The subject of the timing of contributions is problematic enough that the House ethics manual advises lawmakers to “always exercise caution to avoid even the appearance that solicitations of campaign contributions are connected in any way with an action taken or to be taken in their official capacity.”

But some staffers argue that fundraisers are often scheduled months before lawmakers know the House calendar, so contributions are bound to happen in close proximity to official actions. Still others say there is sometimes a gap between the date a donor might cut a check and the date a lawmaker would receive it, making efforts to peg the timing of co-sponsorships to contributions unfair.

Text Size -

+

reset

In an interview, Michael Johnson, the beer wholesalers’ chief lobbyist, defended the group’s work.

“We’re not going to apologize for being active in the political process,” he said. “Anybody who’s trying to draw the conclusion that our activity or involvement in the political process is in any direct way connected to any member’s decision to co-sponsor or not to co-sponsor the bill is simply ignoring the facts.”

Johnson said the group contributed to more members who didn’t co-sponsor the bill than to those who did. The trade group gave to a total of 365 House lawmakers, of whom only 152 are co-sponsors. In fact, he said, not every co-sponsor received a contribution.

In a follow-up statement, Johnson attacked the bill’s opponents, saying they “have been unable to generate effective policy arguments, so they are instead attacking the process and resorting to smear tactics against specific members of Congress, accusing them of unethical behavior — ridiculous charges which are absolutely false.”

A representative of the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, which opposes the bill, charged that the contributions effectively bought co-sponsorships.

“POLITICO’s research shows a lot of money that has resulted in co-sponsorships for a bill that is designed solely to help the wholesale tier of the beverage industry to the disadvantage of the consumers, small distillers, small breweries and small wineries in every congressional district of the country. It’s really quite disturbing,” DISCUS spokesman Frank Coleman said.

In the closing days of the current Congress, the bill, which, among other things, would make it tougher to challenge state alcohol laws in court, was stalled and didn’t come to the floor. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), one of the bill’s biggest backers, said he plans to bring it back next year. He said he wasn’t concerned about the timing of the contributions to co-sponsors: “There’s full disclosure, as there should be, but I see no quid pro quo.”

Some of the lawmakers who backed the bill said they did so to support strong local alcohol laws, because the bill would help empower state legislatures charged with regulating alcohol sales. They said wholesalers in their districts also urged them to support the bill.

All the lawmakers who responded to questions defended the timing of the contributions.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) sponsored the bill on May 18 and received a $2,500 check from the wine and spirits wholesalers the same day. Smith, incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, received at least $17,000 from both beer and wine wholesalers this election cycle.

Smith’s spokeswoman, Sally-Shannon Scales, said the Texan supports states’ rights to regulate alcohol distribution and denied that the contribution played any role in his support.