
14. Lindsey Graham (R) $7,750
14. Richard Baker (R) $7,500
16. Richard Gephardt (D) $7,000
16. Robin Hayes (R) $7,000
16. John Linder (R) $7,000
19. Jerry Weller (R) $6,888
20. Ken Bentsen (D) $6,500
2000 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,649,522
1. George W. Bush (R) $113,500
2. Bill Bradley (D) $56,450
3. John M. Spratt Jr. (D) $26,500
4. Phil Gramm (R) $25,500
5. Dianne Feinstein (D) $18,139
6. Sue Myrick (R) $16,850
7. Al Gore (D) $16,750
8. Martin Frost (D) $15,000
9. Rick A. Lazio (R) $13,550
10. Bill Nelson (D) $13,000
11. John McCain (R) $12,450
12. Bill McCollum (R) $11,500
13. Zell Miller (D) $11,000
14. David Dreier (R) $10,000
14. Richard Gephardt (D) $10,000
16. John Edwards (D) $9,750
17. Mel Carnahan (D) $8,150
18. Elizabeth Dole (R) $7,750
18. Charles S. Robb (D) $7,750
18. Ellen Tauscher (D) $7,750
Appendix 151
1998 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,114,390
1. Lauch Faircloth (R) $56,000
2.
Christopher S. 'Kit'
Bond $21,900
3. Bill McCollum (R) $18,500
4. Bob Graham (D) $17,950
5. John McCain (R) $17,550
6. John M. Spratt Jr. (D) $17,500
7. Richard Baker (R) $17,000
8.
Carol Moseley Braun
(D) $16,050
9. Robert F. Bennett (R) $16,000
9. Tom Daschle (D) $16,000
11. John Linder (R) $15,000
12. Evan Bayh (D) $14,000
12. Martin Frost (D) $14,000
14. Matt Fong (R) $13,000
15. Paul Coverdell (R) $12,500
15. Alfonse D'Amato (R) $12,500
15. Richard Gephardt (D) $12,500
15. Rick A. Lazio (R) $12,500
19. Ellen Tauscher (D) $12,300
20. Dick Armey (R) $12,000
Appendix
152
BOA Lobbying Expenditures:238
2008
TOTAL: $5,755,000
Bank of America $4,090,000
King & Spalding $480,000
Quinn, Gillespie & Assoc $360,000
Smith-Free Group $250,000
Bryan Cave Strategies $160,000
Public Strategies $165,000
Clark Consulting Federal
Policy group $100,000
Quadripoint Strategies $90,000
American Capitol Group $60,000
Covington & Burling > $10,000*
2007
TOTAL: $4,946,400
Bank of America $3,220,000
Quinn, Gillespie & Assoc $360,000
Kilpatrick Stockton $300,000
Clark Consulting Federal
Policy group $300,000
Smith-Free Group $280,000
King & Spalding $180,000
Covington & Burling $100,000
Bryan Cave Strategies $100,000
Quadripoint Strategies $76,400
Public Strategies $30,000
238 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying amounts accessed February 2009.
* Not included in totals
2006
TOTAL: $3,486,014
Bank of America $1,986,014
Kilpatrick Stockton $400,000
Quinn, Gillespie & Assoc $360,000
Clark Consulting Federal
Policy group $300,000
Smith-Free Group $240,000
Covington & Burling $120,000
Angus & Nickerson $40,000
Cypress Advocacy $20,000
Kate Moss Co $20,000
2005
TOTAL: $1,900,000
Bank of America $1,000,000
Clark Consulting Federal
Policy group $300,000
Quinn, Gillespie & Assoc $240,000
Smith & Assoc $240,000
Kilpatrick Stockton $60,000
Angus & Nickerson $20,000
Covington & Burling $20,000
Kate Moss Co $20,000
Winston & Strawn > $10,000*
* Not included in totals
Appendix 153
2004
TOTAL: $1,020,000
Bank of America $660,000
Clark Consulting Federal
Policy group $300,000
Kate Moss Co $40,000
Perkins, Smith & Cohen $20,000
Reed Smith LLP > $10,000*
Covington & Burling > $10,000*
2003
TOTAL: $1,196,141
Bank of America $656,141
Clark Consulting Federal
Policy group $300,000
Perkins, Smith & Cohen $160,000
Covington & Burling $40,000
Kate Moss Co $40,000
Reed Smith LLP > $10,000*
2002
TOTAL: $1,179,350
Bank of America $679,350
Clark Consulting Federal
Policy group $200,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $140,000
O'Connor & Hannan $120,000
Kate Moss Co $40,000
2001
TOTAL: $1,932,204
Bank of America $1,552,204
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $240,000
O'Connor & Hannan $100,000
Kate Moss Co $40,000
Holmes, Weddle & Barcott > $10,000*
2000
TOTAL: $1,947,331
Bank of America $1,567,331
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $240,000
Beck, Edward A III $40,000
Kate Moss Co $40,000
O'Connor & Hannan $40,000
Hyjek & Fix $20,000
Winston & Strawn > $10,000*
1999
TOTAL: $340,000
Beck, Edward A III $20,000
Covington & Burling > $10,000*
Hyjek & Fix $20,000
Kate Moss Co $40,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $260,000
Winston & Strawn > $10,000*
1998
TOTAL: $4,933,000
Bank of America $3,960,000
NationsBank $620,000
Bergner, Bockorny et al $140,000
Kate Moss Co $73,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $60,000
Beck, Edward A III $60,000
Covington & Burling > $10,000*
Covington & Burling $20,000
* Not included in totals
Appendix
154
BOA Covered Official Lobbyists:239
Firm / Name of Lobbyist Covered Official Position Year(s)
American Capitol Group
Nate Gatten Prof. Staff, Senate Banking Comm. 2008
Leg. Asst, Sen. Bennett
Staff, Sen. Budget Comm.
Brian Cave Strategies LLC
Waldo McMillan Intern, Rep. Chaka Fattah 2008
Floor Asst, Counsel for Bus. Affairs, Sen.
Harry Reid
Federal Policy Group (Clark & Wamberg)
Ken Kies Chief of Staff, Joint Comm on Taxation 2008
Matt Dolan Counsel, Sen. David Durenberger 2008
Pat Raffaniello Chief of Staff, Cong. Bill Brewster 2008
King & Spalding
William Clarkson Legislative Asst, Sen. Susan Collins 2007-2008
Archibald Galloway III
Sr. Defense Policy Advisor, Sen. Jeff Sessions
2008
Quinn Gillespie & Associates
Jack Quinn
Counsel, Pres. Clinton; Chief of Staff, VP
Gore 2008
Dave Hoppe
Staff Dir/CoS, Sen Lott; CoS Rep. Kemp and
Coats 2008
Jeff Connaughton Special Asst to chair of Sen. Judiciary Comm 2008
Special Asst to White House Counsel
Allison Giles Chief of Staff, Ways & Means Comm 2007-2008
Legislative Asst, Rep. Thomas
Elizabeth Hogan Special Asst, Dept of Commerce 2005-2008
Assoc. Dir, EOP; Intern, Rep. McCrery
Bonnie Hogue Duffy Staff, Sen. Comm on Aging 2008
239 Source: Senate Office of Public Records <http://soprweb.senate.gov/>. Accessed January 2009.
Appendix 155
Legislative Asst, Sen. Reed
Harriet James Melvin Prof. Staff, Rep Charles Hatcher 2008
Kevin Kayes Chief Counsel, Sen. Reid 2006-2008
Marc Lampkin Policy Dir, Sen Coverdell 2008
Nick Maduros Cloakroom assistant; Intern, Sen Lehman 2008
Christopher McCannell Chief of Staff, Cong. Crowley 2007-2008
Amy Jensen Cunniffee Special Asst to the Pres for Legal Affairs 2005-2006
Mike Hacker Comm Dir, Rep. Dingell 2005
Covington & Burling
Holly Fechner Policy Dir, Sen. Edward Kennedy 2007
Angus & Nickerson
Barbara Angus Int’l Tax Counsel, Dept of Treausry 2006
Gregory Nickerson Tax Counsel, Ways and Means Comm 2006
Cypress Advocacy
Patrick Cave Asst Sec, Dept of Treasury 2006
Kilpatrick Stockton
Armand Dekeyser Chief of Staff, Sen. Jeff Sessions 2005-2006
The Smith-Free Group
Jon Deuser Chief of Staff, Sen. Bunning 2006
PricewaterhouseCoopers
Tim Hanford Tax Counsel, Ways and Means Comm. 2001-2002
Kenneth Kies Chief of Staff, Joint Comm. on Taxation 2000-2001
Barbara Angus
Business Tax Counsel, Joint Comm. on
Taxation 2000-2001
Appendix
156
Commercial Banks: Citigroup
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $19,778,382
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $88,460,000
Citigroup Campaign Contributions:240
2008 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $4,270,678
1. Barack Obama (D) $543,430
2. Hillary Clinton (D) $423,417
3. John McCain (R) $301,301
4. Mitt Romney (R) $168,550
5. Chris Dodd (D) $157,244
6. Rudy Giuliani (R) $151,100
7. Charles B. Rangel (D) $61,450
8. John Edwards (D) $44,600
9. Saxby Chambliss (R) $40,350
10. Dick Durbin (D) $40,250
11. Spencer Bachus (R) $35,450
12. David Landrum (R) $30,450
13. Rahm Emanuel (D) $28,000
14. John E. Sununu (R) $26,850
15.
Shelley Moore Capito
(R) $25,700
16. Richard C. Shelby (R) $25,200
17. Max Baucus (D) $24,500
18. Chuck Hagel (R) $24,100
19. Joe Biden Jr. (D) $23,950
20. Jim Marshall (D) $23,050
240 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Campaign contribution totals accessed February
2009. Individual recipient numbers do
not include the 4th Quarter of 2008.
2006 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,576,066
1. Hillary Clinton (D) $134,610
2. Christopher J. Dodd (D) $107,800
3. Joe Lieberman (I) $59,450
4. Tom Carper (D) $55,300
5. Kent Conrad (D) $36,000
6. John E. Sununu (R) $35,250
7. Jim McCrery (R) $34,300
8. Mitch McConnell (R) $33,700
9. Jon Kyl (R) $33,400
10. Rick Santorum (R) $29,850
11. Christopher Shays (R) $23,000
12. Mike DeWine (R) $21,850
13. Thomas H. Kean Jr. (R) $21,550
14. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D) $19,800
15. Robert Menendez (D) $19,550
16. Ben Nelson (D) $18,200
17. Doris O. Matsui (D) $18,050
18. Bob Corker (R) $17,250
19. David Yassky (D) $16,050
20. James M. Talent (R) $15,900
Appendix 157
2004 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $3,003,758
1. George W. Bush (R) $315,820
2. John Kerry (D) $280,881
3. Hillary Clinton (D) $91,250
4. Charles Schumer (D) $80,800
5. Richard Shelby (R) $65,000
6. Tom Daschle (D) $56,700
7. Chris Dodd (D) $50,200
8. Michael G. Oxley (R) $40,550
9. Mike Crapo (R) $34,450
10. Harry Reid (D) $32,250
11. Wesley Clark (D) $30,650
12. Rob Portman (R) $30,000
13. Joe Lieberman (D) $29,000
14. Howard Dean (D) $26,886
15. Erskine B. Bowles (D) $25,550
16. Barack Obama (D) $21,350
17. Mel Martinez (R) $20,600
18. Evan Bayh (D) $17,543
19. Arlen Specter (R) $17,500
20. James W. DeMint (R) $17,250
2002 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $3,021,725
1. Tim Johnson (D) $54,560
2. Chris Dodd (D) $41,550
3. Charles B. Rangel (D) $40,500
4. Jean Carnahan (D) $39,750
5. Charles Schumer (D) $30,750
6.
Shelley Moore Capito
(R) $17,448
7. Amo Houghton (R) $17,050
8. Max Baucus (D) $16,250
9. John E. Sununu (R) $15,750
10. Nancy L. Johnson (R) $15,250
10. Ron Kirk (D) $15,250
12. Max Cleland (D) $14,950
13. Rahm Emanuel (D) $14,250
14. Norm Coleman (R) $12,000
14. Elizabeth Dole (R) $12,000
16. Bill Janklow (R) $11,000
16. Jim Maloney (D) $11,000
16. Billy Tauzin (R) $11,000
19. Nita M. Lowey (D) $10,500
19. Carolyn Maloney (D) $10,500
2000
TOTAL: $4,157,926
1. Charles Schumer (D) $135,550
2. Bill Bradley (D) $127,500
3. Rick A. Lazio (R) $127,390
4. George W. Bush (R) $115,700
5. Al Gore (D) $115,500
6. Hillary Clinton (D) $99,650
7. Joe Lieberman (D) $55,296
8. John McCain (R) $42,700
9. Rudy. Giuliani (R) $37,015
10. Spencer Abraham (R) $29,750
11. Bob Franks (R) $28,208
12. Carolyn Maloney (D) $22,000
13. William Roth Jr. (R) $20,650
14. Charles S. Robb (D) $19,250
15. Tim Johnson (D) $18,500
16. Nita M. Lowey (D) $18,000
17. John J. LaFalce (D) $15,250
18. Bill Nelson (D) $14,750
19. Nancy L. Johnson (R) $14,050
20. Phil Gramm (R) $13,500
Appendix
158
1998 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,748,229
1. Alfonse D'Amato (R) $105,914
2. Charles Schumer (D) $99,116
3. Chris Dodd (D) $40,250
4. Tom Daschle (D) $39,000
5. Nancy L. Johnson (D) $26,975
6. Geraldine Ferraro (D) $25,724
7. Charles B. Rangel (D) $25,500
8. Paul Coverdell (R) $19,964
9. Bob Graham (D) $19,857
10. Rick A. Lazio (R) $19,500
10. Nita M. Lowey (D) $19,500
12. Richard Gephardt (D) $18,000
13. Bob Kerrey (D) $16,500
14. Newt Gingrich (R) $16,000
15. Lauch Faircloth (R) $15,775
16.
Carol Moseley Braun
(D) $15,450
17.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
(D) $14,949
18. Richard Baker (R) $14,000
19. Evan Bayh (D) $13,750
20. Tom Delay (R) $12,000
Appendix 159
Citigroup Lobbying Expenditures:241
2008
TOTAL: $7,875,000
Citigroup Management
Corp $5,520,000
Avenue Solutions $100,000
Barnett, Sivon & Natter $260,000
Capitol Hill Strategies $240,000
Capitol Tax Partners $200,000
Cypress Advocacy $200,000
Ernst & Young $320,000
Ogilvy Government Relations
$320,000
Elmendorf Strategies $140,000
BGR Holding $110,000
Roberti Assoc $225,000
Timmons & Co $240,000
2007
TOTAL: $10,640,000
Citigroup Inc $8,180,000
Ernst & Young $320,000
Barnett, Sivon & Natter $320,000
Ogilvy Government Relations
$320,000
Kilpatrick Stockton $300,000
Capitol Hill Strategies $240,000
Avenue Solutions $240,000
Capitol Tax Partners $200,000
Cypress Advocacy $120,000
Dewey Square Group $40,000
Angus & Nickerson $40,000
King & Spalding $20,000
241 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying amounts accessed February 2009.
Timmons & Co $300,000
2006
TOTAL: $9,100,000
Citigroup Inc $6,760,000
Kilpatrick Stockton $400,000
Ernst & Young $340,000
Barnett, Sivon & Natter $340,000
Federalist Group $320,000
Avenue Solutions $170,000
O'Melveny & Myers $160,000
Capitol Hill Strategies $120,000
Cypress Advocacy $120,000
Capitol Tax Partners $110,000
Angus & Nickerson $60,000
Timmons & Co. $200,000
2005
TOTAL: $5,140,000
Citigroup Inc $3,600,000
Barnett, Sivon & Natter $360,000
Ogilvy Government Relations
$240,000
Avenue Solutions $180,000
Ernst & Young $160,000
Cypress Advocacy $120,000
Capitol Hill Strategies $120,000
Capitol Tax Partners $120,000
Angus & Nickerson $80,000
Kilpatrick Stockton $60,000
Cleary, Gottlieb et al $100,000
Appendix
160
2004
TOTAL: $8,520,000
Citigroup Inc $7,200,000
Barnett, Sivon & Natter $360,000
Ernst & Young $280,000
Federalist Group $240,000
Avenue Solutions $180,000
Capitol Hill Strategies $120,000
Capitol Tax Partners $120,000
Walker, Lynda K > $10,000*
Skadden, Arps et al $20,000
2003
TOTAL: $10,400,000
Citigroup Inc $7,800,000
Akin, Gump et al $960,000
Barnett, Sivon & Natter $360,000
Quinn, Gillespie & Assoc $240,000
Ernst & Young $200,000
Van Scoyoc Assoc $180,000
Barbour, Griffith & Rogers $160,000
Federalist Group $120,000
Avenue Solutions $90,000
Tonio Burgos & Assoc $50,000
Campbell-Crane & Assoc $40,000
Franzel, Brent S $40,000
Mayer, Brown et al $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners $120,000
2002
TOTAL: $7,730,000
Citigroup Inc $5,400,000
Akin, Gump et al $620,000
* Not included in totals
Barnett, Sivon & Natter $400,000
Ernst & Young $240,000
Verner, Liipfert et al $220,000
Avenue Solutions $150,000
Barbour, Griffith & Rogers $120,000
Mayer, Brown et al $80,000
Baker & Hostetler $80,000
Campbell-Crane & Assoc $80,000
Franzel, Brent S $80,000
Thaxton, Richard R $70,000
Tonio Burgos & Assoc $50,000
Van Scoyoc Assoc $40,000
Venn Strategies $40,000
Hogan & Hartson $20,000
Heidepriem & Mager > $10,000*
Capitol Tax Partners $40,000
2001
TOTAL: $5,930,000
Citigroup Inc $4,100,000
Barnett, Sivon & Natter $440,000
Verner, Liipfert et al $380,000
Baker & Hostetler $260,000
Ernst & Young $240,000
Mayer, Brown et al $100,000
PodestaMattoon $100,000
Campbell-Crane & Assoc $80,000
Thaxton, Richard R $60,000
Hogan & Hartson $40,000
Franzel, Brent S $40,000
Tonio Burgos & Assoc $30,000
Heidepriem & Mager $20,000
Rhoads Group $40,000
* Not included in totals
Appendix 161
2000
TOTAL: $6,420,000
Citigroup Inc $4,120,000
Associates First Capital $300,000
Verner, Liipfert et al $560,000
Barnett, Sivon & Natter $480,000
Akin, Gump et al $120,000
Ernst & Young $120,000
Baker & Hostetler $120,000
Thaxton, Richard R $90,000
Mayer, Brown et al $80,000
Campbell-Crane & Assoc $80,000
Franzel, Brent S $60,000
Barrett, Michael F Jr $60,000
Walker, Lynda K $50,000
Arter & Hadden $40,000
Heidepriem & Mager > $10,000*
Rhoads Group $120,000
Wilmer, Cutler &
Pickering $20,000
1999
TOTAL: $7,570,000
Citigroup Inc $5,080,000
Associates First Capital $300,000
Barnett, Sivon & Natter $500,000
Verner, Liipfert et al $480,000
Baker & Hostetler $240,000
Walker, Lynda K $180,000
Akin, Gump et al $160,000
Arter & Hadden $140,000
Franzel, Brent S $100,000
Wilmer, Cutler &
Pickering $80,000
* Not included in totals
Campbell-Crane & Assoc $60,000
Silbey, Franklin R $40,000
Thaxton, Richard R $40,000
Barrett, Michael F Jr $30,000
Heidepriem & Mager $20,000
Rhoads Group $120,000
Cleary, Gottlieb et al > $10,000*
1998
TOTAL: $9,135,000
Citigroup Inc $7,290,000
Verner, Liipfert et al $420,000
Barnett, Sivon & Natter $320,000
Arter & Hadden $260,000
Baker & Hostetler $260,000
Akin, Gump et al $180,000
Walker, Lynda K $80,000
Campbell-Crane & Assoc $60,000
Franzel, Brent S $40,000
Callister, Nebeker &
McCullough $40,000
Thaxton, Richard R $35,000
Silbey, Fanklin R $20,000
Ely & Co $20,000
Barrett, Michael F Jr $20,000
Davis & Harman > $10,000*
Heidepriem & Mager > $10,000*
Biklen, Stephen C > $10,000*
Alston & Bird $30,000
Cleary, Gottlieb et al $60,000
* Not included in totals
Appendix
162
Citigroup Covered Official Lobbyists:242
Firm / Name of Lobbyist Covered Official Position Year(s)
Angus & Nickerson
Angus, Barbara
Tax Counsel, Committee on Ways and
Means 2005-2007
Nickerson, Gregory International Tax Counsel, Dept. of Treasury 2005-2007
Avenue Solutions
Tejral, Amy Legislative Director, Senator Ben Nelson 2007
Baker & Hostetler
Kennelly, Barbara
Assoc. Commissioner - Social Securty
Admin. 2001
Barnett, Sivon & Natter
Barnett, Robert E. President (Attorney) 1999
Sivon, James C. VP/ Secretary (Attorney) 1999
Rivas, Jose S. Legislative/Regulatory Specialist 1999
Capitol Tax Partners
Fant, William
Deputy Asst. Secr (Treasury) for Legislative
Afrs 2002-2008
Mikrut, Joseph Tax Legislative Counsel - US Treasury 2002-2008
Talisman, Johnathan Assistant Treasury Secretary for Tax Policy 2002-2008
Grafmeyer, Rick Deputy Chief of Staff - JCT 2002-2008
McKenney, William Chief of Staff - Rep. Amo Houghton 2002-2008
Willcox, Lawrence G.
Staff Director, Senate Republican Policy
Committee 2006-2008
Dennis, James
Tax Counsel, Sen. Robb - Counsel, Sen.
Bingaman 2008
Javens, Christopher
Tax Counsel, Sen. Grassley, Sen. Finance
Committee 2008
Cypress Advocacy
Cave, J. Patrick Deputy Asst. Sec./Acting Asst. Sec, Treasury 2005-2007
242 Source: Senate Office of Public Records <http://soprweb.senate.gov/>. Accessed January 2009.
Appendix 163
Ernst & Young
Badger, Doug Chief of Staff, Office of Senator Nickles 2000-2002
Conklin, Brian Special Assistant to the President 2004
Federalist Group LLC
Cave, J. Patrick
Deputy Asst. Sec./ Acting Asst. Sec., Treasury
2003-2004
Dammann, Julie Chief of Staff, Senator Christopher S. Bond 2006
Sternhall, Alexander Deputy Staff Director, Sen. Banking Comm. 2008
Hogan & Hartson
Kyle, Robert D. Associate Director, OMB 2001
Kilpatrick Stockton
Dekeyser, Armand C/S Senator Jeff Sessions 2005-2006
King & Spalding LLP
Clarkson, William Legislative Assistant, Sen. Susan Collins 2007-2008
Ogilvy Government Relations
Dammann, Julie Chief of Staff, Senator Christopher S. Bond 2007-2008
PodestaMattoon
Clark, Bill
Executive Office of POTUS - Office of
Personnel 2001
Tornquist, David Office of Management and Budget 2001
PriceWaterhouseCoopers
Angus, Barbara Business Tax Counsel, JCT 1999-2000
Kies, Kenneth J. Chief of Staff, JCT 1999, 2000
Timmons & Co
Shapiro, Daniel Deputy Cos - Office of Sen. Bill Nelson 2007-2008
Paone, Martin Secretary for the Majority, US Senate 2008
Appendix
164
Van Scoyoc Assoc
Porterfield, Lendell Maj. Econ. US Committee on Banking 2002

Woof, 9th Post;

116
Investment Banks: Bear Stearns
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $6,355,737
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $9,550,000
Bear Stearns Campaign Contributions:219
2008 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,241,290
1. Rudy Giuliani (R) $130,091
2. Hillary Clinton (D) $127,460
3. John McCain $98,200
4. Barack Obama (D) $60,503
5. Christopher Dodd (D) $48,700
6. Mitt Romney (R) $31,550
7. Nita Lowey (D) $12,200
8. Frank Lautenberg (D) $11,600
9. Paul Kanjorski (D) $7,500
9. Elizabeth Dole (R) $7,500
11. Charles Rangel (D) $7,300
12. John Edwards (D) $6,850
13. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) $6,600
14. Dick Durbin (D) $6,400
15. Steny Hoyer (D) $6,000
16. Bill Richardson (D) $5,250
17. Tim Johnson (D) $5,000
17. Spencer Bachus (R) $5,000
17. Barney Frank (D) $5,000
20.
Christopher Shays
(R) $4,800
219 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Campaign contribution totals accessed February
2009. Individual recipient numbers do
not include the 4th Quarter of 2008.
2006 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $938,619
1. Chris Dodd (D) $67,850
2. Joe Lieberman (I) $49,610
3. Martha Rainville (R) $14,800
4. Hillary Clinton (D) $13,575
5. Deborah Pryce (R) $13,000
6. Spencer Bachus (R) $10,000
7. Rick Santorum (R) $8,700
8. Richard Baker (R) $7,500
8. Jim McCrery (R) $7,500
10. Paul Kanjorski (D) $6,500
11. Rudy Giuliani (R) $6,300
12.
Christopher Shays
(R) $6,165
13. Barney Frank (D) $5,500
13. Pete Sessions (R) $5,500
15. Evan Bayh (D) $5,000
15. Mike Crapo (RD) $5,000
15. Michael Oxley (R) $5,000
15. Bill Thomas (R) $5,000
15. Patrick Tiberi (R) $5,000
20. Mike Ferguson (R) $4,600
Appendix 117
2004 Top Recipients220
TOTAL: $1,458,005
1. George W Bush (R) $198,200
2. John Kerry (D) $65,400
3. Wesley Clark (D) $41,000
4. Rick Santorum (R) $20,500
5. Charles Schumer (D) $18,000
6. Richard Gephardt (D) $13,500
7. John Peterson (R) $12,000
8.
Charles Wieder Dent
(R) $11,080
9. Pete Sessions (R) $10,580
10. Lowey, Nita M (D) $10,000
11. Erskine Bowles (D) $8,080
12. Tom Daschle (D) $8,000
12. James DeMint (R) $8,000
12. John Thun, (R) $8,000
12. David Vitter (R) $8,000
16. Rahm Emanuel (D) $7,000
16. Luis Fortuno (3) $7,000
18. John Edwards (D) $6,250
19.
Charles Boustany Jr
(R) $6,080
20. Timothy Bishop (D) $5,500
2002 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $661,838
1. Charles Schumer (D) $94,900
2. Christopher Dodd (D) $92,900
3. Chuck Grassley (R) $16,000
4. Jack reed (R) $13,000
5. Nita Lowey (D) $11,250
6. Jack Conway (D) $7,750
220 Based on highest 1,000 contributions and
PAC money.
7. John Kerry (D) $7,000
8. Ron Kirk (D) $6,990
9. Tim Johnson (D) $6,000
9. Pete Domenici (R) $6,000
9. Michael Oxley (R) $6,000
9. Charles Rangel (D) $6,000
13. Artur Davis (D) $5,400
14. Denise Majette (D) $5,250
15. Paul Kanjorski (D) $5,000
16. Max Baucus (D) $4,500
16. Pat Toomey (R) $4,000
16. Bill Thomas (R) $4,000
19. Deborah Pryce (R) $3,500
20. Joe Biden (D) $3,250
2000 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,243,379
1. Rick Lazio (R) $40,000
2. Jon Corzine (D) $23,250
3. Spencer Abraham (R) $18,500
4. Hillary Clinton (D) $15,500
5. Vito Fossella (R) $11,000
6. Al Gore (D) $10,000
7. Charles Schumer (D) $9,500
8. George W Bush $7,000
9. Charles Rangel (D) $5,811
10. Orrin Hatch (R) $5,500
10.
David Lawther Johnson
(D) $5,500
12. Edolphus Towns (D) $5,000
13. Tom Harkin (D) $3,000
13. Marge Roukema (R) $3,000
13. Howard Berman (D) $3,000
13. George Allen (R) $3,000
17. Richard Neal (D) $2,500
Appendix
118
18. Steve Forbes (R) $2,250
18. John McCain (R) $2,250
20. William Roth (R) $2,000
20. Trent Lott (R) $2,000
20. Rod Grams (R) $2,000
20. Robert Torricelli (D) $2,000
20. Richard Lugar (R) $2,000
20. Phil Gramm (R) $2,000
20. Phil Crane (R) $2,000
20. Paul Sarbanes (D) $2,000
20. Kent Conrad (D) $2,000
20. John Kerry (D) $2,000
20. Jim Maloney (D) $2,000
20. E Clay Shaw (R) $2,000
20. Deborah Pryce (R) $2,000
20. Dan Quayle (R) $2,000
20. Christopher Dodd (D) $2,000
20. Bill McCollum (R) $2,000
20. Amo Houghton (R) $2,000
1998 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $812,606
1. Alfonse D'Amato (R) $38,950
2. Charles Rangel (D) $7,050
3.
Blanche Lambert
Lincoln (D) $7,000
3. John Edwards (D) $7,000
5. Tom Daschle (D) $6,250
6. Scotty Baesler (D) $6,000
7. Rick Lazio (R) $5,800
8. Evan Bayh (D) $5,000
9. John Breaux (D) $4,000
10.
Carol Moseley-Braun
(D) $3,000
10. John Kerry (D) $3,000
10. Newt Gingrich (R) $3,000
13. Rick White (R) $2,550
14. Jerry Weller (R) $2,500
15. Billy Tauzin (R) $2,050
15. Thomas Manton (D) $2,050
17. Amo Houghton (R) $2,000
17. Bob Graham (D) $2,000
17. Charles Grassley (R) $2,000
17. Christopher Bond (R) $2,000
17. Fritz Hollings (D) $2,000
17. Jerry Kleczka (D) $2,000
17. John Ensign (R) $2,000
17. John LaFalce (D) $2,000
17. Robert Bennett (R) $2,000
Appendix 119
Bear Stearns Lobbying Expenditures221:
2008
TOTAL: $460,000
Bear Stearns $420,000
Steptoe & Johnson $40,000
Venable LLP > $10,000*
2007
TOTAL: $1,120,000
Bear Stearns $900,000
Steptoe & Johnson $200,000
Venable LLP $20,000
2006
TOTAL: $1,200,000
Bear Stearns $780,000
Venable LLP $220,000
Steptoe & Johnson $160,000
Angus & Nickerson $40,000
2005
TOTAL: $820,000
Bear Stearns $540,000
Steptoe & Johnson $180,000
Venable LLP $60,000
Angus & Nickerson $40,000
221 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying amounts accessed February 2009.
* Not included in totals
2004
TOTAL: $900,000
Bear Stearns $680,000
Steptoe & Johnson $220,000
Venable LLP > $10,000*
2003
TOTAL: $920,000
Bear Stearns $620,000
Steptoe & Johnson $240,000
Venable LLP $60,000
2002
TOTAL: $800,000
Bear Stearns $520,000
Steptoe & Johnson $200,000
Venable LLP $80,000
2001
TOTAL: $960,000
Bear Stearns $640,000
Steptoe & Johnson $200,000
Venable LLP $80,000
O'Connor & Hannan $40,000
2000
TOTAL: $750,000
Bear Stearns $440,000
Steptoe & Johnson $190,000
O'Connor & Hannan $120,000
Appendix
120
1999
TOTAL: $760,000
Bear Stearns $500,000
Steptoe & Johnson $140,000
O'Connor & Hannan $120,000
1998
TOTAL: $860,000
Bear Stearns $560,000
Steptoe & Johnson $160,000
O'Connor & Hannan $140,000
Appendix 121
Bear Stearns Covered Official Lobbyists:222
Firm / Name of Lobbyist Covered Official Position Year(s)
Bear Stearns
Dombo III, Fred
Counsel, Office of Congressman Michael
Forbes 1999-2000
Venable LLP
Olchyk, Sam Joint Committee on Taxation Staff 2004-2008
Beeman, E. Ray
Legislative Counsel, Joint Committee on
Taxation Staff 2006-2008
222 Source: Senate Office of Public Records <http://soprweb.senate.gov/>. Accessed January 2009.
Appendix
122
Investment Banks: Goldman Sachs
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $25,445,983
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $21,637,530
Goldman Sachs Campaign Contributions223
2008 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $5,635,501
1. Barack Obama (D) $884,907
2. Hillary Clinton (D) $405,475
3. John McCain (R) $229,695
4. Mitt Romney (R) $229,675
5. Jim Himes (D) $140,448
6. Chris Dodd (D) $110,000
7. Rudy Giuliani (R) $109,450
8. John Edwards (D) $66,450
9. Arlen Specter (R) $47,600
10. Rahm Emanuel (D) $35,250
11. John Sununu (R) $31,400
12. Jack Reed (D) $30,100
13. Max Baucus (D) $26,000
14. Tom Harkin (D) $24,580
15. Frank Lautenberg (D) $24,100
16.
Michael Peter Skelly
(D) $23,364
17. Susan M Collins (R) $21,900
18. Mark Warner (D) $21,800
19. Mary L Landrieu (D) $20,700
20. Norm Coleman (R) $19,200
223 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Campaign contribution totals accessed February
2009. Individual recipient numbers do
not include the 4th Quarter of 2008.
2006 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $3,502,866
1. Hillary Clinton (D) $138,570
2. Robert Menendez (D) $80,500
3. Harold E Ford Jr (D) $80,497
4. Evan Bayh (D) $52,750
5. Sherrod Brown (D) $42,600
6. Maria Cantwell (D) $39,800
7. Joe Lieberman (I) $33,950
8. Ben Cardin (D) $33,150
9. Kent Conrad (D) $30,600
10. Thomas H Kean Jr (R) $29,500
11. Rick Santorum (R) $27,000
12. Bill Nelson (D) $25,400
13.
Sheldon Whitehouse
(D) $24,600
14. Mike DeWine (R) $23,500
15. Eric Cantor (R) $23,300
16.
Kay Bailey Hutchison
(R) $22,500
17. Richard Baker (R) $22,400
18. Max Baucus (D) $21,900
19. Rahm Emanuel (D) $18,800
20. George Allen (R) $17,800
Appendix 123
2004 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $6,426,438
1. George W Bush (R) $390,600
2. John Kerry (D) $303,250
3. Jack Ryan (R) $218,161
4. Tom Daschle (D) $143,500
5. John Edwards (D) $102,300
6. Evan Bayh (D) $72,000
7. Charles Schumer (D) $58,040
8. Chris Dodd (D) $58,000
8. Barack Obama (D) $58,000
10. Hillary Clinton (D) $55,000
11. Arlen Specter (R) $51,000
12. Erskine Bowles (D) $37,250
13. Tony Knowles (D) $34,050
14. Joe Lieberman (D) $34,000
15. Dylan C Glenn (R) $33,000
16. Wesley Clark (D) $32,500
17. Howard Dean (D) $30,500
18. Robert Menendez (D) $30,000
19. Richard Burr (R) $29,496
20. John McCain (R) $29,000
2002 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $3,510,035
1. Charles Schumer (D) $124,550
2. Jon Corzine (D) $47,970
3. John Edwards (D) $41,000
4. Robert Torricelli (D) $34,750
5. Tom Strickland (D) $34,000
6. Arlen Specter (R) $30,000
7. Tim Johnson (D) $28,980
8. Erskine Bowles (D) $28,000
9. Max Baucus (D) $26,000
10. Tom Harkin (D) $21,355
11. Lamar Alexander (R) $20,500
12. John E Sununu (R) $20,250
13. Robert Menendez (D) $18,500
14. Jean Carnahan (D) $18,355
15. Max Cleland (D) $18,230
16. John Cornyn (R) $18,000
16. John Kerry (D) $18,000
18. Norm Coleman (R) $15,500
19. Saxby Chambliss (R) $15,250
20. Maria Cantwell (D) $14,250
2000 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $4,432,977
1. Jon S Corzine (D) $554,900
2. Bill Bradley (D) $271,200
3. Rick A Lazio (R) $175,300
4. George W Bush (R) $137,499
5. Charles Schumer (D) $99,500
6. Al Gore (D) $95,050
7. Hillary Clinton (D) $88,170
8. John McCain (R) $67,320
9. Dick Zimmer (R) $53,200
10. Rudolph Giuliani (R) $40,000
11. Phil Gramm (R) $29,000
12. Rush Holt (D) $26,000
13. Frank Pallone Jr (D) $19,000
14. Nita M Lowey (D) $18,000
15.
Brian David
Schweitzer (D) $16,250
16. Dylan C Glenn (R) $15,500
17.
Kay Bailey Hutchison
(R) $15,000
17. Bill McCollum (R) $15,000
19. Eliot L Engel (D) $14,000
Appendix
124
19. Edolphus Towns (D) $14,000
1998 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,938,166
1. Charles Schumer (D) $107,550
2. Alfonse D'Amato (R) $70,050
3. Evan Bayh (D) $33,500
4. Chris Dodd (D) $21,000
5. Bob Kerrey (D) $17,495
6. Shawn D Terry (R) $15,000
7. Rick A Lazio (R) $14,500
8. John Breaux (D) $14,158
9.
Kay Bailey Hutchison
(R) $14,000
10. Geraldine Ferraro (D) $11,750
11. Amo Houghton (R) $11,500
12. Check Hagel (R) $11,000
13. John McCain (R) $10,400
14.
Daniel Patrick
Moynihan (R) $10,000
15. Jay R Pritzker (D) $9,200
16. Arlen Specter (R) $9,000
17. Nita M Lowey (D) $8,500
18. Paul Coverdell (R) $8,375
19. Lauch Faircloth (R) $8,000
19. Bob Graham (D) $8,000
Appendix 125
Goldman Sachs Lobbying Expenditures224:
2008
TOTAL: $5,210,000
Goldman Sachs $3,280,000
Duberstein Group $400,000
ML Strategies $280,000
Baptista Group $270,000
Capitol Tax Partners $240,000
Williams & Jensen $160,000
Rich Feuer Group $130,000
Angus & Nickerson $120,000
RR&G $80,000
Bingham McCutchen LLP $50,000
Law Offices of John T
O’Rourke $60,000
Sullivan & Cromwell $30,000
Vinson & Elkins $40,000
Mattox Woolfolk LLC > $10,000*
Gephardt Group $70,000
2007
TOTAL: $4,610,000
Goldman Sachs $2,720,000
Baptista Group $280,000
Duberstein Group $260,000
Vinson & Elkins $160,000
ML Strategies $140,000
DLA Piper $140,000
Angus & Nickerson $120,000
Bigham McCutchen LLP $120,000
Rich Feuer Group $120,000
224 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying amounts accessed February 2009.
* Not included in totals
Sullivan & Cromwell $120,000
RR&G $90,000
Williams & Jensen $80,000
Law Offices of John T
O'Rourke $80,000
Maddox Strategies $60,000
Capitol Tax Partners $60,000
Clark & Weinstock $60,000
2006
TOTAL: $3,651,250
Goldman Sachs $2,620,000
Baptista Group $200,000
DLA Piper $160,000
Rich Feuer Group $120,000
Angus & Nickerson $120,000
RR&G $110,000
Duberstein Group $100,000
Law Offices of John T
O'Rourke $81,250
Vinson & Elkins $80,000
Williams & Jensen $60,000
Clark & Assoc > $10,000*
2005
TOTAL: $1,712,000
Goldman Sachs $600,000
Clark Consulting Federal
Policy Group $140,000
Vinson & Elkins $140,000
Thelen, Reid & Priest $120,000
Law Offices of John T
O'Rourke $102,000
Rich Feuer Group $100,000
* Not included in totals
Appendix
126
DCI Group $100,000
Mattox Woolfolk LLC $90,000
Duberstein Group $80,000
Angus & Nickerson $80,000
Clark & Assoc $80,000
Williams & Jensen $80,000
2004
TOTAL: $1,230,000
Clark & Assoc $60,000
Clark Consulting Federal
Policy Group $260,000
DCI Group $100,000
Duberstein Group $40,000
Law Offices of John T
O'Rourke $200,000
Mattox Woolfolk LLC $90,000
Rich Feuer Group $60,000
Thelen, Reid & Priest $240,000
Vinson & Elkins $160,000
Williams & Jensen $20,000
2003
TOTAL: $1,030,000
Clark & Assoc $100,000
Clark Consulting Federal
Policy Group $240,000
Duberstein Group $80,000
Law Offices of John T
O'Rourke $80,000
Mattox Woolfolk LLC $70,000
Thelen, Reid & Priest $240,000
Vinson & Elkins $100,000
Williams & Jensen $40,000
Wilmer, Culter & Pickering $60,000
Winning Strategies Wash. $20,000
2002
TOTAL: $910,000
Clark & Assoc. > $10,000*
Clark Consulting Federal
Policy Group $200,000
Duberstein Group $220,000
Johnson, Madigan et al $120,000
Law Offices of John T
O'Rourke $110,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $40,000
Sullivan & Cromwell > $10,000*
Verner, Liipfert et al $40,000
Vinson & Elkins $120,000
Williams & Jensen $20,000
Winning Strategies Washington
$40,000
2001
TOTAL: $810,000
Duberstein Group $100,000
Johnson, Madigan et al $80,000
Law Offices of John T
O'Rourke $30,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $240,000
Verner, Liipfert et al $260,000
Vinson & Elkins $100,000
2000
TOTAL: $500,000
Duberstein Group $80,000
Law Offices of John T
O'Rourke $40,000
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius $20,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $240,000
Verner, Liipfert et al $40,000
* Not included in totals
Appendix
127
Vinson & Elkins $80,000
1999
TOTAL: $1,264,000
Duberstein Group $140,000
Law Offices of John T
O'Rourke $32,000
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius > $10,000*
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $240,000
Sullivan & Cromwell > $10,000*
Verner, Liipfert et al $60,000
Vinson & Elkins $160,000
1998
TOTAL: $710,280
Duberstein Group $140,000
Law Offices of John T
O'Rourke $115,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers > $10,000*
Sullivan & Cromwell > $10,000*
Verner, Liipfert et al $80,000
Vinson & Elkins $120,000
Washington Counsel $40,000
* Not included in totals
Appendix
128
Goldman Sachs Covered Official Lobbyists:225
Firm / Name of Lobbyist Covered Official Position Year(s)
PriceWaterhouseCoopers
Angus, Barbara
Business Tax Counsel, Committee on Taxation
1999- 2000
Kies, Kenneth Chief of Staff, Committee on Taxation 1999- 2000
Hanford, Tim Tax Counsel, Counsel on Ways and Means 2001
Verner, Liipfert et al
Hawley, Noelle M. Legislative Director, Rep. Bill Archer 1999
Jones, Brian C.
Investigator, Perm. Subcommittee on Investigations
2002
Madigan, Johnson et al
English, James
Staff Director, Senate Appropriations, Min
Staff 2001- 2002
Griffin, Patrick J. Director of Legal Affairs, White House 2001- 2002
Winning Strategies Washington
Mullins, Donna Chief of Staff, Rep. Frelinghuysen 2002-2003
Angus & Nickerson
Angus, Barbara
Tax Counsel, Committee on Ways and
Means 2005-2008,
Nickerson, Gregory International Tax Counsel, Dept. of Treasury 2005- 2008
Capitol Tax Partners LLP
Talisman, Johnathan Assistant Treasury Secretary for Tax Policy 2008
Grafmeyer, Richard Deputy Chief of Staff, JCT 2008
Mikrut, Joseph Tax Legislative Counsel - US Treasury 2008
McKenney, William
Staff Director, Ways and Means Over Subcommittee
2008
225 Source: Senate Office of Public Records <http://soprweb.senate.gov/>. Accessed January 2009.
Appendix
129
Wilcox, Lawrence
Staff Director, Senate Republican Policy
Committee 2008
Dennis, James
Tax Counsel, Sen. Robb - Counsel, Sen
Bingaman 2008
Javens, Christopher
Tax Counsel, Sen. Grassley, Senate Finance
Committee 2008
The Goldman Sachs Group. Inc
Connolly, Ken
S.A. Director of Office of Environmental
Policy; LD, 2008
Sen. Jeffords; LD, CEPW
Shirzad, Faryar
Dept. Nat’l Security Adv. For Int’l Econ.
Affairs 2008
Appendix
130
Investment Banks: Lehman Brothers
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $6,704,574
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $8,660,000
Lehman Campaign Contributions:226
2008 Top Recipients227
TOTAL: $2,211,761
1. Barack Obama (D) $288,538
2. Hillary Clinton (D) $227,150
3. Rudy Giuliani (R) $140,000
4. John McCain (R) $116,907
5. Mitt Romney (R) $96,200
6. Chris Dodd (D) $31,400
7. Rahm Emanuel (D) $23,000
8. Jack Reed (D) $21,600
9. Joseph Biden Jr (D) $21,100
10. John Edwards (D) $20,400
11. Bill Richardson (D) $13,800
12. Charles Rangel (D) $11,900
13. Steny Hoyer (D) $9,300
14. Jim Himes (D) $8,100
15. Mark Warner (D) $7,600
16. Lee Terry (R) $7,100
17. Steve Israel (D) $6,600
18. Jerrold Nadler (D) $5,600
19. Norm Coleman (R) $5,300
226 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Campaign contribution totals accessed February
2009. Individual recipient numbers do
not include the 4th Quarter of 2008.
227 Based on highest 1,000 contributions plus
PAC money.
19. Arlen Specter (R) $5,300
2006 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $917,414
1. Joe Lieberman (I) $82,900
2. Hillary Clinton (D) $54,190
3. Pete Ricketts (R) $13,600
4. Rick Santorum (R) $10,500
5. Harold Ford Jr (D) $9,600
6. Frank Lautenberg (D) $9,000
7. Robert Menendez (D) $8,900
8. Bill Nelson (D) $7,300
9. Ron Klein (D) $6,800
10. Rudy Giuliani (R) $6,300
11. Mike Crapo (R) $5,300
12. Dianne Feinstein (D) $5,100
13. Michael Oxley (R) $5,000
13. Orrin Hatch (R) $5,000
13. Dennis Hastert (R) $5,000
13. Barney Frank (D) $5,000
13. Vito Fossella (R-NY) $5,000
18. Claire McCaskill (D) $4,500
18. Jon Kyl (R) $4,500
18. Richard Baker (R) $4,500
Appendix
131
2004 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,985,718
1. George Bush (R) $237,650
2. John Kerry (D) $92,312
3. Chris Dodd (D) $55,000
4. Joe Lieberman (D) $35,950
5. Charles Schumer (D) $35,250
6. Wesley Clark (D) $28,500
7. Richard Gephardt (D) $19,500
8. John Edwards (D) $18,650
9. Tom Daschle (D) $16,970
10. Erskine Bowles (D) $10,000
10. Nancy Pelosi (D) $10,000
12. Barack Obama (D) $9,062
13. John Spratt Jr (D) $9,000
14. Arlen Specter (R) $8,812
15. Mel Martinez (R) $8,500
16. Alcee Hastings (D) $7,500
17. Richard Baker (R) $7,000
17. James Stork (D) $7,000
19.
Joseph Edward Driscoll
(D) $6,500
20. Judd Gregg (R) $6,000
2002 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $231,970228
1. Charles Schumer (D) $14,500
2. Robert Torricelli (D) $14,250
3. Max Baucus (D) $11,000
4. Michael Castle (R) $10,000
4. Michael Oxley (R) $10,000
6. Tom Strickland (D) $8,000
7. Max Cleland (D) $7,000
8. Dan Wofford (D) $5,550
228 Based only on campaign contributions
9. Richard Baker (R) $5,000
9. Billy Tauzin (R) $5,000
11. Lamar Alexander (R) $4,000
11. Erskine Bowles (D) $4,000
11. Nita Lowey (D) $4,000
14. Timothy Carden (D) $3,250
14. Ron Kirk (D) $3,250
16. Rick Boucher (D) $3,000
16. Chris Dodd (D) $3,000
16. Vito Fossella (R) $3,000
16. Tom Harkin (D) $3,000
16. Dennis Hastert (R) $3,000
16. Amo Houghton (R) $3,000
16. Tim Johnson (D) $3,000
16. Mary Landrieu (D) $3,000
16. Carolyn Maloney (D) $3,000
16. Jay Rockefeller (D) $3,000
16. John Spratt Jr (D) $3,000
2000 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $929,780
1. Bill Bradley (D) $51,800
2.
Brendan Thomas
Byrne Jr (D) $31,300
3. Jon Corzine (D) $20,200
4. Rick Lazio (R) $19,750
5. George W Bush (R) $11,000
6. Hillary Clinton (D) $10,550
7. Dianne Feinstein (D) $10,500
8. Charles Schumer (D) $10,000
9. Michael Oxley (R) $9,250
10. William Roth Jr (R) $9,000
11. Michael Castle (R) $8,000
11. Chris Dodd (D) $8,000
13. Spencer Abraham (R) $6,000
Appendix
132
13. Bob Kerrey (D) $6,000
15. Dennis Hastert (R) $5,500
16. Charles Rangel (D) $4,500
16. Edolphus Towns (D) $4,500
18. Richard Lugar (R) $4,000
19. Rick Boucher (D) $3,500
19. Rod Grams (R) $3,500
19. Joe Lieberman (D) $3,500
1998 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $427,931
1. Charles Schumer (D) $10,200
2. Chris Dodd (D) $9,500
3. Tom Daschle (D) $7,500
4. Alfonse D'Amato (R) $7,400
5. Rick Lazio (R) $6,000
6. Charles Rangel (D) $5,500
7.
Brendan Thomas
Byrne Jr (D) $5,000
8. John Breaux (D) $4,000
9. Bob Kerrey (D) $3,500
10. Christopher Bond (R) $3,000
11. Rick White (R) $2,550
11. Jerry Weller (R) $2,500
13. Thomas Manton (D) $2,050
13. Billy Tauzin (R) $2,050
15. Robert Bennett (R) $2,000
15. John Ensign (R) $2,000
15. Newt Gingrich (R) $2,000
15. Bob Graham (D) $2,000
15. Fritz Hollings (D) $2,000
15. Amo Houghton (R) $2,000
15. Jerry Kleczka (D) $2,000
15. John LaFalce (D) $2,000
Appendix
133
Lehman Lobbying Expenditures:229
2008
TOTAL: $720,000
Lehman Brothers $590,000
O'Neill, Athy & Casey $60,000
DLA Piper $70,000
2007
TOTAL: $840,000
Lehman Brothers $720,000
O'Neill, Athy & Casey $80,000
DLA Piper $40,000
2006
TOTAL: $1,140,000
Lehman Brothers $920,000
American Continental
Group $100,000
O'Neill, Athy & Casey $80,000
DLA Piper $40,000
2005
TOTAL: $1,080,000
Lehman Brothers $820,000
American Continental
Group $140,000
O'Neill, Athy & Casey $80,000
DLA Piper $40,000
229 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying amounts accessed February 2009.
2004
TOTAL: $740,000
Lehman Brothers $620,000
O'Neill, Athy & Casey $80,000
Piper Rudnick LLP $40,000
2003
TOTAL: $660,000
Lehman Brothers $540,000
O'Neill, Athy & Casey $80,000
Piper Rudnick LLP $40,000
2002
TOTAL: $660,000
Lehman Brothers $540,000
O'Neill, Athy & Casey $80,000
Verner, Liipfert et al $40,000
Piper Rudnick LLP > $10,000*
2001
TOTAL: $600,000
Lehman Brothers $320,000
Verner, Liipfert et al $200,000
O'Neill, Athy & Casey $80,000
2000
TOTAL: $560,000
Lehman Brothers $280,000
Verner, Liipfert et al $200,000
O'Neill, Athy & Casey $80,000
* Not included in totals
Appendix
134
1999
TOTAL: $860,000
Lehman Brothers $580,000
Verner, Liipfert et al $200,000
O'Neill, Athy & Casey $80,000
1998
TOTAL: $800,000
Lehman Brothers $560,000
Verner, Liipfert et al $140,000
O'Neill, Athy & Casey $80,000
Palmetto Group $20,000
Appendix
135
Lehman Covered Official Lobbyists:230
Firm / Name of Lobbyist Covered Official Position Year(s)
Verner, Liipfert et al
Hawley, Noelle M. Legislative Director, Rep. Bill Archer 1999-2001
Krasow, Cristina L.
Sr. Cloakroom Asst., Sen. Dem. Cloakroom
1999-2000
230 Source: Senate Office of Public Records <http://soprweb.senate.gov/>. Accessed January 2009.
Appendix
136
Investment Banks: Merrill Lynch
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $9,977,724
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $59,076,760
Merrill Lynch Campaign Contributions:231
2008 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,780,347
1. John McCain (R) $360,620
2. Barack Obama (D) $264,720
3. Rudy Giuliani (R) $210,275
4. Hillary Clinton (D) $202,568
5. Mitt Romney (R) $172,025
6. Chris Dodd (D) $67,300
7. Mitch McConnell (R) $31,600
8. Mark Pryor (D) $23,900
9. Debbie Stabenow (D) $23,850
10. Rahm Emanuel (D) $20,800
11. John Edwards (D) $19,075
12. Max Baucus (D) $17,800
13. Joseph Biden (D) $15,900
14.
Christopher Shays
(R) $14,675
15. Jack Reed (D) $10,500
16. Linda Ketner (D) $10,200
17. Chuck Hagel (R) $10,000
18. Gregory Meeks (D) $9,600
19. Tim Ryan (D) $9,200
20. Ron Paul (R) $9,001
231 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Campaign contribution totals accessed February
2009. Individual recipient numbers do
not include the 4th Quarter of 2008.
2006 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,153,733
1. Chris Dodd (D) $61,650
2. Harold E Ford Jr (D) $50,450
3. Hillary Clinton (D) $49,510
4. Bob Corker (R) $33,900
5. Mike DeWine (R) $30,000
6. Robert Menendez $28,450
7. Ben Nelson (D) $18,200
8. Chuck Hagel (R) $17,300
9. Rick Santorum (R) $16,800
10. George Allen (R) $14,050
11. Mike Ferguson (R) $12,400
12. Jim Matheson (D) $11,500
13. Christopher Shays (R) $10,450
14. Joe Lieberman (/I) $10,400
15. Sheldon Whitehouse (D) $10,200
16. Thomas Kean Jr (R) $10,150
17. Michael McGavick (R) $9,900
18. Ed Royce (R) $9,000
19. Geoff Davis (R) $8,700
20. David Dreier (R) $8,300
Appendix
137
2004 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,187,763
1. George W Bush (R) $580,004
2. David M Beasley (R) $118,500
3. John Kerry (D) $111,526
4. Charles Schumer (D) $50,250
5. Scott Paterno (R) $41,000
6. Arlen Specter (R) $29,600
7. Joe Lieberman (D) $27,900
8. Barack Obama (D) $21,000
9. Rick Santorum (R) $17,500
10. Tom Daschle (D) $13,000
11. Wesley Clark (D) $11,750
12. Richard C Shelby (R) $11,000
13. Howard Dean (D) $10,400
14.
Christopher s 'Kit'
Bond (R) $9,000
15.
Christopher Shays
(R) $8,200
16. Jay Helvey (R) $8,150
17. Christopher Cox (R) $7,675
18. Jim Bunning (R) $7,500
19. Lamar Alexander (R) $7,000
20. Michael R Turner (R) $6,750
2002 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $955,306
1. Charles Schumer (D) $76,750
2. Robert Torricelli (D) $13,500
3. Erskine Bowles (D) $12,000
4. Arlen Specter (R) $10,700
5. Lamar Alexander (R) $9,750
6. Elizabeth Dole (R) $9,200
7.
Christopher Shays
(R) $9,000
8. John Kerry (D) $7,250
9. Douglas Forrester (R) $6,750
10. Chellie Pingree (D) $6,250
11. Wayne Allard (R) $6,000
11. Hillary Clinton (D) $6,000
13. Rob Simmons (R) $5,500
14. Suzanne Terrell (R) $5,000
15. James M Talent (R) $4,700
16.
David Howard Fink
(D) $4,500
17. Jim Marshall (D) $4,250
17. Tom Strickland (D) $4,250
19. Max Baucus (D) $4,200
19. Norm Coleman (R) $4,200
2000 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,873,044
1. George W Bush (R) $132,425
2. Bill Bradley (D) $87,780
3. John McCain (R) $69,400
4. Rick A Lazio (R) $63,550
5. Al Gore (D) $28,500
6. Jon S Corzine (D) $24,250
7. Hillary Clinton (D) $22,925
8. Charles Schumer (D) $20,000
9. Spencer Abraham (R) $19,000
10. Phil Gramm (R) $17,000
11. Rudy Giuliani (R) $15,350
12. Dick Zimmer (R) $14,000
13. George Allen (R) $10,242
14. Orrin Hatch (R) $8,750
15. William Gormley (R) $8,500
16. Kent Conrad (D) $8,000
17. William Roth Jr (R) $7,250
18. Joe Lieberman (D) $7,000
18. Paul S Sarbanes (D) $7,000
Appendix
138
18. Robert Torricelli (D) $7,000
1998 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,027,531
1. Alfonse D'Amato (R) $53,200
2. Charles Schumer (D) $31,150
3.
Carol Moseley Braun
(D) $17,750
4. Bob Kerrey (D) $16,000
5. Chris Dodd (D) $14,250
6. Geraldine Ferraro (D) $10,500
7. Lauch Faircloth (R) $10,400
8. Evan Bayh (D) $10,300
9.
Daniel Patrick
Moynihan (R) $10,000
10. James M Casso (D) $9,000
10. Paul Coverdell (R) $9,000
12. Tom Daschle (D) $7,450
13. Gary A Franks (R) $6,750
13.
Christopher Shays
(R) $6,750
15. Spencer Abraham (R) $6,500
15. Michael Coles (D) $6,500
17.
Ben Nighthorse
Campbell (R) $6,000
18. David Wu (D) $5,750
19. Matt Fong (R) $5,500
19. Ellen Tauscher (D) $5,500
Appendix
139
Merrill Lynch Lobbying Expenditures:232
2008
TOTAL: $6,174,000
Merrill Lynch $4,700,000
Ernst & Young $604,000
Johnson, Madigan et al $240,000
Mayer, Brown et al $150,000
DLA Piper $210,000
Brownstein, Hyatt et al $120,000
Davis & Harman $80,000
Baptista Group $60,000
John Kelly Consulting $10,000
2007
TOTAL: $6,000,000
Merrill Lynch $4,420,000
Ernst & Young $600,000
DLA Piper $340,000
Mayer, Brown et al $160,000
Brownstein, Hyatt et al $120,000
Davis & Harman $120,000
Baptista Group $80,000
James E Boland Jr $80,000
John Kelly Consulting $80,000
2006
TOTAL: $6,397,760
Merrill Lynch $3,952,760
Mayer, Brown et al $1,100,000
Ernst & Young $605,000
DLA Piper $300,000
Davis & Harman $140,000
232 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying amounts accessed February 2009.
Brownstein, Hyatt et al $120,000
James E Boland Jr $80,000
John Kelly Consulting $80,000
Baptista Group $20,000
2005
TOTAL: $5,480,000
Merrill Lynch $4,160,000
Ernst & Young $600,000
DLA Piper $200,000
Brownstein, Hyatt et al $140,000
Davis & Harman $140,000
Deloitte Tax $120,000
James E Boland Jr $80,000
John Kelly Consulting $40,000
Seward & Kissel > $10,000*
2004
TOTAL: $5,770,000
Merrill Lynch $4,210,000
Ernst & Young $600,000
Piper Rudnick LLP $380,000
Deloitte Tax $240,000
Brownstein, Hyatt et al $140,000
Davis & Harman $120,000
James E Boland Jr $80,000
Seward & Kissel > $10,000*
2003
TOTAL: $4,825,000
Merrill Lynch $3,300,000
Ernst & Young $600,000
* Not included in totals
Appendix
140
Piper Rudnick LLP $460,000
Deloitte Tax $240,000
Davis & Harman $140,000
James E Boland Jr $65,000
Brownstein, Hyatt et al $20,000
Seward & Kissel > $10,000*
2002
TOTAL: $4,960,000
Merrill Lynch $3,100,000
Ernst & Young $600,000
Verner, Liipfert et al $580,000
Piper Rudnick LLP $320,000
Davis & Harman $160,000
James E Boland Jr $80,000
Seward & Kissel $60,000
Deloitte & Touche $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners $20,000
2001
TOTAL: $4,160,000
Merrill Lynch $2,940,000
Ernst & Young $620,000
Verner, Liipfert et al $300,000
Davis & Harman $140,000
OB-C Group $80,000
James E Boland Jr $60,000
Seward & Kissel $20,000
2000
TOTAL: $4,400,000
Merrill Lynch $3,660,000
* Not included in totals
Verner, Liipfert et al $240,000
Davis & Harman $200,000
OB-C Group $160,000
Ernst & Young $140,000
Swidler, Berlin et al > $10,000*
Wilmer, Culter & Pickering > $10,000*
1999
TOTAL: $5,400,000
Merrill Lynch $3,580,000
Ernst & Young $600,000
Swidler, Berlin et al $460,000
Verner, Liipfert et al $300,000
Davis & Harman $200,000
Rhoads Group $180,000
Seward & Kissel $40,000
George C Tagg $40,000
OB-C Group > $10,000*
1998
TOTAL: $5,510,000
Merrill Lynch $3,800,000
Washington Counsel $480,000
Swidler, Berlin et al $300,000
Verner, Liipfert et al $260,000
Rhoads Group $200,000
OB-C Group $160,000
Davis & Harman $160,000
Seward & Kissell $100,000
George C Tagg $50,000
* Not included in totals
Appendix
141
Merrill Lynch Covered Official Lobbyists:233
Firm / Name of Lobbyist Covered Official Position Year(s)
Ernst & Young
Badger, Doug Chief of Staff, Senate Majority Whip 12/98 1999-2002
Giordano, Nick
Minority Chief, Tax Counsel, Senate Committee
on Finance
1999-2000
2003-2008
Conklin, Brian Special Assistant to the President 2004
Merrill Lynch & Co, Inc
Thompson Jr, Bruce E.
Vice President, Director of Government
Relations 1999-2008
Kelly, John F. Vice President, Government Relations 1999-2005
Costantino Jr, Louis A. Director, Government Relations 2003-2008
Goldstein, Lon N. Director, Government Relations 2008
Micali, Mark A. Director, Government Relations 2008
Thibau, Janelle C. M. Director, Government Relations 2007-2008
Berry, Steven K. Managing Director, Government Relations 2008
Verner, Liipfert et al
Krasow, Cristina L.
Sr. Cloakroom Assistant, Sen. Dem. Cloakroom
1999
Hyland, James E. Legislative Director, Senator Kay Bailey 2003
Hutchison
OB-C Group
Calio, Nicholas E. Assistant to the President 2000-2005
Capitol Tax Partners, LLP
Fant, William
Dep. Asst. Secretary for Legislative Affairs
- Treasury 2002
Mikrut, Joseph Tax Legislative Counsel - US Treasury 2002
Talisman, Johnathan Asst. Treasury Secretary for Tax Policy 2002
233 Source: Senate Office of Public Records <http://soprweb.senate.gov/>. Accessed January 2009.
Appendix
142
Piper Rudnick, LLP
Hyland, James E. Legislative Director, Senator Hutchison 2002-2004
Brownstein Hyatt & Farber, P.C.
Mottur, Alfred
Sr. Telecommunications Counsel - Commerce
Committee 2003-2008
Chube, Ellen
Sr. Legislative Asst. - Cong. Harold Ford,
Jr.
Whonder, Carmencita
Staff Director - Subcommittee on House
Transport and 2008
Commercial Development; Min Stf Dir -
Subcomm on Econ.
Policy; Legislative Corresp. - Office of
Sen. Charles Schumer
Johnson, Madigan et al
Murphy, Sheila LD, Senator Klobuchar 2008

Woof, 8th Post

98 SOLD OUT
Part II:
Wall Street’s
Washington Investment
SOLD OUT 99
Wall Street’s Campaign
Contributions and
Lobbyist Expenditures
The financial sector invested more than $5
billion in political influence purchasing in
the United States over the last decade.
The entire financial sector (finance, insurance,
real estate) drowned political
candidates in campaign contributions,
spending more than $1.738 billion in federal
elections from 1998-2008. Primarily reflecting
the balance of power over the decade,
about 55 percent went to Republicans and
45 percent to Democrats. Democrats took
just more than half of the financial sector’s
2008 election cycle contributions.
The industry spent even more — topping
$3.3 billion — on officially registered
lobbyists during the same period. This total
certainly underestimates by a considerable
amount what the industry spent to influence
policymaking. U.S. reporting rules require
that lobby firms and individual lobbyists
disclose how much they have been paid for
lobbying activity, but lobbying activity is
defined to include direct contacts with key
government officials, or work in preparation
for meeting with key government officials.
Public relations efforts and various kinds of
indirect lobbying are not covered by the
reporting rules.
During the decade-long period:
• Commercial banks spent more than
$154 million on campaign contributions,
while investing $383 million
in officially registered lobbying;
• Accounting firms spent $81 million
on campaign contributions and $122
million on lobbying;
• Insurance companies donated more
than $220 million and spent more
than $1.1 billion on lobbying; and
• Securities firms invested more than
$512 million in campaign contributions,
and an additional nearly $600
million in lobbying. Hedge funds, a
subcategory of the securities industry,
spent $34 million on campaign
contributions (about half in the 2008
election cycle); and $20 million on
lobbying. Private equity firms, a
subcategory of the securities industry,
contributed $58 million to federal
candidates and spent $43 million
on lobbying.
Individual firms spent tens of millions
of dollars each. During the decade-long
period:
• Goldman Sachs spent more than $46
million on political influence buying;
• Merrill Lynch spent more than $68
million;
100 SOLD OUT
• Citigroup spent more than $108 million;
• Bank of America devoted more than
$39 million;
• JPMorgan Chase invested more than
$65 million; and
• Accounting giants Deloitte &
Touche, Ernst & Young, KPMG and
Pricewaterhouse spent, respectively,
$32 million, $37 million, $27 million
and $55 million.
The number of people working to advance
the financial sector’s political objectives
is startling. In 2007,211 the financial
sector employed a staggering 2,996 separate
lobbyists to influence federal policy making,
more than five for each Member of Congress.
This figure only counts officially
registered lobbyists. That means it does not
count those who offered “strategic advice”
or helped mount policy-related PR campaigns
for financial sector companies. The
figure counts those lobbying at the federal
level; it does not take into account lobbyists
at state houses across the country. To be
clear, the 2,996 figure represents the number
of separate individuals employed by the
financial sector as lobbyists in 2007. We do
not double count individuals who lobby for
more than one company; the total number of
financial sector lobby hires in 2007 was a
211 We chose 2007 as the most recent year for
which full data was available at the time we
conducted our research.
whopping 6,738.
Within the financial sector, industry
groups deployed legions of lobbyists. In
2007:212
• Accounting firms employed 178
lobbyists;
• Insurance companies had 1,219 lobbyists
working for them;
• Real estate interests hired 1,142
lobbyists;
• Finance and credit companies employed
415 lobbyists;
• Credit unions maintained 96 lobbyists;
• Commercial banks employed 421
lobbyists;
• Securities and investment firms
maintained 1,023 lobbyists; and
• Miscellaneous other financial companies
employed 134 lobbyists.
A great many of those lobbyists entered
and exited through the revolving door
connecting the lobbying world with government.
Surveying only 20 leading firms in
the financial sector (none from the insurance
industry or real estate), we found that 142
212 These figures do not double count within the
industry group, but total more than the figure
for the entire financial sector because we
did not eliminate overlaps between industry
sectors. Thus, for these totals, if John Smith
works as a lobbyist for two accounting
firms, he counts as only one lobbyist for the
accounting industry. If he works as a lobbyist
for an accounting firm and an insurance
company, he counts as one for the accounting
industry and one for the insurance industry.
SOLD OUT 101
industry lobbyists during the period 1998-
2008 had formerly worked as “covered
officials” in the government. “Covered
officials” are top officials in the executive
branch (most political appointees, from
members of the cabinet to directors of
bureaus embedded in agencies), Members of
Congress, and congressional staff.
Nothing evidences the revolving door —
or Wall Street’s direct influence over policymaking
— more than the stream of Goldman
Sachs expatriates who left the Wall
Street goliath, spun through the revolving
door, and emerged to hold top regulatory
positions. Topping the list, of course, are
former Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin
and Henry Paulson, both of whom had
served as chair of Goldman Sachs before
entering government.
In the charts that follow in this part, we
detail campaign contributions and lobby
expenditures from 1998-2008 for the overall
financial sector and for the industry components
of the sector. We also provide aggregated
information on number of industry
lobbyists and number of industry lobbyists
circling through the revolving door. In the
appendix to this report, we provide extensive
information on the campaign contributions
and lobbyists of 20 leading companies
in the financial sector — five each from
commercial banking, securities, accounting
and hedge fund industries. For each profiled
company, we identify the top 20 recipients
of their campaign contributions for each
election cycle over the last decade; the lobby
firms they employed each year, and the
amount paid to those firms; and covered
official lobbyists they employed (i.e., lobbyists
formerly employed as top officials in the
executive branch, or as former Members of
Congress or congressional staff).




Methodological Note
Our information on campaign contributions
and lobby expenditures comes from mandated
public filings, and the enormously
helpful data provided by the Center for
Responsive Politics.
Our figures on total and annual sector,
industry and firm campaign contributions
and lobby expenditures are drawn from the
Center for Responsive Politics.
Our campaign contribution data is organized
by biannual Congressional election
cycles. Thus the total for 1998 also includes
contributions made in 1997.
Our data on total number of official
lobbyists is compiled from data prepared by
the Center for Responsive Politics. The
Center for Responsive Politics lobbyist
database lists all individual lobbyists reporting
to the Senate Office of Public Records.
We tallied up totals from that database.
Our data on number of covered official
102 SOLD OUT
lobbyists is drawn from the original disclosure
statements filed with the Senate Office
of Public Records.
Our listing of the top 20 biannual recipients
of campaign contributions from our
20 profiled firms uses data compiled from
the Center for Responsive Politics where
possible. In four cases where the Center had
not compiled the data, we compiled the
information using the Center’s raw data on
individual campaign contributors and information
on the company’s political action
committee (PAC) contributions. That is, we
tracked donations from every person with,
for example, Lehman Brothers as an employer,
213 compiled them into a database;
added in the Lehman Brothers PAC contributions;
and then list the top 20 recipients.
We compiled donations for Lehman Brothers,
Wachovia, Wells Fargo and KPMG.




213 Our compilation is based only on the top
1,000 largest contributors affiliated with
each company.
SOLD OUT 103
Financial Sector
Campaign Contributions and Lobbying Expenditures
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate
$5,178,835,253
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $1,738,284,032
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $3,440,551,221
Campaign Contributions
2008 $442,535,157
2006 $259,023,355
2004 $339,840,847
2002 $233,156,722
2000 $308,638,091
1998 $155,089,860
Lobbying Expenditures
2008 $454,879,133
2007 $417,401,740
2006 $374,698,174
2005 $371,576,173
2004 $338,173,874
2003 $324,865,802
2002 $268,886,799
2001 $235,129,868
2000 $231,218,026
1999 $213,921,725
1998 $209,799,907
Source: Center for Responsive Politics, <www.opensecrets.org>.
104 SOLD OUT
Financial Sector
Official Lobbyists
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate
2007 total official lobbyists for financial sector: 2,996
Covered official lobbyists for 20 profiled firms,
Decade-long total (1998-2008): 142
Source: Center for Responsive Politics, <www.opensecrets.org>.
SOLD OUT 105
Securities Firms
Decade-long campaign contribution industry total (1998-2008):
$512,816,632
Decade-long lobbying expenditure industry total (1998-2008):
$599,955,649
Campaign Contributions for 5 Leading Firms
Bear Stearns $6,355,737
Goldman Sachs $25,445,983
Lehman Brothers $6,704,574
Merrill Lynch $9,977,724
Morgan Stanley $14,367,857
Lobbying Expenditures for 5 Leading Firms
Bear Stearns $9,550,000
Goldman Sachs $21,637,530
Lehman Brothers $8,660,000
Merrill Lynch $59,076,760
Morgan Stanley $20,835,000
Source: Center for Responsive Politics, <www.opensecrets.org>.
106 SOLD OUT
Commercial Banks
Decade-long campaign contribution industry total (1998-2008):
$154,868,392
Decade-long lobbying expenditure industry total (1998-2008):
$382,943,342
Campaign Contributions for 5 Leading Firms
Bank of America $11,629,260
Citigroup $19,778,382
JP Morgan Chase & Co $15,714,953
Wachovia Corp. $3,946,727
Wells Fargo $5,330,022
Lobbying Expenditures for 5 Leading Firms
Bank of America $28,635,440
Citigroup $88,460,000
JP Morgan Chase & Co $49,372,915
Wachovia Corp. $11,996,752
Wells Fargo $16,637,740
Source: Center for Responsive Politics, <www.opensecrets.org>.
SOLD OUT 107
Hedge Funds*
Decade-long campaign contribution industry total (1998-2008):
$33,742,815
Decade-long lobbying expenditure industry total (1998-2008):
$20,252,000
Campaign Contributions for 5 Leading Firms
Bridgewater Associates $274,650
DE Shaw Group $3,100,255
Farallon Capital Management $1,058,953
Och-Ziff Capital Management $338,552
Renaissance Technologies $1,560,895
Lobbying Expenditures for 5 Leading Firms
Bridgewater Associates $855,000
DE Shaw Group $680,000
Farallon Capital Management $1,005,000
Och-Ziff Capital Management $200,000
Renaissance Technologies $740,000
* Hedge fund contributions are included in the overall securities campaign contributions and lobbying
expenditure totals.
Source: Center for Responsive Politics, <www.opensecrets.org>.
108 SOLD OUT
Accounting Firms
Decade-long campaign contribution industry total (1998-2008):
$81,469,000
Decade-long lobbying expenditure industry total (1998-2008):
$121,658,156
Campaign Contributions for 5 Leading Firms
Arthur Andersen $3,324,175
Deloitte & Touche $12,120,340
Ernst & Young $12,482,407
KPMG LLP $8,486,392
Pricewaterhouse $10,800,772
Lobbying Expenditures for 5 Leading Firms
Arthur Andersen $1,900,000
Deloitte & Touche $19,606,455
Ernst & Young $25,108,536
KPMG LLP $19,103,000
Pricewaterhouse $44,291,084
Source: Center for Responsive Politics, <www.opensecrets.org>.
SOLD OUT 109
Conclusion and
Recommendations:
Principles for a New
Financial Regulatory
Architecture
For more than 25 years, regulatory control
over the financial sector has steadily eroded.
This deregulatory trend accelerated in the
last decade: In 1999, Congress, with the
support of the Clinton White House passed
the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999,
removing the firewalls between commercial
banking on the one hand and investment
banking and insurance on the other; federal
agencies declined to regulate financial
derivatives and Congress then enshrined this
head-in-the-sand policy as law; federal
regulators rationalized the subprime lending
boom as good housing policy rather than the
ticking time bomb that it self-evidently was;
and federal officials collaborated with Wall
Street to permit extraordinary increases in
the amount of money firms could lend or
borrow for every dollar of their own capital.
All of these deregulatory moves created
the conditions for the current financial
implosion.
The dangers inherent in these policies
were evident to any careful observer. Consumer
groups, some investor advocates,
independent economists and analysts, and
some regulators all sounded the alarm as
each of the actions chronicled in this report
were first proposed.
Those warnings were ignored, however.
They were drowned out by the cacophony
of well-paid lobbyists and the
jingle of cash registers opening and closing
as Wall Street handed out hundreds of
millions in political contributions.
Now, after the trillions of dollars in
taxpayer money has been spent, there is
widespread agreement that deregulation
went too far, and that new regulatory initiatives
are required. But as with each of the
twelve steps on the road to financial ruin,
the financial industry is resisting meaningful
reforms.
The repeal of Glass-Steagall and the
bank mergers already authorized cannot
easily be undone, but both those issues
require very careful scrutiny. The leading
independent investment banks have all
merged into commercial banks or converted
themselves into bank holding companies;
the very severe risk is that the investment
bank culture will again influence traditional
banking operations, and encourage dangerous
and unsustainable risk-taking. The bank
merger trend is actually escalating as a
consequence of the financial crisis, as fed110
SOLD OUT
eral regulators bless shot-gun marriages in
order to avoid committing still more taxpayer
money to making depositors whole.
But much more care should taken in authorizing
additional mergers. Also, as Bert Foer
of the American Antitrust Institute points
out, many of the recently consummated
mergers are almost certain to fail. Policymakers
need to take a comprehensive assessment
of banking concentration; for if the
existing high levels of concentration are to
be permitted, regulatory review must be
much more intensive, and controls on big
bank activity much more extensive.
Beyond undoing the deregulatory maneuvers
documented in this report, an affirmative
regulatory agenda must establish a
new framework for financial sector regulation.
It should aim to reduce the size of the
financial sector, reduce reliance on overly
complicated financial instruments, and
provide robust and multi-faceted protections
for consumers. We, and many others, will be
proposing specific regulatory reforms over
the course of the next year. Here, we concluded
with overarching premises that
should guide the new financial regulatory
architecture.
1. The financial sector should serve and
be subordinate to the real economy.
From 2004-2007, financial sector profits
amounted to more than a third of overall
corporate profits. This is — and should have
been treated as — conclusive evidence of a
financial system out of control, one that was
beginning to devour rather than serve the
real economy. There should be no deference
shown to Wall Street interests complaining
that a new regulatory regime will hurt their
profitability. The Wall Street operators have
destroyed their own institutions, and their
earlier profits are now revealed to be only
the froth from a bubble economy and financial
sleight-of-hand. In any case, the American
economy cannot be based on finance
and the trading of paper. Looking back, we
see that the financial economy did not
increase America’s true wealth, but just the
opposite: Wall Street siphoned profits from
the real economy, and from the checking
accounts of consumers, workers and investors,
until the system collapsed, and consumer,
workers and investors were asked to
foot the bill.
2. Hedge funds and financial derivatives
must be regulated.
What is a hedge fund? As a legal matter, the
term references investment funds that escape
Securities and Exchange Commission
regulatory authority on the grounds that they
serve sophisticated investors. But the evidence
is once again overwhelming that
sophisticated investors cannot be trusted to
protect their own interests (see Bernard
Madoff). But more important, these nonregulated
entities pose systemic risks to the
SOLD OUT 111
financial sector, not just to the wealthy.
Cities, states, colleges, non-profit organizations,
and every American turned out to be
at risk from the machinations of the socalled
sophisticated financial sector. All
investment vehicles must be subjected to the
same regulatory requirements — and those
standards must be elevated dramatically.
Finally, not all financial derivatives should
be permitted to continue to trade. But those
for which a legitimate purpose can be shown
must be brought into the regulatory system,
with guarantees of transparency, restrictions
on leverage and requirements for “skin in
the game.”
3. Enhanced standards of transparency.
Hedge funds, investment banks, insurance
companies and commercial banks have
engaged in such complicated and intertwined
transactions that no one could track
who owes what, to whom. AIG apparently
didn't even know who it had insured, and on
what terms, through the credit default swaps
it participated in. Moreover, the packaging
and re-packaging of mortgages into various
esoteric securities undermined the ability of
the financial markets to correctly value these
financial instruments. Baseline transparency
requirements must include an end to off-thebooks
transactions, detailed reporting of
holdings by all investment funds, and selling
and trading of all permitted financial derivatives
on regulated and public exchanges.
Other mechanisms will enhance transparency
and simplify some overly complicated
financial instruments: these include “skin in
the game” requirements and prohibitions on
certain practices (for example, tranching of
securities214) that add complexity and confusion,
but no social value.
4. Prohibit certain financial instruments.
Wall Street has proved Warren Buffett right
in labeling financial derivatives “weapons of
financial destruction.” Synthetic collateralized
debt obligations — a kind of credit
default swap215 — are among the worst
abuses of the current system, enabling
legalized, large-scale betting by entities not
party to the underlying transaction. Whatever
hypothetical benefit such instruments
have for establishing a market price for
credit default swaps is vastly outweighed by
the actual and demonstrable damage they
have done to the real economy. They should
214 For further discussion of the case for
prohibiting tranching, see Robert Kuttner,
“Financial Regulation: After the Fall,”
Demos, January 2009, available at:
<http://www.demos.org/publication.cfm?cur
rentpublicationID=B8B65B84%2D3FF4%2
D6C82%2D5F3F750B53E44E1B>.
215 See also this helpful discussion explaining
synthetic CDOs from Portfolio’s Felix
Salmon, available at:
<http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/mar
ket-movers/2008/11/28/understandingsynthetics>.
Essential, synthetic CDOs
involve the creation of insurance on a bond
(someone pays for the insurance, and
someone agrees to insure against failure of
the bond), with one important condition:
neither party actually holds the bond.
112 SOLD OUT
be prohibited.
5. Adopt the precautionary principle216
for exotic financial instruments.
The burden should be placed on those
urging the creation or trade of exotic financial
instruments — existing and those yet to
be invented — to show why they should be
permitted. They should be required to show
the affirmative, social benefit of the new
instrument, and prove why these benefits
outweigh risks. They should be specifically
required to explain why the instrument does
not worsen financial systemic risk, taking
into account recent experience where purported
diversification of risk led to its spread
and exponential increase. Regulators should
maintain a strong bias against complicated
new instruments, recognizing that complexity
both introduces inherent uncertainty and
is often used to obscure dangers, risks and
bad investments.217
216 The precautionary principle is a term most
frequently used in the environmental
context. It suggests that, for example, before
a chemical can be introduced on the market,
it must be shown to be safe. This approach
stands against the notion that a new
chemical is presumed safe and permitted on
the market, until regulators can prove that it
is not.
217 See “Plunge: How Banks Aim to Obscure
Their Losses,” An Interview with Lynn
Turner, Multinational Monitor,
November/December 2008, available at:
<http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2
008/112008/interview-turner.html> (“Wall
Street typically designs these things so that
they hide something from the public or their
investors. So when you have the CDOs
6. Limit leverage.
High flyers like leveraged investments
because they offer the possibility of very
high returns. But, as we have seen, they also
enable extremely risky investments that can
vastly exceed an investor's actual assets.
This degree of leverage turns the financial
system into a game of musical chairs —
those left standing when the music stops are
wiped out. The entire financial system is
presently at risk because the amount of
leverage far exceeded the assets needed to
back it up once investors sought to convert
their holdings to cash. There should be
stringent restrictions on the use of leverage
by all players in the financial system. These
include enhanced capital requirements for
banks and investment banks (and especially
the build-up of capital in good times); and
increased margin requirements, so that
parties buying securities, futures or options
must put up more collateral.
7. Impose a financial transactions tax.
A small tax on each financial transaction218
[collateralized debt obligations] built on top
of the other CDOs, they hide what the
underlying assets are really like, or what the
underlying mortgages are really like. In
some of the off-balance sheet special
purpose entities, like with Enron, it was to
hide their financing.”)
218 Pollin, Baker and Schaberg suggest a .5
percent tax on stock trades, and comparable
burdens on other transactions (for example,
this works out to .01 percent for each
remaining year of maturity on a bond.) See
Robert Pollin, Dean Baker, and Marc
SOLD OUT 113
would discourage speculation, curb the
turbulence in the markets, and, generally,
slow things down. It would give realeconomy
businesses more space to operate
without worrying about how today's decisions
will affect their stock price tomorrow,
or the next hour. And it would be a steeply
progressive tax that could raise substantial
sums for useful public purposes.
8. Crack down on excessive pay and the
Wall Street bonus culture.
Wall Street salaries and bonuses are out of
control. The first and most simple demand is
to ensure no bonus payments for firms
receiving governmental bailout funds. If
they had to be bailed out, why does anyone
in the firm deserve a bonus? Even more
importantly, bonus payments with taxpayer
money is an outrageous misuse of public
funds.
Beyond the bailouts, however, there is
a need to address the Wall Street bonus
culture. Paid on a yearly basis, Wall Street
bonuses can be 10 or 20 times base salary,
and commonly represent as much as four
fifths of employees' pay. In this context, it
makes sense to take huge risks. The payoffs
from benefiting from risky investments or a
bubble are dramatic, and there’s no reward
Schaberg, “Financial Transactions Taxes for
the U.S. Economy,” 2002, Political
Economy Research Institute, available at:
<http://www.peri.umass.edu/236/hash/aef97
d8d65/publication/172>.
for staying out. Wall Street compensation
should be lowered overall, but most important
is imposing legal requirements that
compensation be tied to long-term performance.
If employees had to live with the longterm
consequences of their investment
decisions, they would employ very different
strategies.
9. Adopt a financial consumer protection
agenda.
Commercial banks and Wall Street backers
have, to a considerable extent, built their
business model around abusive lending
practices. Predatory mortgage lenders, credit
card companies, student loan corporations
— all pushed unsustainable levels of credit,
on onerous terms frequently indecipherable
to borrowers, and with outrageous hidden
fees and charges. A new financial consumer
protection agency should be established;
interest rates, fees and charges should all be
capped (especially now that Americans who
are in effect borrowing their own money
from banks and credit card companies who
received bailout funds). Impediments to
legal accountability for fraud and other
unlawful conduct, such as the holder in due
course rule, preemption of state laws, and
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
should be withdrawn or repealed.
114 SOLD OUT
10. Give consumers the tools to organize
themselves.
Federal law should empower consumers to
organize into independent financial consumers
associations. Lenders should be required
to facilitate such organization by their
borrowers (through mailings to borrowers,
on behalf of independent consumer organizations),
as should corporations to their
shareholders. With independent organizations
funded by small voluntary fees, consumers
could hire their own independent
representatives to review financial players’
activities, scour their books, and advocate
for appropriate public policies.




Is this agenda politically feasible? It has the
advantage of being necessary: Recent years'
experience shows beyond any reasonable
argument that a deregulated and unrestrained
financial sector will destroy itself
— and threaten the U.S. and global economies
in the process.
The deregulatory decisions profiled in
this report were not made on their merits. At
almost every step, public interest advocates
and independent-minded regulators and
Members of Congress cautioned about the
hazards that lay ahead — and they were
proven wrong only in underestimating how
severe would be the consequences of deregulation.
Good arguments could not
compete with the combination of political
influence and a reckless and fanatical zeal
for deregulation. $5 billion buys a lot of
friends. In one sense, this report can be
considered a case study in the need for the
elimination of special interest money from
American politics, but Congress will address
financial re-regulation this year, and reform
of our political process does not appear on
the horizon. The emergent consensus on the
imperative to re-regulate the financial sector
demonstrates that, in the wake of the financial
meltdown, the prevailing regulatory
paradigm has shifted. Whether the forces
that brought America’s economy to the
precipice can be forced to accede to that
shift — whether the public interest will
prevail — remains to be seen.




Appendix 115
Appendix: Leading Financial Firm Profiles of Campaign
Contributions and Lobbying Expenditures
Securities Firms .……………………………………………………. 115
1. Bear Stearns ………………………………………………...…...………….. 115
2. Goldman Sachs ……………………………………………………………… 121
3. Lehman Brothers …......................................................................................... 129
4. Merrill Lynch ….............................................................................................. 135
5. Morgan Stanley …………………………………………………...……….... 142
Commercial Banks …………………………………………………. 148
1. Bank of America ...…….…………………………………...…...…………... 148
2. Citigroup ........………….…………………………………………………… 155
3. JP Morgan Chase & Co................................................................................... 164
4. Wachovia Corp. .............................................................................................. 171
5. Wells Fargo .....…………………………………………………...……….... 177
Hedge Funds …………………………………………….......……… 183
1. Bridgewater Associates ..…………………………………...…...…………... 183
2. DE Shaw Group ..…………………………………………………………… 185
3. Farallon Capital Management ......................................................................... 189
4. Och-Ziff Capital Management ........................................................................ 193
5. Renaissance Technologies ...……………………………………...……….... 196
Accounting Firms …………………………………………………… 199
1. Arthur Andersen .…………………………………………...…...…………... 199
2. Deloitte & Touche ...……………………………………………………….... 203
3. Ernst & Young ...…......................................................................................... 210
4. KPMG LLG ..….............................................................................................. 217
5. Pricewaterhouse ……...…………………………………………...……….... 224

Woof, 7th Post;

80 SOLD OUT
FANNIE AND FREDDIE
ENTER THE SUBPRIME
MARKET
The Federal National Mortgage Association
was created in 1938, during Franklin D.
Roosevelt’s administration, as a federal
government agency to address the lack of a
consistent supply of mortgage funds. Fannie
Mae, as it is popularly known, became a
private, shareholder-owned corporation in
1968.144 As a “government sponsored enterprise”
(GSE) chartered by Congress, Fannie
Mae’s purpose is to purchase mortgages
from private bankers and other lenders so
that they have additional funds to continue
originating new mortgages. Fannie Mae
does not issue or originate new loans, but
private lenders seek to sell their loans to
Fannie, which maintains specific dollar
value ceilings for the repurchasing of single
and multi-family loans and does not purchase
high-end loans (i.e., loans for expensive
homes). Because many private lenders
hope to sell their mortgages to Fannie, its
loan purchasing criteria have a substantial
influence on the prudence of the mortgages
that lenders issue.
The Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation, or Freddie Mac,145 was established
by Congress in 1970 as a private
shareholder-owned corporation to take on
the same role as Fannie Mae and prevent
Fannie from exercising a monopoly. As with
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac does not issue or
originate new loans. Instead, Freddie buys
loans from private lenders in order to provide
added liquidity to fund America’s
housing needs.146
144 12 U.S.C. § 1716b et seq. (1968).
145 Emergency Home Finance Act, 12 U.S.C. §
1401 (1970).
146 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
10
IN THIS SECTION:
At the peak of the housing boom, Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac were dominant purchasers
in the subprime secondary market. The
Government-Sponsored Enterprises were
followers, not leaders, but they did end up
taking on substantial subprime assets — at
least $57 billion. The purchase of subprime
assets was a break from prior practice,
justified by theories of expanded access to
homeownership for low-income families and
rationalized by mathematical models allegedly
able to identify and assess risk to newer
levels of precision. In fact, the motivation
was the for-profit nature of the institutions
and their particular executive incentive
schemes. Massive lobbying — including
especially but not only of Democratic friends
of the institutions — enabled them to divert
from their traditional exclusive focus on
prime loans.
Fannie and Freddie are not responsible
for the financial crisis. They are responsible
for their own demise, and the resultant
massive taxpayer liability.
SOLD OUT 81
Fannie Mae began converting mortgages
it acquired into mortgage-backed
securities (MBSs) in 1970.147 An MBS is
created by pooling thousands of purchased
mortgages into a single security for trade on
Wall Street. By selling MBSs to investors,
Fannie obtains additional funds to buy
increasing numbers of mortgages from
private lenders who, in turn, use the added
liquidity (cash) to originate new home loans.
By purchasing mortgages from private
lenders, however, Fannie Mae incurs all the
risk of default by borrowers, providing an
incentive for lenders to make risky loans,148
and making it vital that Fannie exercise care
in determining which loans it acquires.
Traditionally, Fannie only purchased high
quality loans that conform to relatively
stringent standards, including that the borrower
provided a 20 percent down payment.
Even after it sells MBSs, Fannie guarantees
payment to buyers of the MBSs — effectively
providing insurance on the securities.
The laws establishing Fannie Mae and
website, “Frequently Asked Questions
About Freddie Mac,” undated, available at:
<http://www.freddiemac.com/corporate/com
pany_profile/faqs/index.html>.
147 Federal National Mortgage Association
website, “About Fannie Mae,” October 7,
2008, available at:
<http://www.fanniemae.com/aboutfm/index.
jhtml;jsessionid=XUMTTVZMCQYSHJ2F
QSISFGA?p=About+Fannie+Mae>.
148 Ivo Welch, “Corporate Finance: An
Introduction,” Prentice-Hall, 2008, available
at:
<http://welch.econ.brown.edu/oped/finsyste
m.html>.
Freddie Mac provide no explicit guarantee
of their debt obligations. Nonetheless,
investors throughout the world assumed that
because the entities are so intertwined with
the U.S. government and so central to U.S.
housing policy, the federal government
would never to allow Fannie or Freddie to
default on its debt. Because they were
considered quasi-governmental, Fannie and
Freddie enjoyed the highest-graded rating
(Triple-A) from independent ratings firms,
despite holding little capital in reserve as
against the scale of their outstanding
loans.149
In 1992, Congress passed and President
George H.W. Bush signed into law the
Federal Housing Enterprises Financial
Safety and Soundness Act. This law established
“risk-based and minimum capital
standards”150 for the two GSEs and also
established the Office of Federal Housing
Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) to oversee
and regulate the activities of Fannie and
Freddie. OFHEO, however, had limited
authority. The legislation also required
Fannie and Freddie to devote a minimum
percentage of their lending to support affordable
housing.
149 Ivo Welch, “Corporate Finance: An
Introduction,” Prentice-Hall, 2008, available
at:
<http://welch.econ.brown.edu/oped/finsyste
m.html>.
150 “About Fannie Mae: Our Charter,” Fannie
Mae website, October 29, 2008, available at:
<http://www.fanniemae.com/aboutfm/charte
r.jhtml>.
82 SOLD OUT
In 1999, Fannie Mae softened the standards
it required of loans that it purchased.
The move came in response to pressure from
the banking and thrift
industries, which wanted to
extend subprime lending
(and wanted Fannie Mae to
agree to purchase subprime
loans), and from federal
officials who wanted Fannie
and Freddie to buy more
private industry mortgages
made to low and moderateincome
families.151
As the housing bubble
inflated starting in 2001,
banks and especially non-bank lenders made
an increasing number of subprime loans,
peaking in the years 2004-2006. Fannie and
Freddie were major players in the “secondary
market,” buying up bundles of subprime
loans that were traded on Wall Street.
They purchased 44 percent of subprime
securities on the secondary market in 2004,
33 percent in 2005 and 20 percent in
2006.152
151 Steven A. Holmes, “Fannie Mae Eases Credit
to Aid Mortgage Lending,” New York
Times, September 30, 1999, available at:
<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html
?res=9c0de7db153ef933a0575ac0a96f95826
0&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all>.
152 Carol D. Leonnig, “How HUD Mortgage
Policy Fed the Crisis,” Washington Post,
June 10, 2008, available at:
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/
content/article/2008/06/09/AR20080609
02626_pf.html>.
But Fannie and Freddie were not buying
subprime mortgages directly in significant
quantities, in part because the most
predatory subprime loans
did not meet their lending
standards. The two firms
purchased just 3 percent
of all subprime loans
issued from 2004 through
2007, most of that in 2007
alone.153 Subprime loans
represented 2 percent of
Fannie Mae’s singlefamily
mortgage credit
book of business at the
end of 2006, and 3 percent
at the end of 2005.154
Fannie and Freddie’s large-scale purchases
of subprime mortgage-back securities
on the secondary market may have facilitated
greater subprime lending than otherwise
would have occurred, but to a considerable
extent the companies were victims
rather than perpetrators of the subprime
crisis. That is, they were not driving the
market, so much as getting stuck with bad
products already placed on the market.
153 Ronald Campbell, “Most Subprime Lenders
Weren’t Subject to Federal Lending Law,”
Orange County Register, November 16,
2008, available at:
<http://www.ocregister.com/articles/loanssubprime-
banks-2228728-law-lenders>.
154 Fannie Mae form 10-K, for the fiscal year
ending December 31, 2006, pF-78.
Fannie and Freddie’s largescale
purchases of subprime
mortgage-back securities on
the secondary market may
have facilitated greater
subprime lending than
otherwise would have
occurred.
SOLD OUT 83
The two companies also trailed the
market, entering into the subprime arena
because they felt at a competitive disadvantage
as against other
housing market players.
Internal Fannie memos
obtained by the House
Oversight Committee
show the company was
very concerned that it was
rapidly losing market
share to Wall Street
securitizers. “Our pricing
is uncompetitive. According
to our models, market
participants today are not
pricing legitimately for
risks,” noted a top-level memo.155 The same
memo noted the risks of pursuing more
aggressive strategies — noting that Fannie
had a “lack of knowledge of the credit
risks”156 — and urged that the company
“stay the course.” Numerous other internal
sources echoed this recommendation.157 Yet
155 “Single Family Guaranty Business: Facing
Strategic Crossroads,” June 27, 2005, p. 18,
available at:
<http://oversight.house.gov/documents/2008
1209103003.pdf>.
156 “Single Family Guaranty Business: Facing
Strategic Crossroads,” June 27, 2205, p. 9,
available at:
<http://oversight.house.gov/documents/2008
1209103003.pdf>.
157 See Opening Statement of Rep. Henry A.
Waxman, Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, “The Role of Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac in the Financial Crisis,”
December 9, 2008, available at:
Fannie increased its direct investment in
riskier loans despite these cautionary warnings
— and even as the housing bubble was
coming to an end.
Today, Freddie and
Fannie own or guarantee
more than $5 trillion in
mortgages158 and regularly
issue MBSs. Fannie itself is
the largest issuer and guarantor
of MBSs. Both agencies
were purchasing risky
subprime loans on the
secondary market from
2004 to 2007, but they were
not required to report mortgage
losses on the balance
sheet. As a result, both investors and regulators
were unaware of the extent of their
growing mortgage problems. The companies’
significant investments in the riskiest
elements of the market would bring their
demise in Fall 2008, when the federal government
placed them in conservatorship to
prevent them from collapsing altogether.159
The federal government has infused
<http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=22
52>.
158 “Freddie Mac lobbied against regulation bill,”
Associated Press, October 19, 2008, available
at:
<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27266607/
>.
159 See statement by Treasury Secretary Henry
Paulson, September 7, 2008, and related materials,
available at:
<http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/hp11
29.htm>.
Perceived as quasigovernmental
agencies,
Fannie and Freddie were in
fact subjected to government
regulation — but the
regulators’ hands were tied
by a Congress heavily
lobbied by Fannie and
Freddie.
84 SOLD OUT
$200 billion into Fannie and Freddie, and
more will follow. Even if Fannie and
Freddie did not create the financial crisis,
their reckless decisions are now forcing a
mammoth drain of taxpayer resources.
Perceived as quasi-governmental agencies,
Fannie and Freddie were in fact subjected
to government regulation — but the
regulators’ hands were tied by a Congress
lobbied by Fannie and Freddie. The companies
lobbied heavily to avoid requirements
for larger capital reserves, stronger government
oversight, or to limit their acquisition
of packages of risky loans. In general,
Democrats were far more protective of
Fannie and Freddie than Republicans, many
of whom were hostile to the GSEs’ government
ties. Many Democrats sought to protect
Fannie and Freddie from stringent
regulatory oversight and capital reserve
requirements, but Republicans were heavily
lobbied as well.
In 2005, for example, Freddie Mac paid
$2 million to Republican lobbying firm DCI
Inc. to defeat legislation sponsored by
Senator Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska, that
would have imposed tougher regulations on
Freddie’s loan repurchase activities.160 The
legislation languished in the Senate Banking,
Housing and Urban Affairs Committee
160 “Freddie Mac Lobbied Against Regulation
Bill,” Associated Press, October 19, 2008,
available at:
<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27266607/
>.
with all Republican committee members
supporting it and all Democratic members
opposed. Hagel and 25 other Republican
senators pleaded unsuccessfully with Senate
Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, to
allow a vote on the bill.
“If effective regulatory reform legislation
... is not enacted this year, American
taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the
enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac pose to the housing market, the overall
financial system and the economy as a
whole,” the senators wrote in a letter.161
The Associated Press reported, “In the
end, there was not enough Republican
support for Hagel’s bill to warrant bringing
it up for a vote because Democrats also
opposed it and the votes of some would be
needed for passage.”162 The former chair of
the House Financial Services Committee,
Michael Oxley, R-Ohio, complained that
efforts to regulate Fannie and Freddie were
blocked by the Bush administration, the
Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve.
“What did we get from the White
House? We got a one-finger salute,” Oxley
161 “Freddie Mac Lobbied Against Regulation
Bill,” Associated Press, October 19, 2008,
available at:
<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27266607/
>.
162 “Freddie Mac Lobbied Against Regulation
Bill,” Associated Press, October 19, 2008,
available at:
<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27266607/
>.
SOLD OUT 85
would recall in 2008.163
Democrats believed in Fannie and
Freddie as ways to expand credit to low- and
middle-income communities, but they were
also responsive to massive lobbying efforts.
From 1998 to 2008, Fannie Mae spent
$80.53 million on federally registered
lobbyists. During the same period, Freddie
Mac spent $96.16 million on lobbyists.164




163 Greg Farrell, “Oxley Hits Back at Ideologues,”
Financial Times, September 9,
2008.
<http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/15/barney
-frank-mccain-reform/>.
164 Totals compiled from annual data available
from the Center for Responsive Politics,
<www.opensecrets.org>.
86 SOLD OUT
Community Reinvestment Act: Not Guilty
Congress passed and President Jimmy
Carter signed the Community Reinvestment
Act (CRA) into law in 1977. The purpose of
this law was to encourage banks to increase
their very limited lending in low- and moderate-
income and minority neighborhoods
and more generally to low- and moderateincome
and minority borrowers.165
Congress passed this law in large part because
too many lenders were discriminating
against minority and low- and moderateincome
neighborhoods. “Redlining” was the
name given to the practice by banks of literally
drawing a red line around minority areas and
then proceeding to deny loans to people within
the red border even if they were otherwise
qualified. The CRA has been in place for 30
years, but some corporate-backed and libertarian
think tanks and policy groups, as well as
some Republican members of Congress, now
claim CRA is responsible for the current
financial disaster. Nothing in the CRA requires
banks to make risky loans.166
Leading regulators agree that CRA was
not responsible for predatory lending, let
165 Federal Financial Institutions Examination
Council website, “Community Reinvestment
Act: Background & Purpose,” Undated,
available at:
<http://www.ffiec.gov/cra/history.htm>.
166 Federal Reserve Board website, “Community
Reinvestment Act,” Undated, available at:
<http://www.federalreserve.gov/dcca/cra/>.
alone the broader financial crisis.
John Dugan, Comptroller of the Currency
said, “CRA is not the culprit behind the subprime
mortgage lending abuses, or the broader
credit quality issues in the marketplace.”167
Federal Reserve Board Governor Randall
S. Kroszner said he has not seen any evidence
that “CRA has contributed to the erosion of
safe and sound lending practices.”168
FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair said, “I
think we can agree that a complex interplay
of risky behaviors by lenders, borrowers,
and investors led to the current financial
storm. To be sure, there’s plenty of blame to
go around. However, I want to give you my
verdict on CRA: NOT guilty.”169
Most predatory loans were issued by
non-bank lenders that were not subject to
CRA requirements.
167 Reuters, “U.S. financial system in better
shape-OCC’s Dugan,” November 19, 2008,
available at:
<http://www.reuters.com/article/regulatoryN
ewsFinancialServicesAndRealEstate/
idUSN1946588420081119>.
168 Remarks of Randall S. Kroszner, Governor of
the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, “Confronting Concentrated
Poverty Policy Forum,” December 3, 2008,
available at:
<http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/s
peech/kroszner20081203a.htm>.
169 Remarks by Sheila Bair, Chairperson of the
FDIC, Before the New America Foundation,
December 17, 2008, available at:
<http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/speeches/ar
chives/2008/chairman/spdec1708.html>.
SOLD OUT 87
MERGER MANIA
Merger mania in the financial industry has
been all the rage for more than 25 years.
“Bigger is indeed better,” proclaimed the
CEO of Bank of America in announcing its
merger with NationsBank in 1998.170
In the United States, about 11,500 bank
mergers took place from 1980 through 2005,
170 Dean Foust, “BofA: A Megabank in the
Making,” BusinessWeek, September 13,
1999, available at:
<http://www.businessweek.com/archives/19
99/b3646163.arc.htm>.
an average of about 440 mergers per year.171
The size of the mergers has increased to
phenomenal levels in recent years: In 2003,
Bank of America became a $1.4 trillion
financial behemoth after it bought FleetBoston,
making it the second-largest U.S. bank
holding company in terms of assets.172 In
2004, JPMorgan Chase agreed to buy Bank
One, creating a $1.1 trillion bank holding
company.173
From 1975 to 1985, the number of
commercial banks was relatively stable at
about 14,000. By 2005 that number stood at
7,500, a nearly 50 percent decline.174
171 Loretta J. Mester, Senior Vice President and
Director of Research at the Federal Reserve
Bank of Philadelphia, “Some Thoughts on
the Evolution of the Banking System and the
Process of Financial Intermediation,” Economic
Review, First & Second Quarters,
2007, available at:
<http://www.frbatlanta.org/filelegacydocs/er
q107_Mester.pdf >.
172 Loretta J. Mester, Senior Vice President and
Director of Research at the Federal Reserve
Bank of Philadelphia, “Some Thoughts on
the Evolution of the Banking System and the
Process of Financial Intermediation,” Economic
Review, First & Second Quarters,
2007, available at:
<http://www.frbatlanta.org/filelegacydocs/er
q107_Mester.pdf >.
173 Loretta J. Mester, Senior Vice President and
Director of Research at the Federal Reserve
Bank of Philadelphia, “Some Thoughts on
the Evolution of the Banking System and the
Process of Financial Intermediation,” Economic
Review, First & Second Quarters,
2007, available at:
<http://www.frbatlanta.org/filelegacydocs/er
q107_Mester.pdf >.
174 Loretta J. Mester, Senior Vice President and
Director of Research at the Federal Reserve
Bank of Philadelphia, “Some Thoughts on
the Evolution of the Banking System and the
Process of Financial Intermediation,” Eco-
11
IN THIS SECTION:
The effective abandonment of antitrust and
related regulatory principles over the last
two decades has enabled a remarkable
concentration in the banking sector, even in
advance of recent moves to combine firms as
a means to preserve the functioning of the
financial system. The megabanks achieved
too-big-to-fail status. While this should have
meant they be treated as public utilities
requiring heightened regulation and risk
control, other deregulatory maneuvers
(including repeal of Glass-Steagall) enabled
these gigantic institutions to benefit from
explicit and implicit federal guarantees, even
as they pursued reckless high-risk investments.
88 SOLD OUT
By mid-2008 — before a rash of mergers
consummated amidst the financial crash
— the top 5 banks held more than half the
assets controlled by the top 150.175
Regulators rarely challenged bank
mergers and acquisitions as stock prices
skyrocketed and the financial party on Wall
Street drowned out the critics. But many
argued that “bigger is not better” because it
raised the specter that any one individual
bank could become “too big to fail” (TBTF)
or at least “too big to discipline adequately”
by regulators. The current financial crisis
has confirmed these fears.
In the modern era, “TBTF” reared its
head in 1984, when the federal government
contributed $1 billion to save Continental
Illinois Bank from default. As the seventh
largest bank in the United States, Continental
held large amounts of deposits from
hundreds of smaller banks throughout the
Midwest. The failure of such a large institution
could have forced many smaller banks
into default. As a result, the U.S. Comptroller
of the Currency orchestrated an unprecedented
rescue of the bank, including its
shareholders. During congressional hearings
on the matter, Representative Stewart B.
McKinney, R-Connecticut, pointedly observed,
“We have a new kind of bank. It is
nomic Review, First & Second Quarters,
2007, available at:
<http://www.frbatlanta.org/filelegacydocs/er
q107_Mester.pdf >.
175 Based on data from American Banker.
called too big to fail, TBTF, and it is a
wonderful bank.”176 The Comptroller of the
Currency agreed that the eleven largest U.S.
banks were “too big to fail,” implying they
would be rescued regardless of how much
risk they took on.
Seven years later, U.S. banking law
recognized TBTF with passage of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement
Act of 1991 (FDICIA). The Act
authorizes federal regulators to rescue
uninsured depositors in large failing banks if
such action is needed to prevent “serious
adverse effects on economic conditions or
financial stability.” FDICIA effectively
implies that any bank whose failure poses a
serious risk to the stability of the U.S.
banking system (i.e. “systemic risk”) is
exempt from going bankrupt and thus qualifies
for a taxpayer-financed rescue. It constitutes
a significant exception to the FDICIA’s
general rule prohibiting the rescue of uninsured
depositors.
The FDICIA also acts as an implicit insurance
program for large financial institutions
and an incentive for banks to gain
TBTF status by growing larger through
merger and acquisition. In 1999, economists
within the Federal Reserve System warned
that “some institutions may try to increase
the value of their access to the government’s
financial safety net (including deposit insur-
176 Hearings before the Subcommittee on Financial
Institutions, 1984.
SOLD OUT 89
ance, discount window access, payments
system guarantees) through consolidation. If
financial market participants perceive very
large organizations to be ‘too big to fail’ —
i.e., that explicit or implicit government
guarantees will protect debtholders or shareholders
of these organizations — there may
be incentives to increase size through consolidation....”
177
International comparisons over a 100-
year period show that changes in the structure
and strength of safety net guarantees
may incentivize additional financial institution
risk-taking, and by extension, the
motive to consolidate to increase the value
of access to the safety net.178
Studies have shown that compared to
smaller banks, large banks take on greater
risk in the form of lower capital ratios (i.e.
177 Allen N. Berger, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, and Rebecca S.
Demsetz and Philip E. Strahan of the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York, “The Consolidation
of the Financial Services Industry:
Causes, Consequences, and Implications for
the Future,” J. Banking & Finance, Vol. 23,
1999, available at:
<http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/1
998/199846/199846pap.pdf>.
178 Allen N. Berger, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, and Rebecca S.
Demsetz and Philip E. Strahan of the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York, “The Consolidation
of the Financial Services Industry:
Causes, Consequences, and Implications for
the Future,” J. Banking & Finance, Vol. 23,
1999, available at:
<http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/1
998/199846/199846pap.pdf> (citing A.
Saunders and B.K. Wilson, “Bank capital
and bank structure: A comparative analysis
of the U.S., U.K., and Canada,” J. Banking
& Finance, 1999).
increased leverage),179 more investments in
derivatives,180 higher percentages of uninsured
deposits, lower levels of core deposits,
181 higher percentages of loans,182 and
lower levels of cash and marketable securities.
TBTF policy effectively operates as a
government subsidy — and worse, an incentive
— for this kind of risk-taking, thereby
increasing the vulnerability of the entire
banking system and the likelihood of massive
taxpayer-funded bailouts. Federal
Reserve economists found that the banking
crisis of the late 1980s occurred because
“large banks adopted a riskier stance, be-
179 Rebecca S. Demsetz and Philip E. Strahan,
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Research
Paper 9506, April 1995, available at:
<http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_
reports/research_papers/9506.pdf>. See also
Arnold Danielson, “Getting Ready for the
21st Century: A Look at Recent Banking
Trends,” Banking Pol'y Rep., March 15,
1999. (Banks larger than $50 billion had an
average capital ratio of seven percent while
banks between $100 million to $2 billion in
size had an average capital ratio of just over
nine percent).
180 Rebecca S. Demsetz and Philip E. Strahan,
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Research
Paper 9506, April 1995, available at:
<http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_
reports/research_papers/9506.pdf>.
181 Ron J. Feldman and Jason Schmidt, Federal
Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, “Increased
use of uninsured deposits: Implications for
market discipline,” March 2001. Available
at:
<http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publication
s_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=2178>.
182 Ron J. Feldman and Jason Schmidt, Federal
Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, “Increased
use of uninsured deposits: Implications for
market discipline,” March 2001. Available
at:
<http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publication
s_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=2178>.
90 SOLD OUT
yond what could sensibly be explained by
scale economies.”183
Supporters of bank consolidation argue
that bigger banks create greater efficiencies
because of their larger economies of scale.
But several studies have shown that large
bank mergers during the 1980s and 1990s
failed to improve overall efficiency or
profitability.184 Indeed, most studies found
that post-merger cost increases and revenue
losses offset any savings that the resulting
banks accrued from cutting staff or closing
branches.185
183 John H. Boyd and Mark Gertler, “The Role of
Large Banks in the Recent U.S. Banking
Crisis,” 18 Fed. Res. Bank of Minneapolis
Q. Rev. 1, Winter 1994, available at:
<http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/Q
R/QR1811.pdf>.
184 Allen N. Berger and David B. Humphrey,
“The Dominance of Inefficiencies Over
Scale and Product Mix Economies in Banking,”
J. Monetary Econ., 117-48, August 28,
1991; Allen N. Berger & David B. Humphrey,
“Megamergers in Banking and the
Use of Cost Efficiency as an Antitrust Defense,”
37 Antitrust Bull. 541, 554-65
(1992); Simon Kwan & Robert A. Eisenbeis,
“Mergers of Publicly Traded Banking Organizations
Revisited,” Fed. Res. Bank of
Atlanta, Econ. Rev., 4th Qtr. 1999; Jane C.
Linder & Dwight B. Crane, “Bank Mergers:
Integration and Profitability,” 7 J. Fin.
Servs. Res. 35, 40-52 (1992); Stavros Peristiani,
“Do Mergers Improve the XEfficiency
and Scale Efficiency of U.S.
Banks? Evidence from the 1980s,” 29 J.
Money, Credit & Banking 326, 329-33, 336-
37 (1997); Steven J. Pilloff, “Performance
Changes and Shareholder Wealth Creation
Associated with Mergers of Publicly Traded
Banking Institutions,” 28 J. Money, Credit
& Banking 294, 297-98, 301, 308-09 (1996).
185 Arthur E. Wilmarth, Jr., “The Transformation
of the U.S. Financial Services Industry,
1975-2000: Competition, Consolidation and
Evidence indicates executive compensation
plays a central role in the quest for
larger banks. This “empire-building,” as
Federal Reserve economists put it, occurs
because compensation tends to increase with
firm size, “so managers may hope to achieve
personal financial gains by engaging in
[mergers and acquisitions].”186 George
Washington University banking law professor
Arthur E. Wilmarth, Jr. agrees. “Not
surprisingly,” he said, “studies have shown
that managerial self-interest plays a major
role in determining the frequency of mergers
among both corporations and banks.”187
In words that appear prescient today,
Professor Wilmarth aptly observed in 2002
that “the quest by big banks for TBTF status
— like their pursuit of market power —
should be viewed as a dangerous flight from
discipline that will likely produce inefficient
growth and greater risk.” Reliance on finan-
Increased Risks” 2002 U. Ill. L. Rev. 2 215
(2002), available at:
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abs
tract_id=315345>.
186 Allen N. Berger, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, and Rebecca S.
Demsetz and Philip E. Strahan of the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York, “The Consolidation
of the Financial Services Industry:
Causes, Consequences, and Implications for
the Future,” Journal of Banking and Finance,
Vol. 23, 1999, available at:
<http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/1
998/199846/199846pap.pdf>.
187 Arthur E. Wilmarth, Jr., “The Transformation
of the U.S. Financial Services Industry,
1975-2000: Competition, Consolidation and
Increased Risks” 2002 U. Ill. L. Rev. 2 215
(2002), available at:
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abs
tract_id=315345>.
SOLD OUT 91
cial derivatives, for example, is extremely
concentrated among the largest commercial
banks (the five largest commercial banks
own 97 percent of the
total amount of notional
derivatives), and limited
almost entirely to the
biggest 25.188 All of these
banks are of a size — and
most the product of
mergers — that regulators
and antitrust enforcers
would not have tolerated a
quarter century ago.
Taxpayers are now
footing the bill for the
financial industry’s investment
in risky, overleveraged
and poorly understood financial
schemes. By the end of 2008, the federal
government pledged $8.5 trillion in economic
assistance for financial institutions,189
primarily large commercial banks, that the
federal government says were TBTF. 190
188 Comptroller of the Currency, “OCC's Quarterly
Report on Bank Trading and Derivatives
Activities, Second Quarter 2008,”
available at:
<http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/release/2008-
115a.pdf>.
189 Kathleen Pender, “Government bailout hits
$8.5 trillion,” San Francisco Chronicle, November
26, 2008, available at:
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/
article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/11/26/MNVN1
4C8QR.DTL>.
190 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Troubled
Asset Relief Program Transaction Report,
December 9, 2008, available at:
Although the early consolidation of
banks, including related to the authorization
of interstate banking, had some support
among public interest
advocates as a means to
create competition in very
localized markets,191 the
intensive consolidation of
the last 25 years goes far
beyond whatever might
have been needed to enhance
competition. Yet
regulators averted their eyes
from the well-known risks
of banking consolidation.192
As banking regulators
fell under the spell of
industry lobbyists and
propagandists who alleged that bigger banks
would be more efficient, so too did antitrust
enforcement agencies fail to act to slow
banking consolidation.
As with the erosion of effective banking
regulation, the corrosion of antitrust
enforcement traces back more than three
<http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/eesa/tra
nsactions.shtml>.
191 See “The Centralization of Financial Power:
Unintended Consequences of Government-
Assisted Bank Mergers, “An Interview with
Bert Foer,” Multinational Monitor, November/
December 2008, available at:
<www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2008/1
12008/interview-foer.html>.
192 Jake Lewis, “The Making of the Banking
Behemoths,” Multinational Monitor, June
1996, available at:
<http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/hype
r/mm0696.04.html>.
As banking regulators fell
under the spell of industry
lobbyists and propagandists
who alleged that bigger
banks would be more
efficient, so too did antitrust
enforcement agencies
fail to act to slow banking
consolidation.
92 SOLD OUT
decades, the victim of industry lobbies and
laissez-faire ideology. In the case of antitrust,
a conservative, corporate-backed
campaign began in the 1970s to overturn
many common-sense insights on the costs of
mergers. The “law-and-economics” movement
came to dominate law schools, scholarly
writing and, eventually, the thinking of
the federal judiciary. Its principles became
the guiding doctrine for the Reagan-Bush
Justice Department and Federal Trade
Commission, the two U.S. agencies charged
with enforcing the nation's antitrust laws.
Based on a theoretical understanding of
market efficiency, law-and-economics holds
that many outlawed or undesirable anticompetitive
practices are irrational, and therefore
should never occur, or are possible only in
extreme and unlikely situations.
Antitrust enforcers operating under
these premises confined themselves to
addressing extreme abuses, like overt pricefixing
and hard-core cartels. Although the
Clinton administration moved away from a
hard-line law-and-economics approach, it
watched over a period of industry consolidation
that had seen no parallel since the
merger wave at the start of the 20th century.
193
The great banking mergers of the last
193 See Walter Adams and James Brock, “The
Bigness Complex: Industry, Labor, and
Government in the American Economy,”
Palo Alto: Stanford Economics and Finance,
2004.
quarter century were generally permitted
with little quarrel from the Department of
Justice, which typically mandated only the
sell-off of a few overlapping banking
branches.194




194 See James Brock, “Merger Mania and Its
Discontents: The Price of Corporate Consolidation,”
Multinational Monitor,
July/August 2005, available at:
<http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2
005/072005/brock.html>. (In a brief review
of mergers through 2005, Brock writes,
“Banking and finance has witnessed the
same scene of cumulative consolidation:
Through two decades of ever-larger acquisitions,
NationsBank became one of the country’s
largest commercial banking concerns,
absorbing C&S/Sovran (itself a merged entity),
Boatmen’s Bancshares ($9.7 billion
deal), BankSouth and Barnett Bank ($14.8
billion acquisition). Then, in 1998, Nations-
Bank struck a spectacular $60 billion merger
with the huge Bank of America, which itself
had been busily acquiring other major
banks. The merger between NationsBank
and B of A created a financial colossus controlling
nearly $600 billion in assets, with
5,000 branch offices and nearly 15,000
ATMs. Bank of America then proceeded to
acquire Fleet Boston — which had just
completed its own multi-billion dollar acquisitions
of Bank Boston, Bay Bank, Fleet
Financial, Shawmut, Summit Bancorp and
NatWest. Giants Banc One and First Chicago
NBD — their size the product of numerous
serial acquisitions — merged, and
the combined entity was subsequently absorbed
by J.P. Morgan which, in turn, had
just acquired Chase, after the latter had
merged with Manufacturers Hanover and
Chemical Bank in the financial business of
underwriting stocks and bonds. Other megamergers
include the $73 billion combination
of Citicorp and Travelers Group in 1998, as
well as the acquisition of leading brokerage
firms by big banks, including Morgan
Stanley’s ill-fated acquisition of Dean Witter.”)
SOLD OUT 93
RAMPANT CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST: CREDIT
RATINGS FIRMS’ FAILURE
The stability and safety of mortgage-related
assets are ostensibly monitored by private
credit rating companies — overwhelmingly
the three top firms, Moody’s Investors
Service, Standard & Poor’s and Fitch Ratings
Ltd.195 Each is supposed to issue independent,
objective analysis on the financial
soundness of mortgages and other debt
traded on Wall Street. Millions of investors
rely on the analyses in deciding whether to
buy debt instruments like mortgage-backed
securities (MBSs). As home prices skyrocketed
from 2004 to 2007, each agency issued
the highest quality ratings on billions of
dollars in what is now unambiguously
recognized as low-quality debt, including
subprime-related mortgage-backed securities.
196 As a result, millions of investors lost
billions of dollars after purchasing (directly
or through investment funds) highly rated
MBSs that were, in reality, low quality, high
risk and prone to default.
The phenomenal losses had many wondering
how the credit rating firms could
have gotten it so wrong. The answer lies in
the cozy relationship between the rating
companies and the financial institutions
whose mortgage assets they rate. Specifi-
195 Often labeled “credit ratings agencies,” these
are private, for-profit corporations.
196 Edmund L. Andrews, “U.S. Treasury Secretary
Calls for Stronger Regulation on Housing
Finance,” International Herald Tribune,
March 13, 2008, available at:
<http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/13/bu
siness/credit.php>.
12
IN THIS SECTION:
Credit ratings are a key link in the financial
crisis story. With Wall Street combining
mortgage loans into pools of securitized
assets and then slicing them up into tranches,
the resultant financial instruments were
attractive to many buyers because they
promised high returns. But pension funds
and other investors could only enter the
game if the securities were highly rated.
The credit rating firms enabled these
investors to enter the game, by attaching
high ratings to securities that actually were
high risk — as subsequent events have
revealed. The credit ratings firms have a bias
to offering favorable ratings to new instruments
because of their complex relationships
with issuers, and their desire to maintain and
obtain other business dealings with issuers.
This institutional failure and conflict of
interest might and should have been forestalled
by the SEC, but the Credit Rating
Agencies Reform Act of 2006 gave the SEC
insufficient oversight authority. In fact, the
SEC must give an approval rating to credit
ratings agencies if they are adhering to their
own standards — even if the SEC knows
those standards to be flawed.
94 SOLD OUT
cally, financial institutions that issue mortgage
and other debt had been paying the
three firms for credit ratings. In effect, the
“referees” were being paid by the “players.”
One rating analyst observed, “This egregious
conflict of interest may be the single
greatest cause of the present global economic
crisis ... . With enormous fees at
stake, it is not hard to see how these [credit
rating] companies may have been induced,
at the very least, to gloss over the possibilities
of default or, at the worst, knowingly
provide inflated ratings.”197 A Moody’s
employee stated in a private company e-mail
that “we had blinders on and never questioned
the information we were given [by
the institutions Moody was rating].”
The CEO of Moody’s reported in a
confidential presentation that his company is
“continually ‘pitched’ by bankers” for the
purpose of receiving high credit ratings and
that sometimes “we ‘drink the kool-aid.’”198
A former managing director of credit policy
at Moody’s testified before Congress that,
197 Testimony of Sean J. Eagan, before the
Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, October
22, 2008, available at:
<http://oversight.house.gov/documents/2008
1022102906.pdf>.
198 Opening Statement of Rep. Henry Waxman,
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives,
October 22, 2008, available at:
<http://oversight.house.gov/documents/2008
1022102221.pdf> (quoting a confidential
presentation made by Moody’s CEO Ray
McDaniel to the board of directors in October
2007).
“Originators of structured securities [e.g.
banks] typically chose the agency with the
lowest standards,”199 allowing banks to
engage in “rating shopping” until a desired
credit rating was achieved. The agencies
made millions on MBS ratings and, as one
Member of Congress said, “sold their independence
to the highest bidder.”200 Banks
paid large sums to the ratings companies for
advice on how to achieve the maximum,
highest quality rating. “Let’s hope we are all
wealthy and retired by the time this house of
cards falters,” a Standard & Poor’s employee
candidly revealed in an internal email
obtained by congressional investigators.
201
Other evidence shows that the firms adjusted
ratings out of fear of losing customers.
For example, an internal e-mail between
senior business managers at one of the three
ratings companies calls for a “meeting” to
199Testimony of Jerome S. Fons, Former Managing
Director of Credit Policy, Moody’s, Before
the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, U.S. House of Representatives,
October 22, 2008, available at:
<http://oversight.house.gov/documents/2008
1022102726.pdf>.
200 Rep. Christopher Shays, Before the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform,
U.S. House of Representatives, October 22,
2008, available at:
<http://oversight.house.gov/documents/2008
1023162631.pdf>.
201 Opening Statement of Rep. Henry Waxman,
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives,
October 22, 2008, available at:
<http://oversight.house.gov/documents/2008
1022102221.pdf> (quoting a confidential email
from an S&P employee).
SOLD OUT 95
“discuss adjusting criteria for rating CDOs
[collateralized debt obligations] of real
estate assets this week because of the ongoing
threat of losing
deals.”202 In another e-mail,
following a discussion of a
competitor’s share of the
ratings market, an employee
of the same firm states that
aspects of the firm’s ratings
methodology would have to
be revisited in order to
recapture market share from
the competing firm.203
The credit rating business
was spectacularly
profitable, as the firms
increasingly focused in the
first part of this decade on structured finance
and new complex debt products, particularly
credit derivatives (complicated instruments
providing a kind of insurance on mortgages
and other loans). Moody’s had the highest
profit margin of any company in the S&P
500 for five years in a row.204 Its ratings on
202 “Summary Report of Issues Identified in the
Commission Staff’s Examinations of Select
Credit Rating Agencies,” Securities and Exchange
Commission, July 2008, available at:
<http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/2008/cra
examination070808.pdf>.
203 “Summary Report of Issues Identified in the
Commission Staff’s Examinations of Select
Credit Rating Agencies,” Securities and Exchange
Commission, July 2008, available at:
<http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/2008/cra
examination070808.pdf>.
204Opening Statement of Rep. Henry A. Wax-
MBSs and CDOs — heavily weighted with
toxic subprime mortgages — contributed to
more than half of the company’s ratings
revenue by 2006.205
Although the ratings
firms are for-profit companies,
they perform a
quasi-public function.
Their failure alone could
be considered a regulatory
failure. But the credit
rating failure has a much
more direct public connection.
Government
agencies explicitly relied
on private credit rating
firms to regulate all kinds
of public and private
activities. And, following the failure of the
credit ratings firms in the Enron and related
scandals, Congress passed legislation giving
the SEC regulatory power, of a sort, over the
firms. However, the 2006 legislation prohibited
the SEC from actually regulating the
credit ratings process.
The Securities and Exchange Commission
was the first government agency to
man, Before the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform, October 22, 2008,
available at:
<http://oversight.house.gov/documents/2008
1022102221.pdf>.
205 Rep. Jackie Speier, Before the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, U.S.
House of Representatives, October 22, 2008,
available at:
<http://oversight.house.gov/documents/2008
1023162631.pdf>.
“With enormous fees at
stake, it is not hard to see
how these [credit rating]
companies may have been
induced, at the very least, to
gloss over the possibilities
of default or, at the worst,
knowingly provide inflated
ratings.”
96 SOLD OUT
incorporate credit rating requirements
directly into its regulations. In response to
the credit crisis of the early 1970s, the SEC
promulgated Rule 15c3-1 (the net capital
rule) which formally approved the use of
credit rating firms as National Recognized
Statistical Ratings Organizations
(NRSROs).206 Rule 15c3-1 requires investment
banks to set aside certain amounts of
capital whenever they purchase a bond from
a corporation or government. By requiring
“capital set asides,” a financial “cushion” is
created on which investment banks can fall
in the event of bond default. The amount of
capital required to be set aside depends on
the risk assessment of each bond by the
credit rating firms. Purchasing bonds that
have a high risk of default, as determined by
one of the credit rating companies, requires
a larger capital set asides than bonds that are
assessed to present a low risk of default. The
“risk” or probability of default is determined
for each bond by a credit rating company
hired by the issuer of the bond.
Since the SEC’s adoption of the net
capital rule, credit ratings have been incorporated
into hundreds of government regulations
in areas including securities, pensions,
banking, real estate, and insurance.
For example, Moody’s Investor Service
206 Arthur R. Pinto, “Section III: Commercial and
Labor Law: Control and Responsibility of
Credit Rating Agencies in the United
States,” American Journal of Comparative
Law, 54 Am. J. Comp. L. 341, Supplement,
Fall 2006.
gives a rank of “C” for the lowest rated (i.e.
high risk) bonds and a rank of “Aaa” —
“triple A” — for bonds that are low risk and
earn its highest rating. Examples of highly
rated bonds include those issued by wellcapitalized
corporations, while bonds issued
by corporations with a history of financial
problems earn a low rating.
If a bank begins experiencing financial
problems, Moody’s may downgrade the
bank’s bonds. It might downgrade from a
high grade of “Aaa” to a medium grade of
“Baa” or even the dreaded “C,” depending
on the severity of the bank’s financial problems.
Downgrading bonds can trigger a
requirement imposed by regulations or
private contracts that require the corporation
to immediately raise capital to protect its
business. Banks might be forced to raise
capital by selling securities or even the real
estate it owns.
Evidence of falling home values began
emerging in late 2006, but there were no
downgrades of subprime mortgage-related
securities by credit rating agencies until June
2007.207 Indeed, the credit ratings firms had
207 Testimony of Jerome S. Fons, Former Managing
Director of Credit Policy, Moody's, Before
the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, U.S. House of Representatives,
October 22, 2008, available at:
<http://oversight.house.gov/documents/2008
1022102726.pdf> (citing Gary Gorton,
2008, “The Panic of 2007,” NBER working
paper #14358); but see Gretchen Moregenson,
“Investors in mortgage-backed securities
fail to react to market plunge,” International
Herald Tribune, February 18,
SOLD OUT 97
failed to recognize the housing bubble, and
the inevitability that when the enormous
bubble burst, it would lead to massive
mortgage defaults and the severe depreciation
in value of mortgage-backed securities.
The firms also failed to consider that many
mortgage-backed securities were based on
dubious subprime and exploitative predatory
loans that could not conceivably be repaid.
The current financial crisis is not the
first time credit rating companies dropped
the ball. During the dot-com bubble of the
late 1990s, they were the “last ones to react,
in every case” and “downgraded companies
only after all the bad news was in, frequently
just days before a bankruptcy filing.”
208 In addition, the firms were criticized
in 2003 for failing to alert investors to the
impending collapse of Enron and World-
Com. As a result, Congress passed the
Credit Rating Agency Reform Act of
2006209 which requires disclosure to the
SEC of a general description of each firm’s
procedures and methodologies for determining
credit ratings, including historical downgrade
and default rates within each of its
credit rating categories. It also grants the
2007, available at:
<http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/18/yo
urmoney/morgenson.php>. (Moody’s
“downgraded only 277 subprime home equity
loan tranches [in 2006], just 2 percent
of the home equity securities rated by the
agency.”)
208 Frank Partnoy, Infectious Greed: How Deceit
and Risk Corrupted the Financial Markets
352, New York: Times Books (2003).
209 15 U.S.C. § 78o-7.
SEC broad authority to examine all books
and records of the companies. However,
intense lobbying by the rating firms blocked
further reforms, and the law expressly states
that the SEC has no authority to regulate the
“substance of the credit ratings or the procedures
and methodologies” by which any
firm determines credit ratings. In 2007, SEC
Chair Christopher Cox said, “it is not our
role to second-guess the quality of the rating
agencies’ ratings.”210
In the highly deregulated financial
markets of the last few decades, the credit
rating firms were supposed to be the independent
watchdogs that carefully scrutinized
corporations and the financial products that
they offered to investors. Like the federal
agencies and Congress, the credit rating
companies failed to protect the public.




210 Testimony of SEC Chairman Christopher
Cox, Before the U.S. Senate Committee on
Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, September
26, 2007, available at:
<http://www.sec.gov/news/testimony/2007/t
s092607cc.htm>.³