Both John Boehner (left) and Eric Cantor have accepted BP PAC cash this year. | AP Photos BP is back -- and spilling cash

BP has clawed its way back from political purgatory, finding itself right where it was before the Deepwater Horizon disaster: contributing significant cash to candidates happy to take it.

The embattled company’s political action committee is almost on pace to match what it donated at the federal level during the 2008 presidential election cycle, federal records show. Between March and August, BP’s PAC made more than $50,000 in federal-level campaign contributions, ranking it among the cycle’s more generous donors.


It’s a dramatic shift in BP’s fortunes. Consider that during the nine months following the explosion of and subsequent oil spill from the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform it operated in 2010, the company’s PAC simply stopped cutting checks to wary federal candidates and committees. That is, until March, when it quietly began contributing again.

“BP’s ability to shed its pariah status has played out very quickly,” said Rick Hasen, a University of California-Irvine law professor who edits Election Law Blog. “They’re reaching the point where politicians can accept their money without fear of being branded as in the pocket of a corrupt corporation.”

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) are among about two dozen federal candidates to accept BP PAC cash this year, and dozens of state-level candidates have also taken the PAC’s money.

“In the first few months, the feeling was to hold off. Don’t accept their contributions. Re-evaluate the situation at a later time,” said Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas), who received the final donation from BP’s PAC — he returned it — before the committee’s self-imposed donation moratorium.

And if BP made a donation to Gonzalez today?

“I would see BP in the same shoes as any other oil company,” he said, noting that the company has worked hard to properly respond to what ended up being the largest oil spill in U.S. history. “I don’t think I’d have any big objection to them contributing to me now.”

In the past 18 months, BP has gone from corporate villain to reputable donor, with many lawmakers saying the company has adequately owned up to its mistakes and taken responsibility for its role in the disaster.

BP’s situation isn’t unique. Every few months, the scenario repeats itself: A scandal sends lawmakers scurrying to return an imperiled party’s suddenly toxic campaign contributions so not to appear tainted by them.

Some derided politicians and political committees simply evanesce in the midst of their crushing troubles. But for those that prove to lawmakers’ satisfaction that they’ve paid their penance, forgiveness often awaits.

The psychology behind when to pocket or purge contentious contributions is, at best, tortured. At worst, it’s perilous.

A candidate too quick to divest of a donation runs the risk of appearing fickle, even feckless — someone willing to sacrifice a loyal supporter in the name of political expediency.

Hold on to problematic cash, however, and a candidate gambles being linked, fairly or not, to any of a rouge’s gallery of alleged cheats, swindlers, environment foulers, congressional-page seducers, crotch tweeters and the publically censured.

“Every politician has to make a decision: Is the embarrassment factor so great that it would outweigh the actual value of the donation?” mused Richard Briffault, a law professor and campaign finance scholar at Columbia University.

In recent years, politicians have grappled with donations from the PAC of once-embattled Goldman Sachs and disgraced politicos ranging from former Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) to former Reps. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) and Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) to Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.).

The office of Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) declared for a time that he wouldn’t accept money from any institutional PAC of companies receiving money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program or contributions from “the top five executives in each of the initial nine banks given bailout funds.”

Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas), who received $2,500 contributions from BP’s PAC in both July and August, says he’s comfortable accepting BP money today because he believes the company has largely made good on its vow to correct a bad situation. Green says he wouldn’t have accepted a BP contribution in the months immediately following the oil spill.

“I was madder at them than most members of Congress. BP was not my favorite company,” he said.

But then he monitored the company’s performance and kept tabs on its promise-keeping.

“They are doing a lot of things right, and they stood up at the plate,” he said.

Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) says he, too, has no reservations about accepting BP cash. The company’s PAC gave him $3,000 in June.

“People who think that because they give money, it’s going to change my view on something, they should take their money back,” Begich said. “I think people who think that way is what’s wrong with this system. You live and die by your own ethics. And if you ask BP, sometimes I agree with them, sometimes I don’t. And sometimes I yell at them.”

Having an “absolute test” for accepting or rejecting campaign contributions isn’t wise, Gonzalez added. The only time, Gonzalez said, he’d categorically reject a donation is if it came from a contributor “charged with and convicted of a criminal act.”

Among federal candidates, only Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) has returned a BP PAC contribution — a $5,000 check — since March, when the PAC again began making federal-level donations to both Democrats and Republicans.

BP declined to discuss its PAC finances, saying in a statement: “BP, like most large companies, has an employee political action committee that makes contributions to federal and state candidates and political party organizations. These voluntary employee contributions are publicly reported, as required by law, and the filings speak for themselves.”

Beyond BP, other entities are poised for a political comeback.

Rangel, for example, is fundraising again after surviving calls for his resignation and weathering a congressional censure last year. A long-time rainmaker for other Democrats, donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to them from his campaign account and leadership PAC, Rangel could yet regain that mantle after months as an outcast.

His leadership PAC remains largely inactive. But during the year’s second quarter, several non-federal Democratic organizations accepted three- and four-figure contributions from Rangel’s campaign committee.

Once imperiled because of a Securities and Exchange Commission fraud lawsuit, investment bank Goldman Sachs is back to donating campaign cash through its PAC at predictable levels.

Less certain is the fate of News Corp.’s News America/Fox PAC. News Corp. is under extreme international scrutiny for a phone hacking scandal that’s resulted in the resignation of top company officials and criminal investigations in Great Britain.

After years of heavy giving to federal-level candidates and committees, the News America/Fox PAC didn’t make a single donation to them in August, newly released federal documents show.

Robin Bravender contributed to this report.