In the wake of the passage of the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill last night, it’s no easy thing sorting out the winners and the losers. The wide variety of riders and add-ons means a slew of interest groups can claim victory, even if it’s hard to pin down exactly who should claim credit for stuffing the bill with each particular plum.

The oil industry and other special interest groups made out well in the agglomeration of legislative language. But it’s clear that Wall Street — and Citigroup in particular — came out especially well, not just getting a win but dodging a bullet. Given the industry’s lobbying muscle, a failure to pass the legislation would have been a stinging defeat.

The provision that caused the greatest heartburn for the largest number of lawmakers — some of whom voted for the bill anyway — would loosen regulations on derivative trading that were adopted after the economy crashed to rein in some of the risky practices of financial firms. The new language is widely viewed as a gift to Wall Street, and specifically Citigroup, whose lobbyists literally wrote the text of the measure earlier this year. In one sense, the fact that there was strong opposition to legislation so favored by Citigroup was surprising; the company is a lobbying leviathan, spending $4 million in the first three quarters of this year alone and $5.6 million in 2013. Separately, its PAC and employees gave more than $2.1 million in to federal politicians in the midterm election cycle.

The recipients of that largess include just about everyone who’s anyone on Capitol Hill, with one key exception: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who was outspoken last night in her opposition to the bill, and particularly the Citigroup-penned provision.

Citigroup’s PAC contributed $804,000 to the campaigns of various members of Congress in the 2014 cycle — 162 members of the House, including 72 Democrats; the donations averaged about $5,000 per candidate. Of the 57 Democratic “yea” votes on the bill last night, crucial to the bill’s passage, 34 came from members who have received campaign cash from Citigroup’s PAC at some point since 2010.

While donations from the securities and investment and commerical bank industries skew to the right, Citigroup’s favor Republicans only slightly. And when it comes to contributions to party committees and top leadership PACs, the bank’s PAC has been nearly as generous to Democrats as Republicans — $30,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (the maximum) and $10,000 to the New Democrat Coalition, the creation of a group of moderate Democrats most of whom voted for the spending package. Additionally, Citibank’s PAC made donations to both the campaigns and the leadership PACs of many of the top Democrats who voted for the bill — House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.) and Reps. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Calif.).

But not Pelosi. According to OpenSecrets.org data, there were no contributions from Citigroup’s PAC to Pelosi’s campaign or her leadership PAC in the 2010, 2012 or 2014 cycles.

On the Republican side, Citigroup has similarly courted top House leadership, with a $30,000 contribution to the National Republican Congressional Committee and donations to both the campaigns and leadership PACs of House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).

Citigroup had company in its effort to get the bill passed. Apparently Jamie Dimon, chairman of JPMorgan Chase, also turned up the heat.

“I think after the president and Jamie Dimon started calling, some people gave in,” Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), told Politico last night.

Dimon personally is known as a friend of Democrats, having made large contributions to Democratic party groups in the past (although not since 2008). As the head of JPMorgan Chase, he’s at the helm of one of the few organizations with a bigger influence operation than Citigroup. The company’s PAC and employees contributed $2.6 million to federal campaigns in the 2014 election cycle; it has financed its lobbying team to the tune of $4.7 million in the first three quarters of this year, and spent nearly $5.5 million in 2013.

Help us keep government accountable by making a donation today.

JPMorgan’s giving record, however, is much more focused on Republicans, with 62 percent of its donations going to GOP recipients this cycle. Still, 78 House Democrats received campaign cash from JPMorgan’s PAC in the 2014 cycle, with an average donation of $5,200. A total of 38 of the Democrats who voted for the bill took money from JPMorgan’s PAC in 2014. The PAC has also made maximum donations to the DCCC and the leadership PACs of two of the prominent Democratic votes — Hoyer and Himes — in 2014.

Looking at donations by the commercial bank industry of which Citigroup and JPMorgan are members, it may be less surprising that so few Democrats were willing to support the bill than it is that so few Republicans were.

Finance/insurance/real estate, as a sector, is by far the largest source of campaign contributions — $435.9 million in the 2014 cycle. Within that sector, commercial banks are responsible for $25.6 million. Citigroup’s careful courting of Democrats and Republicans, and top leaders on both sides, is an aberration. The split of money between the two sides by Citibank’s PAC — 59 percent for Republicans and 41 percent for Democrats — is the exception, not the rule, among commercial banks, most of which skew much more toward the GOP.

As an industry, the banks have steered 71 percent of their funds towards Republicans this cycle, the same proportion as in the 2012 cycle. Commercial banks contributed $3.5 million to 190 House Democrats, with the average amount to each being $18,558. Meanwhile it gave 232 House Republicans (out of a total 234 this Congress) more than $9.1 million, with an average of more than $39,000.

Goodies for others

Loosening of financial regs wasn’t the only bonus tucked into the omnibus bill for various interests. There was also the massive expansion of contribution limits for individual donors wanting to contribute to national party committees — a move that benefits establishment politicians on both sides of the aisle seeking to fight back against the freewheeling world of outside money that has threatened their control of party agenda and candidate selection.

But there were other apparent gifts for selected pleaders.

The text approved by the House last night would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using the Endangered Species Act to protect two types of sage grouse — a bird that most people probably don’t think about much, other than people in the oil and mining industries. Official protection for the birds could make their work more difficult.

It’s not clear exactly which member, or members, of Congress engineered the language in the spending bill. However, Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.) is an unabashed opponent of listing the birds. His publicly stated reason is that there are better ways to help the birds, but one of Amodei’s top donors is Barrick Gold Corp., a mining concern that has lobbied heavily on the sage grouse. In fact, Barrick has filed more lobbying reports listing grouses as an issue than other organization. Barrick’s corporate PAC gave the maximum amount this cycle ($10,000) to Amodei’s campaign, and one of its registered lobbyists donated to him as well.

Of course, Amodei’s sway in Congress is slight compared with that of another lawmaker with whom Barrick has a good relationship: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who had a significant say in crafting the omnibus bill. During this cycle, Barrick’s corporate PAC donated $23,000 to Senate Democrats, including $5,000 to Reid’s own campaign (though he wasn’t running this year), and $20,000 to his Tahoe Searchlight joint fundraising committee.

Rules limiting how long truck drivers must rest also get the ax in the legislation. The issue has been hard fought over the duration of the 113th Congress, but Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) was able to slip language into the spending bill to finally make it happen. Collins’ campaign received $18,500 this cycle from the trucking industry, which considered the provision’s inclusion a major victory. Perhaps more significantly, the industry gave Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) $81,300 this cycle and was a staunch supporter of Joni Ernst, Bill Cassidy and other GOP Senate candidates whose wins this fall helped assure that he’ll be able to change his title to “Majority Leader” come January.



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 ➜