The federal government’s selection of Boeing to build the next generation of Air Force aerial refueling tankers comes after years of contentious fighting that’s resulted in sky-high lobbying spending and accelerated campaign contributions to key politicians.

In 2010, Boeing spent more than $17.8 million on lobbying expenditures, placing it first among companies in the defense aerospace industry. In contrast, European Aeronautics Defence and Space Company (EADS) only spent $3.2 million on lobbying during the same period, a Center for Responsive Politics analysis of lobbying data finds.

But both companies have heavily ramped up spending during the past three years since they began competing head-to-head for the $35 billion contract to supply the U.S. Air Force with refueling tankers.

While disclosure limitations make it impossible to know how much each company specifically spent in support of the KC-X tanker program, parsing the bills that each company lobbied for functions as another metric of their legislative efforts.



In 2010, EADS and Boeing lobbied on the same piece of federal legislation on nine separate occasions. On six of these nine bills, both companies pushed for issues related to airborne tankers or the KC-X program.

Boeing’s lobbyists also filed more lobbying disclosure reports on two major bills: S.3454 and H.R. 5136.

For Boeing, overall federal lobbying expenditures jumped from $10.6 million in 2007 to more than $17.5 million in 2008.

With EADS, spending increased from $2.48 million to more than $4.52 million during the same period. Since 2007, these increased spending levels have remained consistent.

EADS and Boeing have also drawn lobbying support from Washington, D.C.’s insider community. Both companies hired lobbyists from major firms such as Patton Boggs, Podesta Group and Ernst & Young — many of these firms were among the top lobby dollar earners during 2010.



Since 2008, each company has also relied heavily on staff with past experience on Capitol Hill or elsewhere in the halls of government — the yearly lobbyist rosters for EADS and Boeing are almost exclusively composed of people who’ve passed through the “revolving door” of politics.

In particular, both companies employ several lobbyists who are intimately familiar with Congress. Through Patton Boggs, EADS has former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and former Sen. John Breaux (D-La.), while Boeing employs both former House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.) and Linda Daschle — wife of former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.).

SIGNIFICANT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS



EADS’ and Boeing’s respective political action committees have also seen regular spending increases between the 2006 and 2010 elections cycles, with both company’s PACs spending more during the 2010 cycle than they has in any cycle before.

Much of this money has gone toward members of Congress who stand to benefit politically from the KC-X tanker program.

For instance, EADS’s political action committee contributed between $1,000 and $10,000 to seven members of Congress from Alabama during the 2010 election cycle. If EADS wins the contract, the company will follow through on plans to build the tankers in its new Mobile, Ala.-based production center.



However, Boeing’s own campaign contributions significantly trump EADS.

During the 2010 election cycle, Boeing’s political action committee spent more than $2.91 million, donating more than $2.1 million of that amount to federal candidates:

In comparison, EADS North America spent more than $295,000 overall during the same period, giving $185,600 of that directly to federal-level candidates:

These contributions have helped the company gain major support among numerous lawmakers. In January, The Hill reported that a group of seven senators — including Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) — asked the Pentagon to look into whether a clerical error would hurt Boeing’s chances at landing the KC-X contract.



According to the Center’s research, all seven senators have received significant financial help from Boeing’s PAC: All but Cantwell received between $5,000 and $10,000 since 2007.

Plenty of executives and employees from both companies have also individually made donations to federal-level politicians, with contributions of late generally split almost evenly between Democrats and Republicans.

Among people currently serving in Congress, Murray has received $174,360 since the (since the 2000 election cycle) from a combination of people and political action committees associated with Boeing. She’s followed in by Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) at $124,950, Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) at $116,600 and ex-Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) at $104,349.

Also since the 2000 election cycle, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) has received more money from people and PACs associated with EADS than any other federal official or candidate — $41,300. Shelby is followed by Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) at $39,700, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) at $36,487 and Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) at $31,450.

For a full analysis of federal-level political donations by the political action committees of Boeing and EADS, as well as donations by their employees, download the following spreadsheet: boeing_eads.xls

FIGHTING STILL TO COME?

This sustained lobbying efforts is, in part, because of the tanker program’s troubled history. For most of the past decade, the Air Force’s efforts to purchase new refueling tankers have been plagued by legal and procedural problems.

In 2003, Boeing originally won the initial contract, but it was canceled following an investigation into corruption allegations. In a second attempt, EADS and Northrop Grumman were awarded the contract during 2008, but plans fell apart after Boeing filed a successful appeal to the Government Accountability Office.

In 2009, the Air Force relaunched their current effort for new refueling tankers through the KC-X program, which has been a central lobbying focus for both EADS and Boeing.

It’s unclear whether EADS, despite today’s decision, will continue to press the issue forward, appealing to the government for reconsideration. EADS has argued that its version of the tanker is bigger and better suited to the Air Force’s needs.

Center for Responsive Politics Senior Research Doug Weber and OpenSecrets Blog Editor Dave Levinthal contributed to this report.



For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: [email protected]

·

·

·

·

·

·

·

·

·

Support Accountability Journalism At OpenSecrets.org we offer in-depth, money-in-politics stories in the public interest. Whether you’re reading about 2020 presidential fundraising, conflicts of interest or “dark money” influence, we produce this content with a small, but dedicated team. Every donation we receive from users like you goes directly into promoting high-quality data analysis and investigative journalism that you can trust. Please support our work and keep this resource free. Thank you. Support OpenSecrets ➜

Read more OpenSecrets News & Analysis: