Members of Congress spend much of their careers chasing campaign cash and struggling to boost their war chests to fight off the next rival. When their careers are over, and there are no more rivals, many quickly dispose of what little cash is left by donating it to charity, returning it to donors or transferring it to party committees.

That may be less true when the former members are lobbyists, a situation that raises questions about whether they are using their lingering loot for contributions that help grease the skids on behalf of clients.

For some, this creates an opportunity to continue to play a role in politics or to support politicians they like. But several told OpenSecrets.org that with so many charities and politicians asking for a cut of the action, having a lot of leftover campaign cash becomes something of a burden.

A Center for Responsive Politics analysis shows that the number of former members of Congress who have campaign committees holding more than $100,000 has dramatically increased. In the 1998 election cycle, there were just 18 former members with war chests of that size. The number rose and fell slightly over the years until 2010, when there were 21. By 2012 there were 37. Now, the campaign accounts of 52 ex-lawmakers hold more than $100,000 in cash — and eight have more than $1,000,000.

In the 105th Congress, which ended in 1998, for example, just one lawmaker lost a primary battle and 26 retired out of a total of 51 who left office by losing an election, retiring or resigning. In contrast, 97 left Congress at the end of the 112th Congress last December, including 14 who were defeated in primaries and 35 who retired.

According to Roll Call’s congressional Casualty List , the numbers of members leaving office through primary losses and retirement has risen, and at a rate that roughly corresponds with the increase in former members with more than $100,000 in their campaign accounts.

“In my case, I lost a primary, expecting to run in the general election,” Castle said in an interview. “In retrospect we should’ve expended more in the primary and worried less about the general.”

Former Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.), at left, who lost in a primary battle, said his own experience may explain some of the increase as well.

“My guess would be that there are more members both of the House and Senate leaving voluntarily than there used to be, and when they leave voluntarily, there’s a high likelihood they have money left,” he said.

Meehan said that after 14 years in office, during which he built up a large war chest, he got fed up with Washington — something he suspects is happening more in recent years.

There are several possible reasons why members may be finishing their congressional careers with more money in the bank.

Some stay on the list for just one cycle, getting rid of their leftover cash fairly quickly, or converting their campaign committees to traditional political action committees. Others seem to stay on the list perpetually. Flippo and former Rep. Robin Tallon (D-S.C.) appear in all nine cycles reviewed by CRP going back to 1998.

In 1998, there were no former members who had more than $1 million; in 2004, there were three. In the current cycle, eight retired or deposed lawmakers are sitting on that much cash.

Topping the list of former members with more than a cool $100 grand in the bank in 1998 was former Rep. Ronnie Flippo (D-Ala.), who still had $622,000 even though he’d retired in 1991. By contrast, in the current cycle, former Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), who retired in 2011, leads all former members with $9.8 million. Former Rep. Marty Meehan (D-Mass.), pictured above at right, who left Congress in 2007, leads all former House members, with $4.6 million.

Keeping Options Open

Paul S. Ryan, senior counsel at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, said that most former members opt to convert campaign committees with leftover funds into PACs — which can both raise more money and give away more to other federal campaigns or committees. “There’s definitely no advantage to keeping it a campaign committee,” Ryan said. “On the contrary, there are incentives to convert it.” Some, he noted, could even choose to convert campaign committees to super PACs.

That’s not true, though, for ex-members who still harbor political ambitions. To the contrary, they may want to keep their committees up and running: Once a campaign committee is turned into a PAC or the funds are given to some other enterprise connected to the former lawmaker, the money can never be put back in a campaign war chest. “I haven’t taken the entire campaign account and put it in my charitable foundation because I haven’t made a firm decision that I would never seek office,” said Meehan, now chancellor of the University of Massachusetts-Lowell. Similarly, Rep. Joseph Kennedy II (D-Mass.) first appeared on the list in 2000 and has remained there ever since; he’s considered a potential candidate just about anytime there’s an opening in Massachusetts. Both Kennedy and Meehan were considered possible candidates for their state’s Senate seat in 2010, although neither ultimately ran.

Some former members even see their campaign accounts swell, usually through investments.

In 2000, after leaving office, ex-Rep. Kennedy reported having $1.7 million in cash on hand. The balance initially declined, but then began to grow. The latest FEC filings show the campaign now has $2.3 million in cash. So far this year, the campaign has earned $133,000 from investments with Goldman Sachs alone.

Tallon, who served in the House for a decade that ended in 1993, had $477,000 in the bank in 1998. According to the most recent FEC reports, the account now holds more than $841,000, with the help of income from investments with a private fund based in San Francisco.

Both Castle and Meehan told OpenSecrets.org that they hadn’t actively raised any money; the growth came from interest and investment income.

Castle recently converted his campaign committee to a PAC. He said he had no long-term plan for the money, but until recently saw no reason to make the conversion. One consequence of the change, which he made in January after his treasurer recommended it, is that he no longer has direct control over who receives contributions, he said; he makes recommendations on how the money should be spent, but a group that does not include him makes the final decisions.

In the first two years after he left office, Castle’s committee spent $297,000. The bulk of the money went toward the administrative costs of maintaining an office in Delaware and a website. In 2012, more than $68,000 was contributed to federal candidates, and roughly $8,000 went to non-federal candidates. Since January, when it converted to a PAC, it has spent $24,000, of which $15,000 was political contributions; it has $755,000 left.

With more than $4 million in his campaign coffers, Meehan can be, and is, more generous. In the same time period — 2011 to the present — Meehan’s campaign committee has made $229,000 in charitable donations and $131,000 in political contributions to federal candidates or committees.

“I give to a lot of former colleagues, people I had long-term relationships with,” Meehan said. “But because of articles like this, you end up getting calls from people all across the country and millions in requests for charitable donations [and] a lot of calls from members seeking contributions,” he said. “I don’t have any qualms about saying no.”

The ultimate example of keeping options open may be Tallon, who retired from office in 1993. In an interview with OpenSecrets.org, Tallon said that only now has he reached the decision not to run again. Tallon said he considered running for South Carolina’s newly created 7th District seat last fall, but eventually decided against it. “I think I finally had to recognize the time for me, it just didn’t seem like it would probably happen,” he said.

Tallon said he’s carefully managed and invested his campaign money over the years, but isn’t quite sure how he will get rid of it now. He said he has worked with an accountant to put the money into a charitable foundation, though there are complications.

“Setting up a foundation with the amount of money I have available is a bit of a task,” he said.

A boon for lobbyists?







At least eight former members with $100,000-plus campaign committees are registered lobbyists. (Castle, who’s with DLA Piper , was the ninth until his committee converted to a PAC.)

Many seem to have little trouble deciding how to parcel out the funds.

Former Rep. Bud Cramer (D-Ala.) was known as one of the last conservative Democrats in Congress before moving on in 2009 to build a lobbying practice primarily focused on defense, aerospace, energy and Alabama-based interests . He also has more than $1 million in his campaign account, which, since his retirement, has disbursed $410,000 in federal political contributions. In the 2012 cycle, Cramer’s campaign committee gave out $133,000 in political contributions. So far in 2013, it has given out $35,600.

By far the largest recipients of his largesse are the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee , which has received more than $80,000, and the conservative Democratic Blue Dog PAC that Cramer helped found, to which he has given at least $40,000.

But so far this year, Cramer’s committee has given more money to Republicans, who control the House, than Democrats: About $11,000 has gone to GOP candidates and $8,600 to Democrats. Almost all of the recipients are members of defense or energy related committees: Five of the 18 recipients this year sit on House or Senate Appropriations subcommittees related to defense, and four sit on the Armed Services Committee.

In the 2012 cycle, Cramer gave $83,500 to Democratic campaign committees and just $17,000 to Republicans. Of the 38 members of Congress his campaign committee contributed to, eight were members of the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense, and 17 were members of the House or Senate Armed Services Committee.

Cramer did not respond to requests for comment.

There’s nothing illegal about a former member-turned-lobbyist using leftover campaign money to make contributions to members, even though he may be in the business of influencing those members.

“It’s pretty predictable and perfectly legal, so long as the money is in no way converted for personal use,” said Ryan, of the Campaign Legal Center.

New York Times But the practice has raised eyebrows. In 2007 the noted that former Sen. Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.) who left office in 2002 and became a lobbyist , had made significant contributions from his campaign committee to the campaigns of politicians who had influence over issues important to his clients. Torricelli’s campaign committee treasurer and lobbying partner told the paper that Torricelli had distributed the money properly, but would be converting the remaining cash — at that time about $2 million — to a charitable foundation.

According to FEC records, he did donate about $1.5 million to the Rosemont Foundation, but his campaign committee remains active and still has roughly $400,000 in cash on hand. Torricelli’s campaign committee continues to make donations to political candidates. In the 2012 cycle it made $63,000 in contributions, including a $25,000 transfer to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee

Tallon, a registered lobbyist, said he’s never considered making political contributions that might benefit his clients.

“Most of the people I’ve given money to are personal friends, that may not be involved in any issue i’m lobbying for,” he said. “And the clients I have are entities with pretty significant PACs themselves. There’s money available for them.”

In the 2012 cycle, Tallon’s campaign committee donated just $8,000 to federal candidates (all from North or South Carolina) and $3,000 to non-federal candidates — including $500 to Tallon’s cousin who was running for state senate.

Castle, who had a much more active committee, said he tries to prioritize giving to Delaware candidates and moderate Republicans, or at least “people you can work with,” he said. He also gives money to DLA Piper’s corporate PAC, but repeated that an internal committee ultimately decides who gets the money.

Asked about Meehan’s assertion that current members of Congress come seeking donations — which takes on another layer of ethical complexity when the potential donor is a lobbyist — Castle said it does happen.

“It’s a legitimate question that does need to be answered,” Castle said. “I do contribute to, generally speaking, the people who those that contributed to me would want to benefit. A lot of people approach you, and some we give to and some we do not.”