Your daily dose of news and tidbits from the world of money in politics:

T-PAW’S TOP DONORS: Republican Tim Pawlenty, who yesterday launched a presidential exploratory committee, built a massive war chest during the 2010 election cycle to aid fellow Republicans. Through his leadership PAC, Pawlenty doled out $177,000 to 81 Republicans and raised $3.3 million, the fifth largest sum raised in a leadership PAC among all federal politicians during the 2010 election cycle, according to research by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Pawlenty, who built a reputation as a moderate during his two terms as governor in Minnesota, wasn’t shy about backing some of the Tea Party’s favorite candidates in some of the nation’s hottest races. For instance, his PAC gave $1,000 a piece to Republicans Joe Miller of Alaska and Christine O’Donnell of Delaware, who both defeated more establishment-favored Republicans during U.S. Senate primary races. (Both later went on to lose their general elections.)

He also displayed some geographic favoritism for candidates in Iowa and New Hampshire, where the first presidential caucus and primary, respectively, will be held next year. Seven out of Pawlenty’s top eight House candidate beneficiaries hailed from one of these two states, according to the Center’s research.

Who was fueling this money machine? Donors classified by the Center for Responsive Politics as part of the finance, insurance, and real estate sector topped that list, giving Pawlenty at least $756,900 during 2009 and 2010. Within this sector, individuals within the securities and investment industry, in particular, favored Pawlenty, giving him more than $272,000.

On other economic fronts, lawyers, law firms and lobbyists gave Pawlenty more than $193,000, according to the Center’s research and retirees gave Pawlenty more than $352,800.

Here is a table of the top 20 industries to give to Pawlenty’s leadership PAC during the 2010 election cycle. See more about how the Center classifies sectors and industries here.

Industry Total From PACs From Individuals Retired $352,843 $0 $352,843 Securities & Investment $272,051 $0 $272,051 Lawyers/Law Firms $158,977 $10,950 $148,027 Insurance $154,050 $8,000 $146,050 Misc Finance $120,558 $0 $120,558 Real Estate $117,125 $2,500 $114,625 Retail Sales $85,000 $5,000 $80,000 Commercial Banks $79,450 $0 $79,450 Oil & Gas $74,500 $0 $74,500 General Contractors $56,500 $0 $56,500 Misc Manufacturing & Distributing $55,351 $0 $55,351 TV/Movies/Music $52,800 $11,000 $41,800 Business Services $44,350 $0 $44,350 Lobbyists $34,055 $0 $34,055 Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $32,000 $6,000 $26,000 Printing & Publishing $31,750 $0 $31,750 Health Professionals $28,351 $0 $28,351 Civil Servants/Public Officials $27,150 $0 $27,150 Computers/Internet $26,900 $250 $26,650 Building Materials & Equipment $22,500 $0 $22,500

And here is a table of the top organizations whose PACs and/or employees contributed to Pawlenty’s leadership PAC. Note the organizations themselves did not give. These groups represent all those organizations whose PACs and/or employees donated at least $15,000 to Pawlenty’s leadership PAC.

Rank Organization Total From PACs From Individuals 1 Federated Insurance $83,000 $0 $83,000 2 Morgan Stanley $79,500 $0 $79,500 3 Citadel Investment Group $50,500 $0 $50,500 4 Northern Oil & Gas $40,000 $0 $40,000 4 Target Corp $40,000 $5,000 $35,000 6 Ames Construction $30,000 $0 $30,000 7 US Bancorp $29,500 $0 $29,500 8 Best Buy $26,250 $0 $26,250 9 Robins, Kaplan et al $25,500 $0 $25,500 10 Comcast Corp $21,500 $10,000 $11,500 10 Holiday Companies $21,500 $0 $21,500 12 Davisco Foods International $20,000 $0 $20,000 12 Frauenshuh Companies $20,000 $0 $20,000 12 Voyager Financial Services $20,000 $0 $20,000 15 Wells Fargo $18,500 $0 $18,500 16 Centene Corp $18,000 $5,000 $13,000 17 State of Minnesota $17,450 $0 $17,450 18 Great Clips $15,000 $0 $15,000 18 Kage Inc $15,000 $0 $15,000 18 Medtronic Inc $15,000 $0 $15,000 18 Popp.Com $15,000 $0 $15,000 18 Taylor Corp $15,000 $0 $15,000

WHIRLPOOLS’ WINDFALL: “Whirlpool Corporation, which had global sales of $18 billion and turned a $619 million profit in 2010, likely won’t pay a dime of corporate income tax this year,” write the watchdogs over at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), “or for years to come, thanks in large part to an expensive lobbying blitz.”

Thanks to a 2005 energy law that allowed corporations to claim tax credits for manufacturing energy-efficient appliances, Whirlpool has collected more than $500 million in credits, a fact first reported by Bloomberg News. And last year, the company and other supporters of the tax credits went to the mat for language to extend the provisions again. Lobbying on H.R. 4853, the bill that extended the tax credits, was part of Whirlpool’s $940,000 lobbying operation in 2010, according to research by the Center for Responsive Politics. That’s nearly a nine-fold increase since 2005.

Since that time, the company has also greatly expanded its roster of hired guns. In 2010, Whirlpool hired 15 lobbyists, most of whom have passed through Washington’s famed “revolving door” between public service and the private sector, including one former congressman: ex-Rep. Martin Russo (D-Ill.) of Cassidy and Associates, who left the firm in December.

SCOTUS PASSES ON CAO CHALLENGE: The U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday took a pass to weigh in on a high-stakes legal challenge to campaign finance rules that limit coordination between political party committees and federal candidates. The National Republican Committee, Republican Party of Louisiana and ex-Rep. Joseph Cao (R-La.) brought the challenge, known as Cao v. Federal Election Commission. Cao was elected in 2008 in a deep-blue New Orleans-area district after then-incumbent Rep. William Jefferson, a Democrat, was found with $90,000 in cash in his freezer and indicted on corruption charges. (Jefferson was convicted in 2009 and sentenced to 13 years in prison.)

Cao spent a modest $174,500 on his victory and was one of the most vulnerable incumbents during the 2010 midterm elections. After spending $2.1 million during the 2010 cycle, Cao became one of just two Republican incumbents to fall to Democratic challengers.

In the court case, Cao and the GOP groups had disputed the federal limits on how much money political parties could spend in direct coordination with their candidates, as well as the $5,000 political committee contribution limit as applied to party coordinated spending. They were represented by top Republican attorney James Bopp, renowned for his campaign finance challenges, including Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which overturned the ban on corporate independent expenditures.

Campaign finance reform advocates praised the Supreme Court’s decision.

“This morning the Supreme Court deferred to precedent and declined to hear this attack on the longstanding limits on party coordinated spending,” attorney Tara Malloy of the Campaign Legal Center, which filed an amicus brief in the case opposing Cao, said in a press release. “Plaintiffs’ challenge would have blown huge loopholes in the federal campaign finance laws and enabled large-scale circumvention of the individual contribution limits.”

Center for Responsive Politics senior researcher Douglas Weber contributed to this report.

Have a news tip or link to pass along? We want to hear from you! E-mail us at [email protected].



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 ➜

Read more OpenSecrets News & Analysis: