Telecom giants like Verizon have been showering incoming lawmakers with money. Telecom giants and campaign cash

Top telecom companies are hoping their early investments in the freshman congressional class of 2011 will pay much-sought dividends in the form of new Washington allies.

Political action committees for big players like AT&T and Verizon each wrote a number of campaign checks this election season to neophyte political candidates — sometimes, even to opponents in the same race — as they sought to strengthen their political hands as hot debates over issues like Net neutrality begin to intensify.


Roughly one-third of newcomers this year can boast a contribution from either or both telecom giants, according to a POLITICO analysis of donation data filed with the Federal Election Commission.

By contrast, other industry players spent far less on political newcomers this year. Google, for example, supported new, victorious 2010 candidates, but each already boasted some political experience. Many others, including Comcast, instead focused their attention on key veterans and big-ticket Senate candidates.

In each election cycle, a confluence of factors typically shape companies’ donor strategies, and PACs tend to opt for returning candidates with experience and seniority over unproven challengers.

But 2010 presents a challenge to top D.C. players: The freshman class is the largest it has been in 60 years. That means many of the members elected to office for the first time are sure to play some role in shaping and voting on policy that affects areas like tech and telecom — rendering early campaign connections now all the more valuable down the line.

“PACs that had the resources to invest in freshmen had never had as good an advance view on who was going to win as they did in 2010 — many of these races were essentially over by Labor Day,” said Stewart Verdery, a partner and founder of Monument Policy Group and a former GOP congressional aide.

“The question will be how many freshmen actually want to legislate on policy as opposed to fighting spending,” Verdery said. “But candidates do have a way of remembering those who were there before the votes were counted.”

Of course, campaign contributions hardly ensure elected officials will adopt positions that their donors would prefer. But those connections could at least give more generous PACs a potential outlet through which to communicate their concerns and needs — a link that some tech and telecom giants sought to capitalize on this cycle.

The entire communications and electronics sectors — which include such companies as AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Google and Microsoft — together wrote more than $20 million in checks to candidates this year for the primary and general elections, according to numbers crunched by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Among the heavy hitters was AT&T — one of the most active PACs among all industries by contributions. In the 2010 cycle, it shelled out more than $4 million to candidates and party committees — more to Republicans than Democrats — in a number of hotly contested House and Senate races across the country, according to CQ MoneyLine.

In fact, all except two of the 16 freshmen in the upper chamber — Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Sen.-elect Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) — added sizable AT&T checks to their campaign war chests before Nov. 2.

Some first-time House candidates also benefitted from AT&T’s checks — including 10 freshmen members who opposed candidates who signed a pledge before the election defending Net neutrality, the idea that Web providers should treat all Internet traffic equally. AT&T did not comment for this story on its donation strategy.

Verizon also played an active role in 2010. The telecom provider shelled out more than $80,000 on new House and Senate candidates, according to tabulations of FEC data. “Our philosophy is about supporting candidates who support our policies, regardless of whether they are incumbents, challengers or [candidates for] open seats,” a Verizon spokesman told POLITICO.

Comcast, meanwhile, focused the lion’s share of its roughly $3 million total on returning members of Congress and many new Senate candidates, like Blumenthal and Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.). The company did not return a request for comment this week.

But perhaps Google was one of the least active tech bellwethers in connecting with new members via campaign cash. The Mountain View, Calif.-based search titan wrote checks only to candidates who have served in Congress before.

A Google staffer told POLITICO that its PAC is far smaller than that of AT&T or other established Washington players, meaning it naturally spends far less on campaigns by challengers.

Its focus has instead been on candidates who work across party lines and demonstrate an interest in Internet policy, and it sought mostly to build new relationships by dispatching company leaders — including CEO Eric Schmidt — to meet with members and congressional leadership to talk tech, the staffer said.

Still, some industry analysts say Google may soon have to ramp up its campaign war machine, especially in time for 2012.

For the most part, many of the industry’s smaller PACs donated broad chunks of campaign dollars to the party committees, which then dispersed the amounts to incumbents and new challengers alike.

“AT&T and Verizon PACs are so big that they have enough to give to challengers as well as incumbents,” said Ralph Hellmann, senior vice president at the Information Technology Industry Council, which represents companies such as Dell, Google and Adobe. “There are very few tech companies that give to challengers.”

But that’s not to suggest that companies spending less than AT&T, Verizon and other telecom and tech giants are at a grave disadvantage entering the 112th Congress. Many will have ample opportunity to “engage on substantive policies as well as politics” once members have received their committee assignments, said Rey Ramsey, president and CEO of TechNet, which represents tech industry CEOs.

“Right now, it’s a time to really engage people and find out where they are,” Ramsey said. “You’re not suddenly at a disadvantage if you didn’t give or if you didn’t anticipate having this many freshmen.”