Paul D. Ryan

The Speaker of the House position has caused much drama over the past month. First, current Speaker John Boehner seemingly out of nowhere announced he would be stepping down by October 30 from the position. Then, frontrunner and consensus successor Kevin McCarthy made some controversial remarks about the purpose of the Hilary Clinton's Benghazi hearings, suggesting that they have been so prominent and long-lasting in order to hurt her campaign. Then he announced he was dropping out of the race, leaving a void with no clear answer. One suggestion was Paul Ryan, but he publicly denied the position. With the October 30th mark looming, the GOP was in disarray.

The circus ended this week. Everything changed when Ryan went back on his previous statement and announced his intention to accept the position, if elected. He was nominated on Wednesday and the House elected Paul D. Ryan Thursday, October 29, as Speaker of the House, finally taking over for John Boehner. As Jeffrey noted, Ryan is the youngest Speaker in over a century. This, plus his moderate stances on a multitude of issues (also noted by Jeffery) may give Ryan the energy and enthusiasm to deal with stubbornness on both sides of the aisle that drove Boehner to his eventual resignation. But Ryan has not accepted the position with any excitement. He has reservations about the conflict in Congress and how it will affect his job. He does not want to give up his "family weekend time" and says that other Republican leaders must help with fundraising. Because the Republicans needed him to take the job more than he needs the job, his demands will likely be met by the rest of the GOP. 

What kind of leader will Paul Ryan be? Some say that he will be strong because of his background as a Congressional staffer. Being a staffer, some argue, gives Ryan a better understanding of what goes into the job, like dealing with members, deadlines, process, and a love of the job. Others believe that he will not get support from certain Republicans despite his plea for party unity. Ryan has supported a number of Republicans financially since 2010, and his SuperPAC has given thousands of dollars to campaigns of members who then did not vote for him Thursday. There isn't total unity behind him, even on the right where he needs a strong consensus. His youth may also be a negative, especially when dealing with more experienced members and trying to keep both sides in check. Being Speaker requires a Congressman to use a diverse set of skills, which Ryan may not have. He has mostly spent his time and energy in financial and budget issues. Can Ryan assert himself as a leader immediately? The GOP led Congress may depend on it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/29/us/politics/house-speaker-job-requires-many-hats-paul-ryan-has-never-worn.html?ref=politics&_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/29/us/politics/republicans-paul-ryan-house-speaker.html?ref=politics&_r=1

http://atr.rollcall.com/ryan-donated-thousands-voted-speaker/?dcz=

http://blogs.rollcall.com/hill-navigator/why-a-former-staffer-could-make-a-good-speaker/?dcz=

The Impossible Made Possible: A Congressional Compromise

     Like Kyle, I wanted to discuss the budget compromise this week.

     A mere week and a half ago, it seemed like there was going to be another government shutdown over the budget. (Now former) Speaker John Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, along with Senator Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, decided to take matters into their own hands, but they still couldn't come up with an agreement. That's when President Obama stepped in. According to Senator Reid who, along with his three colleagues, called the President, "He said, 'Fine. You have two choices: The country would be forced to go back on the full faith and credit that we have around the world. Or, if you want, let’s do the budget deal.' That's the deal we made. That's what we did."
       What was it that finally forced a compromise? As we recently discussed using Mayhew's Electoral Connection, as well as Fenno, Carson, and Aldrich, compromise in Congress has become increasingly difficult. Primary constituencies (who candidates must appease in order to score a nomination) are becoming increasingly more extremist, causing politicians to follow suit. Increasingly polarized parties, plus Newt Gingrich expanding the role of the Speaker of the House (which made being the majority party in the House a priority, thus making party wins more important than individual ones) has lead to incredibly centralized parties and an increased importance in leadership, making compromise nearly impossible.
       But, it seemed that the stars had aligned for a major compromise. In the last quarter of his presidency, Obama has finally put his foot down, and has taken no issue laying blame on the government's inability to pass legislation on Congress and, specifically, the GOP. The perfect example of this was after the shooting in Oregon a few weeks ago. Obama addressed the public, begging and pleading with Congress to do more than just send prayers to the families of the victims, subtly referencing the GOP's aversion to gun control reform.
       Add the blame and accusations from the President to all-time low approval ratings and Speaker Boehner's resignation, and Congress, specifically the GOP were put in a tough place. A government shutdown would not bode well for the Republican Party come next year's major elections, and if they intend on keeping a majority in the House and Senate, party leaders knew that they had to step up and give in. With most of the media's attention on the Speakership race, the four legislators and their aides were able to finally compromise and quickly concoct a budget deal, and the the House Rules Committee was quick to pass it, mostly out of desperation.
        The budget deal definitely involved some give and take on both sides, just as all good compromises do. The Democrats allowed the GOP to take some entitlement reforms and increase military spending, and the GOP allowed the Democrats to increase spending on Social Security, Medicare, and they even conceded the highly sought-after funding for Planned Parenthood. Neither side was completely satisfied, but thus is the nature of compromise- it is a give and take.
         A majority of Republicans in both the Senate and the House have openly opposed and voted against the new bill, but some are relieved that the debt-ceiling debate will potentially be held off until 2017. Meanwhile, the Democrats are reveling in their victories, which they did not anticipate, seeing as they are the minority party.
        The budget and debt ceiling debates are certainly long from over, but for now, at least, there is something, and we can celebrate the compromise that has finally occurred.
     Could this compromise be the first step towards a more unified Congress? After years of low approval ratings and party polarization, could this deal be the stepping stone towards a brighter future of Congressional action and working together? I don't know that we'll see any massive change immediately, but I would like to think that this is a step towards a brighter future.

Sources:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/budget-congress-secret-deal-215370
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/02/us/obama-oregon-shooting-umpqua-community-college-gun-control.html?_r=0

What Will This Accomplish? "Schumer & Schumer" and a New Hashtag Dedicated to Gun Control

Similarly to how Senator Chuck Schumer lobbied with Jon Stewart on September 16, 2015, Chuck Schumer lobbied with yet another celebrity with a slight familial twist.  On October 25, 2015, the Senator lobbied with his famous cousin Amy Schumer, who is best known for her comedy series Inside Amy Schumer, to back a proposed gun control bill that aims to fix the issues with current background checks necessary to purchase guns, sponsored by Chuck himself.  To kick things off, Amy discussed how 2015 Lafayette Shooting still impacts her today because of the lives that were lost because they wanted to see her movie "Trainwreck."  She then went on to discuss how passing this gun legislation is common sense and that it will save lives and that this is an achievable goal.  On twitter, Amy started a #aimingforchange to raise awareness and gain more support for the issue of ending gun violence.  The two also lobbied for stricter gun laws approximately a month after the Lafayette Shooting and there have been over 100 more shooting since the time they first lobbied on the matter of gun control.

An important question to think about is: why does Senator Schumer do this lobbying with Amy Schumer?  A good way for politicians to get some more media attention today is to rally with famous and well-liked celebrities.  Politicians are often viewed as not being relatable or even liked to the American public, so lobbying with a popular figures that the general public finds to be likable and relatable makes the politicians seem a bit more relatable and likable to the public and their constituents--even if it's only for a fleeting moment.

So what does this mean?  Will Chuck Schumer's move to lobby with Amy Schumer make any strides towards stricter gun control?  Based on how polarized Congress is at the moment and how the NRA is one of the biggest PACs supporting the Republican party, there's a very slim chance of a bill like this passing anytime soon.  The best thing this will accomplish is that the creation of these bills will keep the issue of gun control alive.  This is similar to how the Chuck Schumer and the Senate Democrats introduced a bill about reducing greenhouse gases back in September.  They knew wouldn't pass, but they still put it forward to keep the issue of greenhouse gases alive so it could be discussed in the 2016 Presidential Election.  Amy's stance and hashtag will most likely be fleeting as well.  It might make some of her fans more interested in the issue for a short amount of time, but the likelihood that this is something that'll hold the interest of her fans longterm is relatively slim.  They like her and stick with her for her celebrity status and comedic skills, not for her political actions.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/amy-schumer-teams-sen-chuck-schumer-urge-gun/story?id=34734979
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/amy-schumer-joins-sen-chuck-schumer-gun-control-push-article-1.2411112
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/amy-schumer-sen-chuck-schumer-call-for-tighter-gun-control/
https://twitter.com/amyschumer/status/658355049291194369

Finally...the House passes a budget plan

After weeks and even months of constant debate and repeal after repeal the House of Representatives passed a budget plan this week. Issues over the budget have led to many major congressional moves this fall, which include a faction of the Republican party turning on former Speaker John Boehner. Arguments over the funding of Planned Parenthood, Obamacare, and many other pressing issues left the us on the verge of another possible government shutdown. This is a major victory for the House and even helps John Boehner leave his post as speaker on a high note, but there is still a great challenge residing in getting the budget passed through the Senate.

Many Republican senators have concerns about the budget in that they believe that it seems to be thrown together and not necessarily addressing or giving enough attention to specific areas. Senator Jeff Flake from Arizona expressed concerns by stating that, "There are some to Social Security --some reforms -- that are desperately needed." The Republicans need to get everyone on board if they have any hope of passing the budget through the senate in the near future. Compromise is what is needed in Congress, but it seems amongst the Republicans as well. Not everything can be fixed by a single budget plan and so congressmen and senators should weigh the costs versus the benefits of passing plan. Avoiding a government shutdown is key before entering an election year in terms of running successful campaigns and retaining favor among moderate Republicans, but there is something to be admired in those that refuse to sway from their personal beliefs and concerns.

Source:
http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/budget-deal-debt-limit-gop-senators/?dcz=

EMILYs List endorsed Kathleen Matthews, but what does that mean?

A few weeks ago I wrote about the importance of endorsements from important political action committees. Congresswomen Ann Kirkpatrick is vacating her House seat in order to challenge Senator John McCain for his seat. Representative Kirkpatrick has a long uphill battle ahead of her but her recent endorsement by EMILYs List will aid her campaign. EMILY's List is a PAC that is focused on getting more Democratic, pro-choice women elected to office. This endorsement gave Kirkpatrick a boost in her campaign and opened her up to a network of thousands of donors looking to support women like her.

This week EMILYs List endorsed another female candidate. Kirkpatrick was relatively well know, and although she faces a challenging race, she is a credible and experienced candidate. The candidate EMILYs List endorsed this week, Kathleen Matthews, is perhaps in need of more support that Kirkpatrick is. Matthews is running for Maryland's 8th District House seat, vacated by Chris Van Hollen as he runs for the open Senate seat. There are a lot of interesting things about this endorsement. First, if Matthews were elected as the representative she would be the first women elected from Maryland's 8th District. Matthews also has the opportunity to run for the open seat because Senator Barbara Mikulski is retiring at the end of her term, leaving the open Senate seat available for representative Van Hollen to run for. It's a nice touch, considering Senator Barbara Mikulski was the very first candidate EMILYs List ever endorsed back in 1986. EMILYs List has also endorsed Representative Donna Edwards who is challenging Van Hollen for Mikulski's seat.

Kathleen Matthews is an interesting endorsement for other reasons. She has no history or experience with public office. But that's not uncommon for EMILYs List. The PAC has consistently worked to bring fresh faces into the political realm. EMILYs List works to give women access to political opportunity as well as the necessary means to get elected to office. EMILYs list is supported by thousands of donors and serves as an important network for women entering the political arena. That's why Matthews is an ideal candidate for the PAC to endorse. Matthews is a news anchor for WJLA-TV. Although she might not have political experience, Matthews is a former Marriot executive and as a news anchor has consistently focused on issues concerning women and families such as "jobs, education, health care, and equality in the workplace" (Roll Call). She also spent much of her time as an executive trying to advance opportunities for women in business. She is the exactly the candidate EMILYs List seeks out and Matthews hopes this endorsement will help her distinguish herself from the other, mostly Democratic, candidates running for the seat.

The endorsement from EMILYs List has already improved Matthews credentials and given her a significant let up when it comes to fundraising. But why is the support of political action committees like EMILYs List so beneficial to new candidates like Matthews? The answer isn't complicated. EMILYs List is a well established and credible PAC that has opened doors for so many women. This isn't something that is synonymous only to EMILYs List, however. Endorsements from PACs are vital for Congressional candidates that have never run before. Well established members of Congress don't need the same help when it comes to fundraising and support. However, when you're a relatively unknown and unexperienced candidate, the financial support and endorsement from a PAC can go a long way. It provides financial support, a network of other donors and endorsements, and a group of primary supporters that are devoted to specific issues. For Kathleen Matthews an endorsement from EMILYs List will give her more credibility and support amongst women but also access to other political action committees and donors that are committed to women and family issues. In a political era where incumbency seems to be the biggest determinant of electoral success, many think that political interest groups might not matter as much. Thats true, they might not be a significant factor for experienced members of Congress. But for a new, unknown candidate, these groups can make all the difference in a campaign.

Roll Call:
http://atr.rollcall.com/kathleen-matthews-scores-emilys-list-endorsement/

What does Kevin McCarthy think about all of this?

When it was initially announced that Speaker John Boehner was resigning and that there was gonna be a new speaker in congress, many politicians and scholars alike expected Kevin McCarthy to be the very next person in line to fill the empty position. However McCarthy resigned from the race because of what some speculate as a threat he received from a conservative activist, but McCarthy explained that it was because he wanted to see a speaker elected that was supported by the entire GOP, which McCarthy believed would not happened if he ran. Kevin McCarthy did not want the speakership to go to ANYONE he believed wouldn't be able to united the party, and eventually he came to the determination that wouldn't be himself either.

For almost a month the speculation of who the new Speaker would be bounced between several different names, but the name that was most popular during that month was Paul Ryan's. Even Paul Ryan himself had initially stated that he didn't want to take the job as Speaker because he wanted to be able to spend more time with his family. Eventually though, Ryan said he would think about taking the position, and not too much later, he was actually elected as Speaker of the House. What factors may have changed Ryan's mind? Kevin McCarthy had stated for the media that he was ecstatic with Ryan's election, and noted that if he hadn't stepped away from the race and let Paul Ryan become the new favorite, that he very well may have been elected but only after multiple ballots, and divided votes from within the party. McCarthy had been stressing party unity the entire duration of the race, so perhaps he and other powerful members of the GOP were able to convince Paul Ryan to enter the race and take the position. It's certainly not an improbability since Ryan had initially stated he'd rather not enter the race, but then ultimately did and was elected. Perhaps with more party support for newly elected Speaker Ryan, the GOP will be able to stifle the inner party conflicts and have more success in congress.

http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/kevin-mccarthy-speaker-decision/?dcz=
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/us/politics/house-speaker-vote.html?_r=0

Is Ryan the right fit for Speaker?

Over the past few weeks, Capitol Hill buzz has been filled with the continuing hullabaloo over who will take over the Speaker's throne in the wake of Boehner's departure.  After ample persuading by colleagues from both parties, a very reluctant Paul Ryan (R-WI) has agreed to run for the Speakership.  The House Republicans voted today to install Ryan as the new Speaker (over fellow candidate Daniel Webster of Florida) in a 200-43 vote (Herszenhorn 2015), thus indicating broad support for Ryan within the party.  The next step is a full vote on the House floor, which Ryan is expected to easily pass, seeing as many Democrats have come out in support of him taking over for Boehner.  This is likely due to Ryan's relatively moderate positions in the past and his willingness to work across party lines when necessary.  For example, GovTrack notes that his ideology score falls to the left of the bulk of House Republicans; what's more interesting, however, is that they also report Ryan's leadership score as falling below that of many of his fellow GOP lawmakers (GovTrack).  So while he seems like the type of person who can reach deals across party lines, his lack of experience compared to his peers could be detrimental to his tenure as Speaker.  Or, conversely, it could be a breath of fresh air.

Ryan, at age 45, will be the youngest Speaker of the House in over a century (Steinhauer & Hulse 2015).  The four most recent speakers were all at least in their 50s and 60s at the time of their election as Speaker, with Gingrich at 51, Hastert at 56, Pelosi at 64, and Boehner at 61.  Moreover, Ryan will also be one of the only Speakers in U.S. history to ascend to the Speakership without any experience in senior leadership within the House (Ibid).  This lack of leadership experience within the chamber and party as a whole may to some degree hinder Ryan's ability as Speaker, but it's also important to not discount his achievements.  Ryan is currently serving in his eighth term in the House and is Chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, which gives him considerable knowledge of taxation and fiscal policy.  Nearly half of Ryan's proposed bills have dealt with "economics and public finance" (GovTrack), which makes him an asset in terms of fostering deals on economic policy.  He also gained political experience as the Republican Vice-Presidential nominee, running with Mitt Romney, in the 2012 election.

Despite these qualifications that may compensate for his lack of leadership, Ryan's ability to fundraise has been called into question, given that Pelosi and Boehner have been incredibly successful fundraisers.  Ryan has expressed some hesitation to commit as fervently to fundraising as his predecessors, which would mean that other House Republicans would need to step up their fundraising game to make up for the loss of Boehner, who spent many Congressional recesses traveling the nation to raise funds for the party (Steinhauer & Hulse 2015).  Ryan stated in an interview following the GOP meeting this morning that he will not give up his current weekend routine of going home to Wisconsin to spend time with his wife and children.  Instead, he plans on seeking assistance from other GOP leaders in the House to fundraise and deal with other party issues (Herszenhorn 2015).  This is quite a departure from the ways of Speakers past, but perhaps this spreading of responsibility will help take some pressure off of Ryan, who, after all, never really wanted the job.

Ryan's change in style from Boehner also brings up an important aspect of the changeover that will be interesting to watch in the coming months:  how Ryan adds his own touch to the Speakership (that is, how he changes the way House functions, both among leadership and the chamber more generally).  In addition to his pledge to keep his weekends free for time with family and his district, Ryan made another announcement this morning:  "We are not going to have a House that looked like it did the last few yeras.  We are going to unify.  We are going to respect the people by representing the people."  These are some mighty big goals, especially given how hostilely divided the House GOP has been recently.  Considering that Boehner resigned after facing pressure from the hyper-conservative House Freedom Caucus, unifying the party may be an uphill battle for Ryan.  However, a majority of the HFC had pleged to vote for Ryan (Herszenhorn 2015), so perhaps he will be more successful than Boehner at bridging the gap within his party.

Assuming that he wins the vote on the House floor (all he needs is 218 votes, 200 of which are already guaranteed by his own party), Ryan will be the new Speaker.  This will bring with it not only changes to the leadership, but it could also potentially reshape the workings of the House more broadly.  It's a great time to be studying Congress, as Ryan will likely be in the spotlight of political news as we watch how he proceeds as Speaker.  What a time to be alive!

---
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/29/us/politics/republicans-paul-ryan-house-speaker.html?ref=politics&_r=0
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/paul_ryan/400351
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/29/us/politics/house-speaker-job-requires-many-hats-paul-ryan-has-never-worn.html?ref=politics

More Money for Maloney?

Sean Patrick Maloney is currently serving his second term as representative to New York's 18th district, my home district. He currently serves as a member on both the House Agriculture Committee and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Maloney beat out Republican Nan Hayworth in 2012 with just over half of the vote. Two years later, when Hayworth challenged Maloney, he won again – but with an even smaller margin. (It is interesting to note here that Hayworth originally served in the 19th district but due to redistricting, had to run for a seat in the 18th district - see my previous post for the New York congressional district maps before and after redistricting due to the 2010 census.) 

Maloney is frequently found back home, working with many local businesses, organizations, and community groups in the district. Since his district crosses into four different counties, each with a different view, Maloney is considered to be a more conservative Democrat and actually ran as a Moderate in the 2012 election. In the New York delegation, Maloney is said to be the 10th most conservative representative based on the bills and resolutions he cosponsors (GovTrack). The graph below from GovTrack represents the number of bills Maloney has sponsored and cosponsored in the 114th Congress and shows that Maloney falls ideologically closer to the center than some of his coworkers. 

This can be seen in the way Maloney votes as well, tending to vote across party lines on some issues. Maloney is also considered to be in the highest 10% among House Democrats for writing bipartisan bills and in top 15% among all representatives for joining bipartisan bills (GovTrack). For example, on the vote on the Keystone XL Pipeline, legislation heavily backed by the House Republicans, Maloney was one of 28 Democrats that voted with Republicans in favor of authorizing the construction of the pipeline (VoteSmart). Maloney has stated that his vote had to do with the fact that oil shipments pass through the Hudson Valley on their way to and from refineries in Canada and that the Valley currently lacks necessary pipeline infrastructure, which the legislation would help create and control. This statement seems to be Maloney's primary reason for voting this way since he does not receive many donations from the energy and natural resource sector, with Oil & Gas only contributing $1,000 (OpenSecrets). It is also important to consider that Maloney's Environment America rating is 80% as well, even though he voted for something that is considered to be unfriendly to the environment (VoteSmart). Maloney has also recently voted to pass legislation to adapt to changing crude oil market conditions, a vote that went against party lines. It is interesting to point out that both votes against party lines mentioned above concerned legislation regarding oil and gas, yet Maloney does not receive large sums of donations from this sector.

In the 2014 congressional race, Maloney raised $4,256,016 and spent $4,161,436, more than his opponent Nan Hayworth (OpenSecrets). However, the question arises: where does Representative Maloney's campaign receive this money? Obviously, it is not from Oil & Gas, as mentioned above. The number one industry contributing to Sean Maloney's campaign in 2014 were lawyers and law firms, then followed by securities & investment, leadership PACs, real estate, and the retired (OpenSecrets). These five industries alone gave $1,372,645, which is about 30% of the money raised. The top five contributors the 2014 race were Willkie, Farr & Gallagher, Kirkland & Ellis, Goldman Sachs, New York Life Insurance, and the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund (ibid). The first two contributors are both law firms and the second pair of two are both involved in investments. The Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund provides financial and campaign support LGBT political candidates. While Maloney does not serve on any committees that deals with law, he did previously work in a equity firm as an attorney, which explains the backing of law firms and investment firms, the top two contributing industries to his 2014 race.

Representative Maloney will be running again for office in 2016, running against two former candidates for New York Assembly, Sakima Brown and Dan Castricone - both Republicans (NYStateofPolitics). So far, the Maloney campain has raised $1,581,783 and has spent $497,906. They also have $1,179,840 on hand (OpenSecrets). The top five contributors so far have been Sullivan & Cromwell (law firm), MacAndrews & Forbes (investments), Goldman Sachs (investments), Chieftain Capital Management (investments), and Paul Weiss et al (international firm) and the top five industries are securities & investment, lawyers and law firms, the retired, real estate, and leadership PACs, the same top five industries from the previous race.

So, while I believe that money influences a lot of decisions, whether you are in Congress or not, it seems that Representative Sean Patrick Maloney does not make legislative decisions based on the donations to his campaign. Rather, the donations come from industries and contributors that Maloney was involved in prior to his legislative career.




Sources:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2014/house-state-delegation-ny/ideology
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/sean_maloney/412562
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/sean_maloney/412562/report-card/2014 
http://votesmart.org/bill/19354/50797/139760/keystone-xl-pipeline-act
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/pacs.php?cycle=2014&cid=N00034277&sector=E&seclong=Energy+%26+Natural+Resources&newMem=N
http://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/139760/sean-maloney/30
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/elections.php?cycle=2014&cid=N00034277&type=I
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=2014&type=I&cid=N00034277&newMem=N
http://www.nystateofpolitics.com/2015/10/two-file-to-run-against-rep-sean-patrick-maloney/
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=2016&type=I&cid=N00034277&newMem=N

Its a Money Thing

Elections are neither Blue nor Red, they are Green. The concept of a Green Election is simple and as a student of Political Science this concept should be ever so apparent. Politics.... Its a Money Thing.

It is very understandable why so many people think that money in politics only makes a democracy function improperly. But let it be made clear that if the government is allowed to regulate the amount of money that can be contributed to an individual candidate then the wealthy will only continue to dominate politics in the American System. Most politicians are not born into money, nor can they afford to fund the entirety of their own campaigns. If the government was to regulate campaign contributions given by wealthy individuals or PAC's to politicians, then people like the Donald Trump will be able to flourish. It is not Trumps political views that are being refereed to but rather his personal wealth and his ability to project that personal wealth on the campaign trail. Money in politics has and always will be an important part of not just political campaign processes, but all aspects of the general American political process.

Lets get away from the regulation aspect of political fundraising and examine a responsible politician who comes from a blue collar background and now sports the red battle colors of the GOP.

Congressman Charlie Dent (PA-15th) knows how to raise money, that is made evidently clear when looking into his fundraising Rolodex. During the 2013-2014 fundraising period he was able to raise a combined total of $1.77 million, and that was without any opponent. In 2010, Dent was able to raise $2.5 million. Now that is a good chunk of change, but it is nothing in respect to other politicians from huge urban areas like New York, California and Texas. 

The top four industries that donated to Congressman Dent were Professional Health Services($131,000), Pharmaceuticals($86,500), Chemical Manufacturing($82,150), and Electric Utilities($76,399). But we cannot forget the $63,200 donated from Law Firms, because after all, its always good to know a Lawyer. Its no surprise that Health services were at the top, with how massive the medical infrastructure(St. Luke's HN and Lehigh Valley HN) of the Lehigh Valley is. Chemical and Electronic Utilities are also expected because Air Products, PPL, and Comcast are all based out of Pennsylvania. 

But its not just industrial sectors that donate the big money. Individual donors and private enterprises also account for a large influx of money. Out of respect for many of the donors from around the Lehigh Valley, individual names will not be named in this blog post. I understand that the contributions are public record and it is encouraged that the reader find and examine these names if they so choose. However, this entry will not name drop, but rather discuss groups of individuals in different professional circles that contributed. On top of PAC's connected with certain industries there are personal donations from those industries that tell an even more personal story of a politicians web of connections. There are many Legal professionals that donated to Congressman Dent, as well as many Health care professionals. Developers and Realtors also chipped in, which again should come as no surprise to the political science student. There is nothing wrong with either the former or the latter. Furthermore other politicians cannot be counted out because they also give money to other politician's campaigns from their own campaign funds. However, if any of the groups just named are most regulated in the giving of donations to political campaigns, it is the politicians. 

Backtracking briefly to the issue of more government regulation of campaign finance there are two additional issues arrived at. If the government says that candidates can only raise money from small donations, then it is evident that a candidate would have to know many different individuals. This creates two problems, the first being that the incumbent always knows more people and therefore can raise more money from small donations. The second problem is that, if politicians can only raise money from small donation sources them they will continuously be distracted by raising enough money to campaign and therefore will have less time to govern. American Campaign Finance is more regulated now then at previous times in American history and regulating it even more would only further harm the American system, even if the intention is in good faith. 

Its like children in an arcade, the kids with more quarters can win more tickets, and the more tickets you have, the bigger the prize you can get from behind the counter.

Sources:

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00026171&cycle=2016

Dollarocracy App.

Open States App.

Who Does The Government Work For?

The documentary Priceless begins with the narrator stating that every morning United States senators wake up and recognize that they need to make a certain amount of money or at the end of the next election they will not have jobs. This is a cause for some concern as many questions are raised as to where the money comes from and how congressmen will balance the decisions they make versus the decisions of those who supply the most money. The big question is- who is the government really working for?

I took a look at a Pennsylvania senator to try to see if I could find a pattern in his decision making process that relates to the money that he receives from contributing organizations. Bob Casey is assigned to three different committees and his three largest contributors fall into the energy sector and the electronic sector. It is interesting to note that Casey’s platform as well as many of the legislative decisions he makes do not have anything to do with either of these sectors. While yes, some of his legislation can be seen as being related to interests that his top contributors would agree with, it does not appear that his voting record is shaped on where much of his resources are coming from.

The majority of Casey’s funds come from large individual contributions with a quarter of his funds coming in from PACs. Lobbyists contributing to Bob Casey in the past five years include Comcast Corp, Air Products & Chemicals Inc, and Reed Smith LLP. These corporations are technology businesses and suppliers of gases, chemicals, and energy systems. This is no surprise however, because there are clear relationships between goals that certain committees aim to promote, and the organizations that financially promote them.

Members of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, which Casey is a part of, devote much of their time to workplace issues and received more than $8 million dollars in contributions in the 2014 election cycle from energy sectors.  In addition, almost $9 million dollars is donated from both the electronics sectors and energy sectors for members of the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee in which the Pennsylvania Senator also belongs to.

Senator Casey has made many efforts to improve the workplace and clean up the environment, but it does not seem like any of this legislative action is being directly influenced by PACs or other organizations. It may simply be that as a member of specific committees, Casey is more likely to come into contact with certain issues and legislation, and as a result related businesses take an interest in him. He has made extensive efforts to develop cleaner ways of producing electricity, improve the quality of the workplace, and prevent chemical accidents which could all be seen as potentially being related to his contributors. However the roles could also be reversed. His contributors may take interest in him because of his efforts. It is hard to say where the line is drawn between contributions and bribes. It is also difficult to determine when a politician promotes a policy in order to better their community or to better their chances of financial stability and reelection. It is up to the discretion of one’s constituents to determine when a politician has fallen victim to money and lobbyists, but it seems to me that Senator Robert Casey does not fall under this description. 

Chuck Schumer and finances

            Chuck Schumer is the senior Senator from New York. He’s a ranking member of the Committee on Rules and Administration and is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senate Finance Committee, and the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. Schumer is a member of many subcommittees as well, including Crime and Terrorism, Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection, and Taxation and IRS Oversight. He raises a good amount of money for his campaigns, raising $27,465,087 in 2004 and $19,519,748 in 2010. Schumer sponsors and cosponsors more bills than almost any other Congressman, primarily in the areas of foreign trade and international finance, taxation, crime and law enforcement, and health.

            A large portion of Schumer’s campaigns are financed by Health PACs. He raised $198,142 from them in the past year, more than any sector except for Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate. Schumer has traditionally had a strong stance on health and health insurance, and in particular women’s health. 11% of bills he sponsors address issues related to health. Recently, he voted nay to rescind funds from Planned Parenthood on September 24, 2015 and voted yea to the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014. He also cosponsored a bill to protect women’s health from corporate interference in 2014, and cosponsored a bill to protect a woman’s right to determine whether and when to bear a child or end a pregnancy by limiting restrictions on the provision of abortion services. Schumer was rated 100% by Planned Parenthood Action fund on January 9, 2015, reflecting his voting record from the past six years.

            Most of Schumer’s contributions come from in-state supporters, at 64%. This may be because much of Schumer’s work involves New York. He is one of the leading members of Congress when it comes to earmarks, which are used to designate and provide federal funding to companies, groups, and organizations, usually in the Congressman’s district or state. He earmarked $291,421,190 in 2010, although those groups receiving funds often didn’t contribute back to Schumer. He only received .3% in contributions from those he provided earmarks for.

            Surprisingly, the top metro area that contributed to Schumer was not New York City, but the Washington DC area. He received $15,600 from DC and only $11,550 from New York. This correlates with some of Schumer’s committee work. Schumer is a member of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs and its subcommittees Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection, Housing, Transportation, and Community Development, and Securities, Insurance, and Investment. DC is a low-income area with housing issues and so on.

            I didn’t find an incredibly strong correlation between Schumer’s policy making and his campaign contributions. He is so entrenched in his Senate seat in New York and has enough corporate backing that it would take a lot for him to lose an election. He out-raised his opponents by an average of $23,067,004 for his last two elections.

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=2016&cid=N00001093&type=I

http://media.cq.com/members/371?rc=1

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/charles_schumer/300087

http://votesmart.org/candidate/26976/chuck-schumer#.ViLEmxNVikp

http://www.schumer.senate.gov/legislation

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/charles_schumer/300087/report-card/2014

Representitice Himes and the power of money in congress

Regardless of what position someone is running for they need all the help they can get. For those that think they can simply start a campaign with out a financial strategy consider this. There are a lot of expenditures when it comes to a campaign including cost of transporting yourself and your staff, paying your staff and financing all they ways your word gets out to the public are a few of the many expenses and unless your Donald Trump there's no way you can pay for all of them. That's why campaign sponsors are so crucial to candidates because now, rather than worry about their finances, they can focus on convincing citizens to vote for them. These sponsors come from all sorts of industries including agriculture, chemical, banking etc. But while some simply show their support for the candidate other industries funds do the same but come with a catch. But until then here are some of the contributes to my representative.

I have stated before that I live in the 4th district of Connecticut who is represented by democrat Jim Hines who has held that office since 2009. He serves of the Committee of Financial Services, primarily in the subcommittees of Capital Markets and housing/insurance, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Here are some of his biggest beneficiaries: Of the $390,300 in donations from Himes' top twenty industries for the 2016 elections 73% of that was through pacts and 68% came from his top 5 industry contributes which were Insurance, securities/investments, retired, accountants and commercial banks. Looking at the list of individual companies the top five are listed at Credit Suisse, The Hartford, Pricewatterhouse Coopers, and tied for fit are the American Institute of CPA's, the Prudential Group and Home Depot. From the looks of it Jim Himes' sponsors it makes sense that some of his biggest supporters would be in banking and securities because he was at one point vice president of Goldman Sachs so he has some experience within these industries. 

The way I look at campaign donations there are two types of donations with very different objectives. There are those that simply show support and those that look to take advantage of candidates, With Himes, from what I observed, his biggest contributes are the types of companies with no further agenda than helping out a local/national politician. However there are plenty of industries out there with tricks up their sleeves. Two in particular that were looked at in the Pricless documentary were the oil and gas companies and chemical pesticides companies. It is well documented that oil is maybe the biggest industry in the United States. We are one of the biggest producers, suppliers and consumers of oil in the world. But with all the money made there is the major consequence in environmental danger. It is proven that the emissions of fossil fuels has created green house gases and have destroyed ecosystems thanks to the continuous drilling for oil. 

For the chemical companies the documentary focused on pesticides and other chemicals farmers use to protect their crops. We are a growing nation and our produce needs to keep up with the ever growing constant demand so farmers can't afford to lose any percentage of their crops due to pests. So to fight this farmers spray their crops with certain chemicals to protect not only their crops but their business as well. However these chemicals make the foods we eat seemingly unsafe to eat. The documentary showed that the number of different chemicals that are in our produce is mind boggling. It also ruins the land around us. As these chemicals seep into the ground they manage their way into the underground water which then goes into rivers, the oceans and even our drinking water creating dead zones in the oceans and creating physical ailments for those that drank the contaminated water. 

With such great risks Congress should respond in some way either coming up with an alternative fuel source or limit the drilling of oil but they don't and why is that? It's because many members of congress and their campaign funds are sponsored by oil companies. Remember when I said that some funds come with a catch this is what I mean in that in order to stay in office politicians need all the financial support they can get and oil companies are a big investor in political campaigns. However oil companies want something in return from these politicians and that is their full support in what they do and defend their practices and these companies have the leverage because if politicians they support go on the offensive against them they can easily cut all funding from that politicians campaign. 

So in the end, while Jim Himes' contributers don't show signs of swaying his opinions, Pricless showed that politics and business don't mix due to operate ideologies at work. I feel the only way we can get anything done in congress is if future candidates simply refuse the financial assistance so that way their views aren't clouded by corporate agendas.We might get there one day but it's unlikely due to the competitive nature of every candidate to try and get our vote. 

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=2016&cid=N00029070&type=I&newmem=N
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2016&cid=N00029070&type=I&newmem=N
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=2016&cid=N00029070&type=I
https://himes.house.gov/legislative-resources/committee-assignments

Does Bill Pascrell Vote for the Money?

Does money win elections?  Most people would say yes, and they would have sufficient evidence to show as proof.  For example, my district representative, Bill Pascrell Jr. (the Democratic Representative from New Jersey's 5th congressional district) has re-won his congressional seat eight times since 2000 is landslide victories.  In each of these elections though, he out raised his competitors 3:1 (at the least), and outspent the competition by at least the same margin.  The money raised by Pascrell in these recent 8 election ranges from about $1-2.8 million, with donations of $100,000 or more coming from multiple industries and sectors.  After receiving such large contributions, it's no surprise that Pascrell's actions in the legislature appear to be supportive of the interests of such industries.

Pascrell, who was elected to his first term in the House in 1996, is currently a member of the House Committee on the Budget and the House Committee on Ways and Means, sitting on the subcommittees of Health and Trade.  It seems that interests of bills resolutions voted on or sponsored by Pascrell is similar to the list of his current top donors (provided by OpenSecrets.org) showing that the industries from which Pascrell receives the most money include Health Professionals, Lawyers/Law Firms, Hospitals/Nursing Homes, Insurance, and several unions including transportation, construction, and labor.

Through his sponsorship and cosponsorship of bills during his tenure as one of New Jersey's representatives and his position on the House's Subcommittees of Health and Trade, it is clear that he actively promotes bills that take on issues of health and taxation/finance (these two issues combined are the areas of nearly half of his sponsored/cosponsored bills).  Interestingly enough the health and business/finance sectors account for around $700,000 of his donations (a little less than half of his total amount raised).  In 2014 and 2015, Pascrell has been sponsor of a good deal resolutions that aim to temporarily reduce or extend the reduction of duties on various, specific items; while sponsoring bills aimed at improving concussion treatment, re-authorizing programs to deal with the research and treatment of other brain injuries, and authorizing grants for the support of in-home care givers.

However, even though his voting record does correspond with his list of top donors, the donations he receives aren't necessarily the reasons for his voting.  It could be the opposite.  Perhaps the reason Pascrell receives such large contributions from several unions and the insurance sector is because he is a proponent or sponsoring bill to help provide job security, insurance coverage, and unemployment compensation, not the other way around.

Even though most of Pascrell's votes seemed to be votes hat would be popular among the districts constituents (even though they did correspond to donations made by each respective sector), several votes seemed to stick out to me in particular.  One of which was his vote in favor of the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling.  This is a bill that received a decent amount of media attention while it was being voted on in July for being in favor of relaxed GMO labeling regulations, and many of these sources accused Monsanto Co. of lobbying heavily for it passing in the House.  It was surprising to see an 'aye' from Pascrell on this resolution and others regarding chemical regulations in farming and food production because many people from my area seem to be against it, and the agribusiness industry accounts for such a small portion of his donations.

Overall, I found that even if Rep. Pascrell is influenced by the money he receives from donors, he still finds a way to vote in a way that appears to be very supportive of the interests of his constituents.


http://votesmart.org/candidate/campaign-finance/478/bill-pascrell-jr#.ViGdJItKu2w
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/pacs.php?cycle=2016&cid=N00000751&type=I
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bill_pascrell/400309

Engel and the Role of Money in his Legislative Processes

Rep. Eliot Engel (D) started his time as a Congressman in 1989 and currently represents New York's 16th District.  Engel is a Ranking Member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, a member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, a member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, and a member of the the Subcommittee on Health.  Engel's moderate democratic stances on issues and general ideology aligns with his left-leaning constituents.  Unsurprisingly, based on his committee memberships, 32% of his sponsored bills have been focused on international affairs, 13% have focused on energy, 6% have focused on science, technology, and communications, and 22% have focused on health.  For more on Engel's background, please view my first blog post.

For the 2016 Election cycle, 63% of Eliot Engel's fundraising money come from individual contributions and 37% has come from PACs.  Throughout the span of his Congressional career, 50% of his fundraising money has come from individual contributions, 49% has come from PACs, and 1% has come from other contributions.  His biggest financial contributors for 2016 are: Avenue Ventures, Cai Industries, Nfs Inc, Citizens Organized PAC, and Northrop Grumman.  Throughout his Congressional career, his biggest financial contributors are: Verizon Communications, Monroe College, American Assn for Justice, American Federation of Teachers, and American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees.

Most of the time, Engel votes with the majority of Democrats on bill proposals.  On top of this, and unsurprisingly, most of his top contributors are liberal in their ideologies.  His liberal voting stance on various bills such as him supporting the Head Start Act of 2007--a liberal eduction bill that makes changes to teacher qualifications and eligibility and renews the the Head Start Program and a bill that the American Federation of Teachers supported--and voting against the Requires Inclusion of Social Security Benefits in Calculation of Modified Adjusted Gross Income (2011)--a conservative Social Security adjustment bill that adjusted the definition of modified adjusted gross income to include the amount of social security benefits that were formerly excluded from gross income and a bill that American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees was against--adds to his support from his liberal constituents and his liberal financial contributors.  The money he receives from his supporters has made him vote in ways that don't line up with what the majority of the Democratic Party aligns with, though.  For example, Engel voted in favor of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014--a conservative defense act that appropriated funds for the Department of Defense for the 2014 fiscal year which Northrop Grumman, one of his top contributors for 2016, favored.  So while Engel tends to vote for what his constituents support, he also has shown to support who funds him even if their ideologies are different from the ideologies of his constituents.


https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/eliot_engel/400122
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00001003
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=Career&type=I&cid=N00001003&newMem=N
http://votesmart.org/bill/5768/16236/26972/head-start-act-of-2007#.ViF8dRNViko
http://votesmart.org/bill/14053/37162/26972/requires-inclusion-of-social-security-benefits-in-calculation-of-modified-adjusted-gross-income#.ViGFcRNViko
http://votesmart.org/bill/17291/45788/26972/department-of-defense-appropriations-act-2014#.ViF67hNViko
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000083
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000061
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000170

My District House Member

I am from Baltimore, Maryland in the seventh district. Our state senators are Barbara Mikulski and Benjamin Cardin. My house member is Elijah Cummings. Elijah Cummings is a democrat representative who sits on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transport , as well as serves as a ranking member in both the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Select Committee on Benghazi. Cummings has both a Leadership Pac and a Campaign Committee to raise money for his campaigns. Under these two fundraisers Cummings top industry donors are the Public Sector Unions, Real Estate, and Law Firms. His top individual donors are by Bosley Construction, the American Federation of Government Employees, and the Time Group.
Elijah Cummings has sponsored and cosponsored a lot of bills over the years since he was first elected in 1996. He usually sponsors around 20 bills and cosponsors on hundreds more each congressional year. Such sponsorship on issues ranged from the Federal Employees' Benefits Equity Act of 1999 to the Medicaid-SCHIP Dental Benefits Improvement Act of 2009. He has cosponsored bills from the Central American and Caribbean Refugee Adjustment Act of 1999 to the Anthrax Attacks Investigation Act. Currently, Elijah Cummings is sponsoring seventeen bills and cosponsoring on over three hundred additional bills. Some of the bills that he is sponsoring are the Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014, the Military Family Home Protection Act, and the Medicaid Generic Drug Price Fairness Act of 2014. With the types of bills that Cummings sponsored and supported it is easy to see how he could vote the way he has on different issues. Lately Cummings has voted no or "nay" on many issues (that were still passed by the House) like the bill to adapt to changing crude oil market conditions, the Native American Energy Act, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2016, and the Justice for Victims of Iranian Terrorism Act. He has not only been on the defense with his voting, voting yes or "aye" on many bills as well. Some of the bills that he has recently voted yes on are the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2016, the bill (failed to pass) to Approve the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, signed at Vienna on July 14, 2015, relating to the Nuclear Program of Iran, and the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2015. Elijah Cummings has been a dedicated and progressive representative for his district and he will be up for reelection in 2016.

Kirsten Gillibrand Working Above the Money

            Kirsten Gillibrand, first elected into office in 2009, is the democratic junior United States Senator of New York’s 20^th District.  As Senator, Gillibrand serves on certain committees and subcommittees.  She sits on the following committees: The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, The Committee on Armed Services, The Committee on Environment and Public Works, and The Committee on Aging.  Within these committees she is also a member of a number of subcommittees.  Among these are: Subcommittee on Livestock, Marketing, and Agriculture Security, Subcommittee on Commodities, Risk Management, and Trade, Subcommittee on Personnel, and the Subcommittee on Airland.  As a member of The Committee on Agriculture, she strongly supported the passing of the 2012 Farm Bill.  Through this bill she successfully worked on: “strengthening specialty crops, expanding rural broadband and improving recovery efforts from natural disasters” (http://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/about/biography).

            In her time in office thus far, 80% of her funds come from individual contributions (70% small individual contributions & 10% large individual contributions) and 16% come from PACs.  Kirsten Gillibrand does not self-fund her campaigns at all (0%).  Her top donors have consisted of: Boies Schiller & Flexner, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Goldman Sachs, Corning Inc., and Morgan Stanley.  Kirsten Gillibrand is supported by 23 PACs and receives funding from each.  Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate PACs are her largest type of donors.  The second largest group of PACs is Lobbyists and Lawyers, which could be due to the fact that Gillibrand was a practicing lawyer in the state of New York before she got elected into office.      

            As junior Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has sponsored and worked on a number of bills.  The majority of the bills she sponsors come from her work in Some of these most recent bills include: Pedestrian Act of 2015, Child Sexual Abuse Awareness Prevention Act, Meat and Poultry Recall Notification Act of 2015, and Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act.  Each bill Senator Gillibrand sponsors is associated with the committees she is a member of.  Through all of her work in committees and on the bills she sponsors it shows us that she mainly works in the realm of the Democratic Party.

            I don’t think that money plays a huge role in Kirsten Gillibrand’s elections.  Her donors don’t contribute money in millions, which is what other Senators may be receiving.  Much of her money does come from small individual contributors not from big PACs. Compared to others, it is safe to say that money does not completely and totally influence Gillibrand’s time in office as a New York State Senator.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/kirsten_gillibrand/412223

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=2016&cid=N00027658&type=P

http://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/about/biography

Representative Tom Price and the Influence of Money

United States House Representative Tom Price serves in Georgia's Sixth Congressional District. Rep. Price has served his district since 2005 as fairly conservative Republican. Through his time in Congress he has gained the respect of his peers and now serves on many influential committees. Most importantly Representative Price currently sits as the Chairman of the House Committee on the Budget. The budget is always a major topic of conversation and debate on Capitol Hill and most recently it has been at the forefront of national attention due to the struggle on whether or not to cut funding for Planned Parenthood. The budget committee has also received significant attention in its refusal to fund Obamacare, which has again caused further strife between Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Price serves other committees and caucuses as well, which includes the House Committee on Ways and Means, the Congressional Health Care Caucus, the Doctors Caucus, the Republican Study Committee, Immigration Reform, Prayer Caucus, Tea Party Caucus, and the Republican Israel Caucus. Rep. Price has also received additional media attention in recent weeks for his voice and submission of his own name into the fight for the next Speaker of the House.

Congressman Price is up for re-election in 2016, so he has obviously begun to do some his fundraising for his campaign back in Georgia. According to opensecrets.org Rep. Price has raised about $534,661 and has spent $434,455 of the money raised so far. The campaign has even a larger amount of cash on hand with around $2,356,602. This money obviously does not just appear out of thin air, so the major question is where does Tom Price's campaign receive most of its money? Opensecrets.org lays out the Top 5 Contributors as well as the Top 5 Industries that financial support the congressman. Top contributors include the Marcus Foundation, which was started by co-founder of Home Depot, Bernard Marcus, and provides supports for human services, mental health, Jewish giving programs, education, and public affairs. Other contributors are the Yancey Brothers, who are major contributors to multiple Republican politicians in Georgia and own a Caterpillar dealership, the American College of Radiology, the McKesson Corp., and the American Academy for Orthopedic Surgeons. The top industries that have given their financial backing to Rep. Price include health professionals, insurance, the retired, real estate, and pharmaceutical and health products. Congressman Price obviously receives much of his funding from health related industries and businesses, which helps to explain his active membership in the House Committee on Ways and Means and for his vocalized ideas against Obamacare. He was a doctor before he made his way to Washington so Rep. Price also seems to have developed influence because of his professional background in the field of health care.

The top contributors to Tom Price's campaigns seem to also play a significant role in the bills that the congressman has sponsored. He has sponsored nine bills in 2015 and five of those nine where in some way related to healthcare. The other bills included a bill proposed to reduce the amount of years representatives were allowed to serve, two bills related to the budget, and an additional bill which proposes a National Linemen Day to recognize the service of these public servants. Rep. Price has also co-sponsored other legislation in 2015 with associating his name with 61 different bills. Once again the bills that he has co-sponsored are skewed primarily towards those related to health care. According to govtrack.us about 58% of all bills that Rep. Tom Price sponsors are related to health, the next highest field that he sponsors is economics and public finance at 21%. Both economics and health are directly related to the committees that Rep. Price has been selected to be a part, but it is clear to see that his primary concern has been with health care in recent years. Price's voting record leaves him in about the middle of the Republican's. He is far from moderate in terms of his voting, but still not extremely far right. Price has also been very consistent in his ability to be present of congressional votes. In his ten years while serving in congress he has missed just 144 votes or 1.8% of all the votes taken during his tenure.

In regards to the influence of money on Congressman Price's political activities, I believe there is no doubt that money does play some role in his decisions, but that there are many other factors that play into his voting and actions in congress. An important factor in Price's history is the fact that he spent many years as a physician before being elected to public office. His personal history alone can help provide an explanation for his support and concern with national health policy and legislation. Individuals and organizations associated with health care and services will also be more willing to provide support for a politician that has previous experience in the field of health and thus explains the majority of his campaign financing.

Sources:
govtrack.us
opensecrets.org
tomprice.house.gov