Last month Politico reported that corporate contributions to a super PAC set up to support Democratic U.S. Rep. Howard Berman were being used as a weapon against him during the contentious primary race that he and Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman, also from California, have found themselves in as a result of redistricting.

The Politico article is able to report facts regarding campaign finance data by accessing publicly available information. The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 initially established substantive disclosure requirements for federal candidates, political parties, and PACs. Subsequent amendments and legislation, including the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 and the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 have further strengthened these requirements.

As I have written about before, this information can be found on the Federal Election Commission’s website under Campaign Finance Reports and Data, but  it’s not easy to use unless you know what you are looking for. However, because the information is made available to the public, organizations like the Sunlight Foundation, ProPublica and the New York Times have been able to take FEC data and put it in more user-friendly formats. The information is then presented so that the most relevant information is easily accessible to regular people.

"The News Without Transparency" shows you what the news would look like without public access to information. Laws and regulations that force the government to make the data it has publicly available are absolutely vital, along with services that take that raw data and make it easy for reporters to write sentences like the ones we've redacted in the piece above. If you have an article you'd like us to put through the redaction machine, please send us an email at mbuck@sunlightfoundation.com.

The day of gadget envy reckoning is upon us as Apple unveils their latest iPad and it seems only natural that the Sunlight Foundation watch this media frenzy in regards to our policy proposals. One particularly confounding (and floundering) situation is that the Senate refuses to use the internet and file their campaign finance reports electronically, though a few Senate offices nobly do.

The current process of filing goes something like this: a senator's campaign staff fills out campaign financial disclosure forms as required every quarter, submits those forms to the Secretary of the Senate who prints them out and sends it over to the Federal Election Commission. The FEC then takes this pile of paper and pays an army of data-entry folks to put those forms back into electronic format and then the FEC posts it online. We might be laughing at this scene set to Yakety Sax if it weren't costing taxpayers an estimated $430,000 every single year! This is stupid.

We tried appealing to their environmental concerns. We tried appealing to their government efficiency concerns. We tried appealing to their debt concerns. Turns out those concerns aren't so strong. Now, we appeal to their gadget envy concerns.

The iPad Proposal:

• Most recently cited cost of not filing electronically: $430,000
• Cost of a brand new 16 gb iPad with WiFi and AppleCare Warranty with taxes: $612.68
• Number of iPads that could be purchased with savings: 701
• Every Senate office gets 7 iPads and the extra goes to the Secretary of the Senate.

Maybe this will bait McConnell out from his cave of baffling obstruction?

Note: This proposal is tongue-in-cheek and we think it's much better for senators to just use their existing computers to file, like the House has been doing for years. Maybe they could put the money they would save towards funding other e-government programs?!

Of the 12 members of the failed supercommittee that were tasked with cutting $1.2 trillion from the federal deficit, five have disclosed records with the Federal Election Commission stating that they’ve received bundled contributions from lobbyists exceeding $16,000.

Representative Dave Camp, R-Mich, is the only member of the committee that has reported receiving bundled contributions so far this cycle. All $32,000 he received was bundled by one lobbyist named Harry Sporidis. Sporidis works for the firm Polsinelli Shughart and represents a number of clients in the healthcare industry, including the National Association for Behavioral Health and the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

According to the records, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash, has been the greatest supercommittee recipient of bundled contributions since 2009. She’s received just over $262,000 from large corporations including AT&T, Microsoft, Boeing, and Amazon, and well-known lobbyists like Tony Podesta who represents many prominent clients like BP America, Credit Suisse and Boeing.

This information has been made available as a result of the Honest Leadership and Government Act of 2007, which amended the Lobbyist Disclosure Act of 1995. The act made gifts to lawmakers illegal, was supposed to close the revolving door and required more disclosure regarding lobbying activity and spending – including the disclosure of bundled contributions, among other things. The act came about after Jack Abramoff, the infamous lobbyist turned felon, was convicted of fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy. His case demonstrated the wide-ranging corrupt practices that could take place in Washington. The rules require disclosure of bundled contributions went into effect in 2009, and have so far generated a rather small dataset of just over 300 records but have revealed $17.1 million in contributions to just 76 recipients including party committees. The largest bundler, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), has given $2,120,952 in bundled contributions to just two recipients. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is one of them and received the bulk of that money: $2,072,950. The Republican Senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, received the remaining $48,000 of that money. According to records filed with the Senate Office of Public Records, EEI has lobbied on a variety of issues related to energy, including regulating greenhouse gases and Clean Air Act regulations.

The remaining supercommittee members that received bundled contributions subject to the relatively new rules are Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, Chris Van Hollen, R-Md, and John Kerry, D-Mass,. The three received $235,500, $40,000 and $20,425 respectively.

The lobbyist bundler data is now available on InfluenceExplorer.com and TransparencyData.com. The data comes directly from the FEC. Contributions are disclosed by recipients (reporting committees) to the FEC when a lobbyist/registrant or lobbyist/registrant PAC makes at least two contributions to a single recipient totaling at least $16,200. Recipients report according to their regularly scheduled reporting periods and according to biannual reporting requirements put into place just for bundled contributions, according to the FEC.

The 2012 campaign fundraising totals, covering January through June, proved record in some cases, with the total amount raised by candidates running for Senate being the highest amount ever reported for that time period in a non-election year at $103.1 million, according to an analysis done by the Federal Election Commission released yesterday.

The FEC’s release also highlighted a 15 percent increase in fundraising by candidates running for House seats in 2012. The total raised by candidates for the House was $182.1 million from January 1 through June 30, 2011. The total for that same time period in 2009 was $132 million. The total amount raised by all 2012 political candidates for the first half of the year is $285.2 million.

Comparing the data released by the FEC for the House to data released in 2009 shows some significant increases in funding for individual incumbent candidates as well. For instance, the first six months of 2011 House Speaker John Boehner proved fruitful as he brought in $6.4 million. During the same time period in 2009, the amount raised by his campaign was much smaller at just over $1 million.

Majority Leader Eric Cantor has also had an increase in fundraising this year compared to 2009, but it was not nearly as monumental as Boehner’s. Cantor raised $2.6 million in the first six months of this year, about $900,000 more than the same time period in 2009.

The FEC highlighted some significant increases in specific types of campaign fundraising as well. House freshmen incumbents – many originally running on the Tea Party platform -- reported raising $32 million through June 30 of this year, 34 percent more than the $9.5 million reported in 2009. The analysis also showed that contributions from individuals to House candidates increased by 21 percent, while contributions from political action committees (PACs) to House candidates increased by just three percent.

Go to the Sunlight Foundation’s Influence Explorer to see some of the data analyzed by the FEC yourself. The FEC’s original press release can be found here.

When the Citizens United ruling came down last year I spent a great deal of time explaining the specifics of how corporations could spend money in elections to friends, family, and on the radio and television. The biggest confusion that a lot of people had was whether corporations could, in the wake of the ruling, contribute directly to the campaign of a political candidate. The answer was easy: no.

According to the Washington Post, the Republican members of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) want to change that. These three members released a document stating that corporations should be able to contribute directly to the campaigns of federal office seekers. The document states that the prohibition on these direct donations are "at best suspect," in light of the Citizens United ruling.

It is not clear where, exactly, these FEC commissioners see an inference towards the elimination of the ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates in the Supreme Court's ruling. The ruling assails the Austin ruling's finding of an anti-distortion reasoning for banning corporate independent expenditures, but repeats the Buckley finding that direct contributions to candidates can be banned and limited due to an anti-corruption concern, whether real or just an appearance of. The only time the Citizens United ruling swipes at anti-corruption concerns is to state that they do not apply to independent expenditures.

Rick Hasen has a must read column on the death of the Federal Election Commission and the slow erosion of campaign finance laws, including important disclosure provisions:

The Republican commissioners have eviscerated campaign finance law simply by resisting the enforcement of such laws. Consider the all-important topic of campaign finance disclosure. As part of the 2002 McCain-Feingold reforms, Congress required that virtually all contributions that pay for television or radio ads close to an election and feature a federal candidate must be disclosed in reports filed with the FEC. The disclosure requirement became even more important after Citizens United, because the Supreme Court's ruling for the first time allowed corporations to spend money directly in federal elections. If the corporations can spend money while shielding their activities from public view, they can avoid alienating customers.

Over the summer, the three Republican FEC commissioners blocked an investigation into whether the conservative group Freedom's Watch violated the disclosure provisions by failing to identify its donors. As Paul Ryan of the reform-oriented Campaign Legal Center describes, in a Statement of Reasons explaining the vote, the Republican commissioners made clear that they will not require the disclosure of the identity of a contributor to a group like Freedom's Watch unless that contributor earmarks the money for a specific ad. In other words, unless someone donates with instructions like "Use this money to run an ad on Channel 7 against Barbara Boxer on Sept. 3 at 4 p.m.," the contribution need not be disclosed.

Commissioner statements like this one signal to campaign finance lawyers what their groups can and cannot do. You can imagine the predicate effect of this one: no more disclosure of most contributions funding election ads.

...

Let's be clear. The Republican FEC Commissioners are not simply following the Supreme Court's lead in Citizens United. In that case, Justice Anthony Kennedy praised the benefits of full disclosure of corporate money in elections, for both shareholders and voters. Despite this language in the ruling, the Republican FEC commissioners have already undermined existing disclosure laws, and the remaining provisions of campaign law seem up for grabs, too.

A roundup of what we're noticing in the Reporting Group as we dig into government data and disclosures:

Winding down? Biggest spender among outside groups in the last five days? The Republican Party of Michigan, at $1.26 million. Biggest spender among non-party committees? American Crossroads, at $766,000. Total spent? More than $443 million. Will independent expenditure reports shoot up as outside groups pay for last minute ads, fund get out the vote efforts and engage in other political activity? Stay tuned....

New Super PAC: Just five days before the election, the Let Freedom Ring PAC sends notice to the Federal Election Commission of its intent to accept unlimited funds from any source. They've already spent more than $187,000, most of it on television ads opposing Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Be sure to check out our Follow the Unlimited Money tool--updated hourly!--to get all the latest info on outside groups.

Update from Sunlight CAM: Americans United for Safer Streets runs ad against Keith Fimian, Republican candidate opposing Rep. Gerry Connolly in Virginia's 11th district. Diclosure information is here.

Lobby watch: Progressive Solutions LLC, in the herbicide brush clearing business, hires Alcade and Fay to lobby on a rulemaking by Dept. of Labor on methodology for determining wages for H-2B temporary non-agricultural workers.

Daily Poligraft: The New York Times looks at the Alaska Senate race. Original here.

Bonus Poligraft: National Enquirer's owner to declare bankruptcy.

A roundup of what we're noticing in the Reporting Group as we dig into government data and disclosures:

By the numbers: Outside groups have disclosed spending some $347 million, of which $302 million directly advocates defeat or election of a federal candidate. Biggest chunk of that latter portion: Outside, non-party groups (including Super PACs and non-profits) opposing Democratic candidates ($73.5 million) followed by Democratic Party committees opposing Republican candidates ($66.4 million). Get the latest numbers right here.

Running out of cash? National Republican Congressional Committee reported spending $10 million over the last five days. Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, over the same period, spent $1.2 million. Super PAC American Crossroads spent $1.9 million over the same period.

Discl-$0-sure: Ending Spending Fund, a Super PAC that's disclosed spending $1.1 million--the biggest chunk on opposing Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev.--has filed its pre-general election report with the Federal Election Commission. Starting cash: $0. Total receipts: $0. Total spent: $0. They don't disclose donors either.

New Super PACs: Kinde Durkee, who runs a firm that specializes in helping political organizations comply with filing requirements (and was fined $110,000 by the California Fair Political Practices Commission for financial reporting violations), filed a form with the FEC for No 2 Sides PAC. The initial filing for the Super PAC lists the Liar Alert PAC as an affiliated committee; the latter discloses no receipts or disbursements in its October quarterly report. Matthew Garrington registered the Environment Colorado Action Committee. Garrington's linkedin profile is here. Neither group has disclosed spending any money, though Liar Alert PAC has a website featuring issue ads.

Be sure to check out our Follow the Unlimited Money tool--updated hourly!--to get all the latest info on outside groups.

PhRMA & 527s: Citizens for Strength and Security filed its 527 pre-election report with the Internal Revenue Service. Biggest donors: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Democratic Governors Association and labor union SEIU. My colleague wrote about CSS Action Fund, which may or may not be an affiliated committee, here.

From Sunlight CAM: Democratic National Committee supporting Todd Young in Indiana? Might mean the DCCC.

The Daily Poligraft: Weekend edition: GOP Mega Donors look toward 2012, from Politico.

Subcontractors: USASpending.gov announces on its home page that it will track sub award data starting Dec. 1st.

Today's Politiwidget: Bank of America acknowledged errors in its handling of foreclosures, the Wall Street Journal reports. We've been keeping an eye on the foreclosure crisis and Bank of America; the top House recipient of contributions from them is...

The Wall Street Journal brings an apple to the orange convention, writing that, "The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections, thanks to an 11th-hour effort to boost Democrats that has vaulted the public-sector union ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and a flock of new Republican groups in campaign spending."

They may well end up being the top spender, but our data currently puts them at number 8, having spent a more modest $9.6 million--significantly less than the $87.5 million the Journal reports. The New York Times, meanwhile, reports that the top spender among non-party committees is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce at $21.1 million--very close to our own figure of $23.6 million (which, in fairness to the Times, is a constantly rising number). Why the discrepancy between the Journal's figures and those that Times and we put out?

The Journal got its $87.5 million figure directly from AFSCME, and also got political spending totals from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Service Employees International Union and other groups. The Sunlight Foundation is totaling spending reported to the Federal Election Commission.

The disparities between what groups say they are planning to spend and what they've reported spending are troubling, to say the least. It's one of the reasons that we in the Reporting Group use formulations like "U.S. Chamber of Commerce reports spending $29.2 million on lobbying (which includes a wide range of political activities) in the third quarter of 2010," rather than saying "the Chamber of Commerce spent..."

Some time in 2011, we'll get more complete annual reports from the labor unions which dislcose their political spending, forms 990 from groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, year end reports from 527 organizations, and from this information we will begin to piece together how much was spent on the mid-term elections. Even then, it can be daunting.

Lets take a look at one organization: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce disclosed, in the 2008 form 990 it filed with the Internal Revenue Service, spending $23 million of election-related spending and another $4.7 million lobbying. It reported spending $16.5 on electioneering communications to the Federal Election Commission. The Chamber also disclosed to the House and Senate in 2008 that it spent $62 million on lobbying--defined as influencing legislation; participating in any political campaign, including state and local races; attempting to influence the public to on political matters or elections as well as contacts with certain high ranking executive branch officials. Its affiliates spent about $31 million more. Which is the right number?

It might seem like we are mixing apples, oranges and xylophones here (FEC, IRS and lobbying disclosures), but remember, we're trying to get a handle on who spends the most on political activity. The IRS lobbying definition the Chamber uses when it files lobbying reports with Congress doesn't produce a number that matches the two, separate numbers it reports to Internal Revenue Service or those two numbers added to the FEC number--16.5 + 4.7 + 23 does not equal 62 (being a journalist, I've counted it out on my fingers twice to make sure). This doesn't mean that any of these individual numbers is wrong or inaccurate (although I suspect all of them are to some degree)--just that they report different things.

In the case of the Chamber, the lobbying disclosure form filed with the House and Senate comes closest to capturing total spending but offers no itemization. For labor unions, it's the annual report--form LM2--they file with the Labor Department, which unlike lobbying disclosure forms actually itemize expenses.

So while one should treat the Wall Street Journal's numbers with a bit of skepticism--consider the source--it's not crazy to ask these groups what they're spending. I'm not sure I'd be comfortable saying that AFSCME has leapt into first place on their say-so, but one should also be careful to recognize that disclosure from the Federal Election Commission is by no means all-inclusive. For example, no U.S. Chamber of Commerce ad that ran more than 30 days before a primary or more than 60 days before the general election had to be disclosed anywhere--except to the local TV, radio or cable operator that ran it. But that's because Federal Communications Commission rules require that disclosure, not federal election law.

And to answer the question in the headline honestly, we'd have to say that at this point we just don't know. According to the FEC, it's the Chamber. According the groups themselves, it's AFSCME. All we do know is what they are required to report to the FEC, which is the only tool we have right now for tracking outside spending.

My colleague Lindsay Young reports on what appears to be a unique fundraising strategy employed by Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif. Rather than raise the bulk of her campaign funds from political action committees and individual donors, Waters sells space on mailers to candidates and political causes she's endorsed*, sometimes for as much as $45,000.

The endorsements show up on "slate mailers," essentially campaign literature sent out by Waters to her constituents listing approved candidates and appropriate votes on ballot initiatives. A Federal Election Commission spokesman told us that selling endorsements is "exempt from the definition of ‘contribution’ and ‘expenditure’ under the Federal Election Campaign Act." In other words, the bedrock principles of campaign rules that apply to candidates--limitations on the amount of donations and the kinds of contributors--don't apply.

So Dave Jones, who's running for insurance commissioner in California, paid Waters $25,000 for her endorsement. Under California election law, he can raise money directly from labor unions and businesses, as well as individuals. So the labor union AFSCME, for example, gave Jones $12,900. Roxborough, Pomerance, Nye and Adreani LLP, a law firm "dedicated solely to providing businesses with a broad range of legal services in all facets of civil litigation with a primary focus on business, insurance, employment, and wage and hour litigation," donated $6,500. As did Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff LLP, a law firm specializing in personal injury suits. Those three donations more than cover Jones' purchase of Waters endorsement, but all three would be impermissible at the federal level--neither law firms nor labor unions can donate directly to federal candidates. This is not to say that those three donations, out of the thousands that Jones received, went directly to Waters, only that all money is fungible, and Waters benefits by selling an endorsement to a committee that takes contributions that her own campaign can't take directly.

What would stop a politician from selling an endorsement for $1 million?

*--Updated to fix a misleading wording. The process that Waters' campaign uses in putting together slate mailers is described here (scroll down).