Shiela Krumholtz

Would you tell me what it is you guys do?

Well, the Center for Responsive Politics has been around for more than 25 years. We track money and politics, and follow the money wherever it leads. So, we want to describe everything about the sources of money, who the recipients are, and to explain, really, the role that money plays in politics and policy. For the public, for the media in particular, because they are going to utilize this information in their articles about policy, about legislation, about politics, and about really any topic under the sun.

From a sports arena getting built in, back in the district, to a zoning on chicken farms, there are just any number of issues that can be impacted by money in politics.

We’ve talked to a lot of citizens who’ve never heard of Open Secrets. They are just delighted to go to it and see this database up, and they can see where their money’s coming from. So, do you have anything to say about the use of this Web site just by average citizens?

Opensecrets.org is our face to the world. It’s where we put all of our information, millions of pages of data facts on where the money’s coming from and going to. And the purpose is for the people back home in the district, wherever they may be, even internationally, folks are interested in finding out who is funding American campaigns? Why are they so expensive? Who’s getting rich? Who’s getting a policy passed? Who’s getting earmarks and subsidies and whether or not the money’s playing a role.

We can’t always connect all the dots. We might provide some information, but that may not prove a quid pro quo. In fact, we would normally say it doesn’t prove a quid pro quo. It’s not like you give the money and you get the vote. It’s just not that simple. But it’s important that people understand the money’s role and the importance of how money greases the skids in Washington, because it does. And we have it on very good authority, from members of Congress, former members of Congress, telling us that, in fact, it does.

That it does make a difference. That that’s why folks try to angle for those moneymaking committees in Congress, and if you’re on a particular committee, you’re gonna be very attuned to the interests of the industries that are-are focused on your committee because of the jurisdiction and oversight authority.

I see your Webby awards in there; Open Secrets is basically a Web site that anyone can go to. It seems like a pretty user-friendly interface. Is that what the awards are about?

Yeah. Right. We’ve received several awards including awards for Best Political Web Site by the Webby organization. So, we get these Webby awards that really showcase our site as a-a model source for what people are looking for in a site about politics and policy. We try to maintain unassailable information about where the money’s coming from and going to in politics. And we are nonpartisan.

And many organizations say they’re nonpartisan, but we’re really one that is really sensitive to any impression of bias, because we want our data to be absolutely reliable, no matter what your political stripes. In fact, our data has been used by both sides in lots of fights, politically and legislation. And so, we want to kind of have the facts and put those before people, so that when they sit down to the table to craft reform or new policy, they’re doing it based on real numbers.

All of our data comes from the federal government. We only look at money at the federal level. And most of the data is campaign finance. That’s been our bailiwick for so many years. That data comes from the federal election commission. They provide that data downloadable, and so we get it electronically from the FEC. We also get data on 527 organizations, these outside interest groups. From the IRS, the Internal Revenue Service. We get data from the Congress, from the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House, on lobbying, on personal finances, on privately sponsored congressional travel.

So, there are many ways in which private money funds politics and ultimately influences policy, and that’s what we’re trying to map out on opensecrets.org.

It seems simple. What does an average citizen have to do?

It’s a free site. You can spend hours on our site because it really is a deep, deep resource about any contribution or any investment by members of Congress. You can really follow drill down quite far to get at the transaction-level detail about a particular contribution. Or zoom out and really see the big picture. Where the money’s coming from, kind of globally, by industry or unions or ideological organizations, and then specifically for an interest or an individual.

We try to offer as much flexibility and pivot ability, so that people can really explore this really in-depth resource.

So, can a person just go and look up their representative and find out where their money’s coming from?

Yeah. What we’re trying to do here is provide in kind of at-a-glance feature or profile on members of Congress, on the industries and interest groups that fund campaigns, n lobbying, so that you can really take that bird’s-eye view, if you want, or you can slice and dice it and get into the nitty gritty detail. But-but primarily, we’re looking for a summary of the money, because we know that most people back in the districts aren’t going to go to the Federal Election Commission and look through their Web site of millions of records of data.

It’s the equivalent of looking through dusty filing cabinets. It’s just not gonna happen in this day and age. Most people are just busy putting food on the table and educating their children and dealing with health care. And so, what we’re trying to do is make it plausible, feasible for people to be vigilant about their democracy. We want them to get engaged and we wanna provide them the tools that they need in order to make the right choices at the ballot box and also to get engaged on policy issues and debates.

You talked about overall trends, money spend increasing since 2004. What’s the story there? Is the cost of campaigns really increasing?

Oh, yeah. Money in campaigns has jumped by a third since 2004. So, in 2004, the total cost of federal elections was just over 4 billion dollars, and in 2008, that total is 5.5 billion dollars. So, far outpacing inflation very expensive to run for federal office in this day and age.

How about average cost nowadays? What is the average cost of winning a seat in the House or the Senate?

To win a seat in the U.S. House, you have to spend at least 1.3 million dollars, on average.

And how about the presidency?

Last year’s election cycle was very different. President Obama spent 730 million dollars nearly three quarters of a billion dollars, to win office in 2008. So, that is far in excess of what has been spent in previous elections, and far outside the capacity of the vast majority of Americans. Even the most connected and wealthy politicians.

It used to be in 90 percent of races, the person who raised the most money won.

Yes. Yes. That’s consistently true. Historically, our data’s shown that nine out of ten of the candidates that raise the most money win on election day.

I saw something on your Web site recently that was tracking an increase in the net worth of the members of Congress.

Out of 535 members of Congress, fully 238 members are millionaires.

Do you know how much is spent a day, just lobbying for the health care bill? Do you have any of those numbers in your head?

All told, lobbying costs about 17 million dollars a day, for every day that Congress is in session, and of that, a million dollars goes to health care reform. Every day.

What do you know about the ag bill? What numbers do you have on ag?

So, the agribusiness sector has spent already 14 million dollars on campaign contributions this year and well over 100 million dollars on lobbying so far this year. And back in time, when you look at their campaign contributions, they’ve spent nearly 500 million dollars on campaign contributions since the 1990 cycle. So, this is an industry that is not as big as, say, finance or health care in the cycle, but is a reliable source of campaign cash, particularly for the House and Senate Agricultural Committee members.

What numbers do you have on lobbying for this new energy bill they’re just starting to chew on?

Well, the oil and gas industry has already spent 120 million dollars on lobbying this year so far. And of course, this is only three quarters of the way through. So, I expect that to go up substantially. In addition to that, they’ve given 7 million dollars in campaign contributions and about 245 million dollars back in time. So, this is a much smaller and-and narrow interest within the larger energy sector but it’s a powerful interest.

Again, particularly four members of key committees like the House Energy and Commerce Committee and Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and any members that are chairmen or ranking members, either of the committees or sub-committees are s-quite able to collect a lot of money from specifically this narrow interest.

Do you guys track any change in the number of lobbyists? Do you have a sense for how many lobbyists are registered?

There are consistently, over time, about 12,000 to 15,000 lobbyists registered in Washington. That, of course, is a a subset of the larger number that actually lobby. They only have to register if they spend at least 20 percent of their time on making direct contacts with members of Congress or covered officials. So, there are all these other senior advisors and folks that are doing essentially the same work but simply are not registered, because they don’t make that cutoff.

Money seems to follow power, and there’s been a shift of money toward the Democrat side.

There is almost always a kind of 50/50 or maybe 60/40 split for business interests, favoring whichever party is in power. So, we saw this shift to the Republicans after the 1994 Republican revolution, and we’re seeing that again, a shift back to the Democrats, following their 2006 and far stronger now after the 2008 elections, and particularly because President Obama was such a draw for for money.

But when you’re looking at Congress and particularly for corporate interests, it’s very conservative. They know that they have to play with both sides of the aisle. And you need friends in both parties. And so, it generally just slightly favors, maybe 60 percent or 55 percent, whichever party is in power. There are, of course, industries that are the outliers, the wide exceptions to that rule that are more ideologically allied with one party or the other.

On the left, it’s unions and lawyers; on the right, it’s oil and gas, pharmaceutical interests, and agribusiness.

Scott Segal was saying that he gets phone calls from professional fundraised hired by a member of Congress, who will say, “Hey, can you call your other pals and we’d like to do a fundraiser.” And he calls his lobbyist pals, and they call around, and they get together a fundraising event that’s deep-pocket special interest guys. Do you have any light to shed on the actual route of phone calls?

That sounds right. We don’t have any proof, any evidence, there’s no disclosure of how these things are organized, but what we have long heard from all sides of the aisle is that there are a variety of ways in which money is raised. And sometimes, it’s at the request of the member of Congress. Sometimes, it’s at the request of the lobbyist, tapping their clients to give to particular members of Congress, who have jurisdiction over their issues, to help, again, grease the skids for that the legislation that they’re aiming at.

But by no means is totally orchestrated by the lobbyists. They have a central role to play, however. They are natural networkers, personally and professionally, and so, the most successful ones are those that have the deepest Rolodexes, that know who to call for what interests, and who exercise their networking on behalf of their clients.

Essentially selling their ability to get money to a particular member and translating that into policy agendas for their clients. So, members of Congress know that. This is a mutually beneficial system. They’re working it. They’re getting lobbyists, tapping lobbyists to fill a room for a fundraiser. The lobbyists know they need them. They know that they’re a hot commodity for member of Congress, and they’re going to generally be willing to help a member if they can then translate that into legislative success for their clients.

Because that’s, of course, how they get their bills paid, and how they attract new clients.

This “greasing the skids” we’ve not heard until now. What do you mean by “greasing the skids?”

I don’t mean greasing palms. I don’t mean direct corruption or bribery. I just mean that if you want an open door, you will be best served by having attended the fundraiser, having made a contribution, having offered your willing help, again, to fill that room for the member. To respond to their call for assistance. Again, if you’re a lobbyist and you’re working in Washington and-and focused on Congress, you’re not working for just the client in front of you.

You’re working for every other client you have on your list and future clients that you’re going to be able to parlay this access into results for. So, it’s a dance that they all do each helping the other, but certainly you do not want to get in the position where you’re turning down members of Congress one day and then marching up to their office the next to seek their assistance with a particular bill or legislative favor for a client.

This dance, what kind of music would you say it would be?

I would imagine it’s a waltz. You’re exchanging partners and it’s all very formal, but there’s actually, a process and you don’t step on toes and so there is a formality to it, but there’s also kind of an underlying relation, I think, going on. I don’t know if that’s translating.

What haven’t I asked you?

I mean, we’ll get the health care lobbying and health and finance or health and energy, I guess, is what you’re looking for this time. In all of these kinds of analyses or delving into this issue, I always hope that there is an acknowledgment that money is not where it begins and ends. See, for us, we’re always very careful to say, “It’s essential, but it’s not enough.”

For a candidate, you always need to have good campaign skills, good natural charisma name-recognition, hustle, good campaign organization, and you need the money. And without the money, you don’t get-none of the rest may matter. But it’s it’s never as simple as “money buys votes,” so again here, with lobbying, too. You might be throwing a lot of money at an issue, but if the folks back home are paying attention, nobody’s gonna risk political liability for an old campaign donor.

Even an old friend who’s lobbying on an issue. And it may come down to-we hope it comes down to members who may have a long history or relationship with a lobbyist or a campaign donor, company CEO, but they’re gonna look at the data. Look at the policy and and still make the decision based on the merits and not based on the money.

I mean there is always this concern, particularly where industries are fighting industries, and the folks back home really aren’t paying attention, where the issues are arcane and complicated and they really don’t see the connection to their own lives. That’s where the money really stands to sway policy and potentially creep bad policy that will ultimately have an effect on folks’ daily lives and on their pocketbooks and on the issues they care about. It’s just not as direct a relationship.

How much is being spent on lobbying in each cycle?

In 2008, lobbyists spent 3.3 billion dollars to lobby Congress and the federal government. So far this year, nearly 2 billion dollars has already been spent, and we still have another three months to go.

The only other thing to say about lobbying is that there’s been a 100 percent increase in the money spent on lobbying over the last decade. So, there’s been enormous focus in increasing, in gathering steam, on lobbying, and the payoff, I think, is the reason why.

This trend, where does it all end? It seems like it’s a pretty steep climb.

Well, I don’t think it’s going anywhere but up, and the big, well, there are many concerns with that. The major kind of first-order concern is that politics are getting too expensive for most Americans to run in, to participate in.

What percentage of American citizens or families actually contribute over, what is it, 200 dollars to a candidate?

Less than 1 percent of Americans give contributions of the size we can see, of more than 200 dollars. And so, that’s what gets itemized, what we can examine and kind of describe in our research. So, there are lots more who are giving contributions, small contributions, particularly in this last cycle, and many of those donors who are giving 10, 50, 100 dollars were getting upsold to give far more than that, ultimately thousands of dollars throughout the course of the cycle. That is an issue, I think it’s partly because of the Internet. It’s easier to raise money online for politicians.

And it’s especially true of the Obama campaign last cycle, which was masterful in raising many small donations far beyond what most campaigns are able to do.

Okay, less than 1 percent of American citizens give more than 200? Is that pool of money sufficient for an average member of Congress? My point is, are they in a situation where they’re forced to go to deeper pockets, because that pool of money isn’t big enough?

Yeah, I think the Obama campaign was the Yellow Brick Road, and that is not going to be true of the vast majority of American campaign, certainly not in the near term. Ultimately, we may get more candidates who are able to follow that model, create that scenario. And the Internet does make it easier for all campaigns to raise a lot of money. Certainly, we’ve seen that in this cycle with Republican Joe Wilson of South Carolina following his outburst in Congress.

He raised millions, or he’s raised hundreds of thousands of dollars kind of overnight after that. So there is more money coming in in small amounts, but it remains a tiny fraction of the overall amount that is raised by members of Congress.

‍