At long last, the U.S. Senate has begun online publication of how it spends money on itself --  barely meeting the statutory deadline. The House of Representatives began publishing its statement of disbursements online in November 2009 per then-Speaker Pelosi's directive; the Senate belatedly followed suit after Senator Tom Coburn's amendment to the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act in July 2009 finally kicked in, two years later.

While these disbursement statements have been published by the House and Senate for nearly 200 years, online publication only came about through a combination of the Sunlight Foundation's request and a huge scandal in the UK over members of parliament spending taxpayer money on building moats, fixing up their homes, and other illegal purposes. The reports allow reporters, watchdogs, and the general public to see how money is spent on everything from trips to staff salaries to office equipment to perks. How did the Senate do in reporting this information?

The Senate has inaccurately labeled its link to the report as for "October 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011," but rest assured, if you click the link, the linked report covers April 1, 2011 to September 30, 2011. The report itself is unfinished, omitting some Senate employees, a failing the report acknowledges. These omissions make a full evaluation difficult at this time. (There's no indication of how long we'll have to wait, either.)  In addition, the House published a detailed online guide http://disbursements.house.gov/ to its expenditure report; the Senate has not.

In short, the online version of the Senate's expenditure report looks (at first glance) very much like the print version. While deeper digging is required, as far as we can tell, the Senate has not redacted or condensed any data beyond what they already do in the print publication; the House ran into trouble when its online version resulted in a loss of data. Not making things worse, however, doesn't mean that the effort is a full success.

We had expected that the very lengthy wait would have meant that the Senate would have released the information in a database, and not only in a huge (12 MB) searchable PDF. For the public -- or members of the Senate -- to be able to evaluate the contents of the report, they're going to have to scrape all of the data from the PDF and put it into a database. It took considerable effort and expense for Sunlight to scrape the House expenditure reports. A preliminary technology assessment by one of my colleagues indicates that it's going to as hard, if not harder, to do the same for the Senate's report.

There's also been a failure to think about how online publication is different from print. There aren't the same kind of space limitations online that exist otherwise. To the extent the Senate tracks how it spends money, it could make all (or nearly all) of that information available online -- not just the condensed versions it already publishes. While phrases in the document like "certified purchased equipment" and "fees and other charges" give some hint about what they refer to, we can really do much better than this. There are also a number of minor errors -- from misspelling Mitch McConnell's last name on page C-1 to using periods instead of commas to separate first and last names.

In this era of tight budgets, Senators should demand that the Senate's statement of disbursements be complete, accurate, timely, and in an easy-to-use online database. We'll keep digging into this.

Are Members of Congress using inside information gathered as part of their jobs to make financial investments (and get rich...er?) That question is at the heart of yesterday's 60 Minutes report. Reporter Steve Kroft accused current House Speaker John Boehner and former speakers Nancy Pelosi and Dennis Hastert, among others, of engaging in a legal form of insider trading. (We first broke the Hastert story in 2006.)  What the story didn't explore was how transparency aided Hoover Institution research fellow Peter Schweizer in drawing these connections, and how better transparency would deter problems from arising.

Schweizer's analysis drew upon congressional financial disclosure reports, one of many ethics-related documents that the House and Senate make available to the public. While all these documents should be available online, in real-time, and in machine-readable formats, most are not.* Usually, members of the public must physically travel to the House or Senate and print out ethics documents, one page at a time -- you will not be provided an electronic copy, no matter how much you ask,  even though the documents are already digitized. In fact, we compiled the first public list of all the "publicly-available" documents from the House and Senate, with information about how to obtain the reports and what they contain. We also called for the GAO to finally live up to its statutory obligation to review whether the personal financial disclosure forms should be updated.

Looking at the financial disclosure reports, only the House publishes them online; the Senate archaically requires you to go to the Senate in person to ask for this information. If you want to analyze the Senate's financial disclosure reports, you have to re-key the data into a computer by hand; there's no database to facilitate analysis. This is equally true if you want to see which Member or senior staffer has been promised a plum job by an outside company, foreign travel expense reports, legal defense fund contributions, and more. If you're not in Washington, you'd better be willing to book a plane ride to DC; otherwise, you're out of luck.

We won't know how much effort it took to make the connection between congressional activity and investing, which formed the basis of the 60 Minutes report and Schweizer's well-timed book "Throw Them All Out," but it likely was considerable. Without better data, it is hard to tell who actually benefited from trading on inside information. We also don't know the extent to which investors mine data from capitol hill about industry activities to help make investment decisions, and we can't know that until legislation like the STOCK Act (which we wrote about here) becomes law.

But what we do know is that the House and Senate can do much more to be transparent. They need to make it easier for the public to see who is trying to influence them, how they behave while in office, and the work that they're doing. That's why we are advocating for lobbying reform, ethics reform, and a lot more Sunlight on the process.

• Update 1: These documents are not available online from the House or Senate, but some third parties, such as the Center for Responsive Politics and Legistorm, have digitized many of the documents. However, it's not always possible to access the data in bulk, and it is possible that the third parties introduced errors in the digitization process.

• Update 2: I should also mention that Sunlight gave a grant to CRP for digitization of the personal financial disclosure forms, travel disclosures, and other documents in 2007.

By guest blogger Matthew Gerring, Sunlight Labs intern The Washington Post published an article on Wednesday about the personal financial disclosures filed by members of Congress, and the data isn't surprising — the current Congress, like the last Congress, is full of millionaires.

Aside from personal wealth, top politicians in Congress, like John Boehner, raked in millions in campaign contributions during the last election cycle. Here's a look at some of the people and companies mentioned in the article:

• John Boehner, current Speaker of the House, received $6,001,138 in contributions in the last election cycle.
• Eric Cantor, House Majority Leader, received $5,557,405 in campaign contributions.
• 79% of political contributions made by Domino’s Pizza employees and political action committee went to Republicans in the 2009-10 cycle.
• House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi received $2,500,575 in campaign contributions in the 2009-10 cycle.
• One of Pelosi’s top contributors, E&J Gallo Winery, contributed $12,000 to Pelosi, and 75% of its employees’ and PAC’s contributions went to Democrats.
• Paul Ryan, author of the Republican’s budget plan, received $2,836,581 in contributions in 2009-10.
• House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy may have the smallest financial holdings according to the Post, at $114,00, but his fundraising was up there with the best of them — he received $2,013,573 in campaign contributions in 2009-10.

‘Influence Explored’ takes an article from the day’s headlines and exposes the influential ways of entities mentioned in the article. Names and corporations are run through Sunlight’s influence tracking tools such as Influence Explorer and Transparency Data to remind readers of the money that powers Washington.

Each new Congress begins with its own unique face. The ascendant Newt Gingrich in 1994, the first woman Speaker of the House surrounded by children in 2006 and a teary-eyed John Boehner in 2010. As we await the future for presumptive Speaker Boehner's policies, we know that those of Gingrich and Nancy Pelosi differed greatly. That is save for one area: transparency. A new Congress, with fresh blood, offers a singular moment to advance transparency causes, whether in the legislative field or elsewhere.

Of course, the decisions on where to move on transparency has largely been influenced by the idiosyncrasies of the Speaker or the new congressional class or the prevailing winds of the time.

In January of 1995 Speaker Gingrich unveiled the first online database of legislation known as THOMAS. THOMAS was a breakthrough at the time even though it did not include anywhere close to the amount of information that it does today. Gingrich, a fan of the futurist Alvin Toffler, was incredibly interested in computers and found it important to make legislation available to the public over the new Internet technology.

The House of Representatives, under the Democratic majority prior to the 1994 election, had put a lot of work into wiring offices for Internet access and posting legislative information through the House Information Services (HIS) and the Government Printing Office (GPO). The new Republican majority, particularly Gingrich and incoming House Administration Committee chairman Bill Thomas, thought that HIS was a pet project of the Democrats and that GPO was inept. This led them to centralize control over the online legislative database in the Library of Congress, where THOMAS still lives today.

In 2006 Pelosi and the Democrats were elevated to office, in part, due to a string of corruption scandals tainting the Republicans. The Jack Abramoff scandal exposed both the casual and explicit corruption in Washington. Associational biases led to corrupt decisions as staffers accepted sports and concert tickets and wound up doing favors for lobbyists. Travel to exotic locales, for educational purposes, of course, were prized lobbyist tricks to win support from congressmen for their clients. Meals could be used as bargaining chips. And in the case of Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, earmarks were sold to defense contractors for yachts, prostitutes, antique furniture and, in one case, a house.

The Democrats moved quickly once the new Congress began. A bill was drafted that included dramatically increased transparency on lobbyists and lobbyist gifts to members of Congress, restrictions on private travel and the receipt of gifts from lobbyists and increased transparency around earmarks and other legislative activities including committee hearings and conference committees. This was a landmark bill that has made following Congress and influence much easier in the Internet age.

This phenomenon is not new either. The increase in new congressmen, largely in the Democratic Party, from 1970 to 1974, produced a series of lasting transparency policies in campaign finance, committee operations, executive branch operations and congressional activity.

So what does this mean for the Republicans in their 2010 form under a Speaker Boehner? That appears to be a big unknown at the moment. Boehner does not appear to have the zest for technology that Gingrich did, nor does the moment portend a need for action as the corruption scandals of 2006 pushed Pelosi to act. There are, however, some areas that both Boehner and Majority Leader-to-be Eric Cantor have noted that could provide some clues as to where transparency could be advanced in the House.

The Republican leadership has stated that they are going to devolve some power back to committee chairmen after a decades-long centralization of power in leadership offices. This provides a moment to codify rules and increase transparency in committee rooms.

The Sunlight Foundation released a list of rules changes for the new Congress to adopt, which includes a series of important changes to committee openness. These include posting recorded votes online in a structured format, post official transcripts, disclose financial statements filed by witnesses and post all committee documents online. (More suggestions can be found here.)

Giving the public time to read bills before they come to the floor for debate is another area that appears ripe for action. This was a hallmark criticism that Republicans made of the legislative process in the 111th Congress and they should codify a rule requiring bills be posted online for 72 hours prior to consideration.

John Boehner has consistently stated his support for transparency in the legislative process during his term as Minority Leader. As he ascends to the Speaker's chair, many will watch to see how his criticisms of opacity translate into policies of openness.

House Democrats have contributed nearly $40 million to the congressional campaign committee tasked with protecting the party's majority in the midterm elections in November, according to data obtained from TransparencyData.com. The contributions from 166 members of the 253 members of the House Democratic Caucus account for 37 percent of the contributions made to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). These contributions could help to build a well-funded defensive line against the insurgent Republicans. The DCCC has raised over $100 million this election cycle and has nearly $40 million in cash on hand, but has only spent $7 million so far on independent expenditures to protect their majority. According to a report by the Sunlight Foundation's Reporting Group, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) has spent nearly double that of the DCCC so far this cycle. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer contributed the most of any member of the caucus sending $2.35 million from his campaign committee and political action committee (PAC) to the DCCC. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has sent the second most money to the DCCC with a total of $2.225 million. The third-ranking Democrat, Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, is also the third-ranking giver to the DCCC with contributions totaling $2.2 million. One hundred and eight Democrats have contributed over $100,000 to the DCCC. The biggest givers include the party leadership and major committee chairmen including Reps. Henry Waxman ($800,000), George Miller ($765,000) and Barney Frank ($600,000).

Perhaps an admission of the treacherous electoral climate ninety-seven members have not given any money to the DCCC. Nearly all Republican House members have contributed to the NRCC.

Many of these members are freshmen or sophomores elected in the 2006 and 2008 Democratic waves and are now facing a tough path to reelection. These Democrats are relying on the contributions to the DCCC by their fellow caucus members.

Some of the non-contributors will be facing little competition in November yet still have not sent campaign cash to help their party. In fact, twenty Democrats listed as not yet contributing to the DCCC are currently in races rated as "Solid Democratic" by the Cook Political Report.

Reps. Zoe Lofgren, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Maxine Waters, Dan Lipinski, Carolyn McCarthy, Pete Stark, Luis Gutierrez and Corrine Brown are among those who are facing little to no opposition and have not contributed to their party's campaign committee as of the last filing period. Some of these members are sitting on cash on hand piles of at least half-a-million dollars.

The contributions to the DCCC and the lack of contributions by some members produce a dynamic that highlights some of the Democratic Party's internal ideological divisions. Many of the non-contributing members are Democrats from the moderate-to-conservative wing of the party. These are also the same members who are facing difficult reelections.

Those contributing to the party committee are more representative of the party's liberal wing including many members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. While fifty-three of eighty-two Progressive Caucus members contributed to the committee, only seventeen out of fifty-four members of the conservative Blue Dog Coalition did as well.

Over the past two years, Progressive Caucus members have voiced concerns about deals crafted to win the votes of Blue Dog Democrats and other moderate and conservative Democrats. The make-up of the caucus after November 2 could likely determine the party's ideological temperament heading into the 2012 presidential cycle.

Feature photo credit: Dominic Alves

How would you feel about an investigation into steroid use among baseball players led by the Major League Baseball Player's Union? Perhaps they could hire Rogers Clemens as chief investigator.

If you think that's ridiculous you should look equally askance at the absurd non-statements emanating from both the House Republican and Democratic leadership on whether they will keep a successful, independent ethics body intact when the next Congress convenes.

Most of these non-statements are coming from the Republican leadership as they being confronted with previous statements regarding the Office of Congressional Ethics. The Republicans who universally opposed the creation of the office have used Democratic scandals--investigated by the Office of Congressional Ethics--to bolster their cause in seeking control of the House of Representatives in this fall's midterm elections.

The Office of Congressional Ethics has definitely pushed the boundaries of ethics enforcement in its short three year existence. The investigatory body has produced two upcoming ethics trials of prominent Democrats--Reps. Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters--and has produced a veritable snowstorm of activity at the House Ethics Committee. The committee has already admonished Rangel once this year and has taken on many other difficult questions regarding other members and potential ethical violations.

More than anything the Office of Congressional Ethics has helped to reveal to the public the patent absurdity of the self-policing oversight that members provide through the House Ethics Committee.

These absurdities included the rejection of charges in the PMA Group contributions-for-earmarks scandal based on the lack of rules, guidelines or understanding on the appropriateness of connecting campaign fundraising activities to the federal earmarking process. Oops, we just don't have any guidelines for that.

The Office of Congressional Ethics has also injected a dose of much-needed transparency into the congressional ethics process. Reports have been posted online, arguments are voiced between the office and the House Ethics Committee and the public has learned more than previous about how ethics investigations are conducted.

Now Minority Leader John Boehner, who voted against the creation of the Office of Congressional Ethics in 2007, is dodging questions about whether he would do away with the office were he to become the next Speaker of the House. Boehner had previously stated that he wanted to "take a look" at the office come next year.

This is despite the fact that Boehner has claimed that "the most glaring promise that [Speaker Nancy Pelosi has] broken" was her promise to "drain the swamp" in Washington. Does Boehner have any plans to fix the ethics process or will he simply end one of the most successful, but discomfiting reforms to the ethics process in recent memory?

The same question should be asked of Speaker Pelosi: will she accede to the demands of several members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who have often found themselves involved in the investigations of the Office of Congressional Ethics? As The Hill indicates, "Pelosi has indicated a willingness to change the OCE’s rules."

If anything the independent ethics process needs to be strengthened and given more resources, not eliminated so as to protect lawmakers from greater scrutiny. Perhaps these leaders should be proposing how they will make the ethics process work towards routing out all corruption rather than dither and dodge questions.

Last weekend more than 2,400 women bloggers descended on New York City for the annual Blogher conference. That was eight times as many as attended back in 2005, in the website’s infancy. The women of Blogher, a website that serves as aggregator and community for thousands of  bloggers, are a varied lot. As I type this the front page features a post on the plight of Hatian orphans, another on the best backpacks for back-to-school, and this one on a new test for Alzheimer's disease.

And then there is politics. The nonpartisan website welcomes views from the left and right and everywhere in between. Blogher's founders, Lisa Stone, Elisa Camahort Page and Jory Des Jardins, have been increasing opportunities for Blogher participants to interact with elected officials. Last weekend's conference brought a visit by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, who met with a group of about 25 bloggers (I was one) to take on-the-record questions. Gillibrand's visit was covered here, here, and by CNN here. Gillibrand answered questions and spoke on topics ranging from cybersecurity to daycare to transparency, restating her support, for example, for posting congressional schedules and earmarks online.

Last fall Blogher organized a bi-partisan series of conference calls for bloggers, partnering with the Sunlight Foundation, to interview Members of Congress questions directly about health care reform. Bloggers were pointed toward Open Congress, where they could read the proposed health care legislation for reference and prepping for the calls. Among the participants were Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Sen. Gillibrand, and Rep. Cynthia Lummis.

Blogher's power is such that it has attracted corporate advertisers and sponsors that used to be the province of women's magazines and newspaper pages: McDonalds, Kellogs, and the like. The bloggers themselves, however, aren't afraid to challenge them--at one discussion I attended, a panelist urged the audience to challenge PUR water filters, who had an exhibit outside, on whether their filters were recyclable.

As traditional news organizations continue to go bottom up, Blogher is one model of how bloggers gathered together can become a force that politicians must pay notice--and how the bloggers themselves are becoming more sophisticated in using online tools to hold them accountable.

So says the New York Times. The independent ethics office created in the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 is under attack from both the House Republicans and the Congressional Black Caucus.

House Republicans are chortling over the Democratic majority’s troubles with ethics allegations, but they also are ominously signaling their distaste for the Office of Congressional Ethics — the one new player on Capitol Hill with a clear determination to do something about the morass. The Republican minority leader, John Boehner, said he wants to “take a look” at the office if his party regains majority power — a reminder that his members fiercely opposed the quasi-independent office when it was created two years ago by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. ... Grumblers on both sides want to gut the ethics office. That is because it has been fulfilling its mission to put life into the lawmakers’ own stultified ethics process, to penetrate the murk of misbehavior and keep the public better informed. Republicans would be the ultimate hypocrites to subvert the ethics office while campaigning as the all-new party of reform that, ah, yes, learned its lesson after the Jack Abramoff corruption scandal.

The Congressional Black Caucus should also reconsider their attacks on the office. Investigations by the office have already resulted in an admonishment of one member, Rep. Charlie Rangel, and charges brought against another, Rep. Maxine Waters, by the House Ethics Committee.

Any body that subverts the traditional role of the House Ethics Committee sweeping charges under the rug is a useful tool to protect the public from official abuses of office.

And now to totally contradict my previous post stating why no one needs to talk about tickle-monster Eric Massa.

The House voted today 404-2 to recommend that the House Ethics Committee reopen their probe into Massa's misconduct and examine whether House leaders were aware of his misdeeds and whether they failed act quickly enough. This follows on the heels of reports that an aide in Speaker Pelosi's office was informed in October that Massa was living with aides, hired too many aides, cursed around staff and appeared to be going on dates with openly-gay male staffers from other congressional offices.

On first blush these don't exactly rise to the level of ethics investigation material -- congressmen have been known to live with aides in the past and if he wants to cheat on his wife with adult men, that's his prerogative. Either way, the Ethics Committee should look into whether there was any more information relayed to leadership prior to the reported receipt of complaints about harassment in February and whether they responded properly or not.

Already, this case is being compared to the 2006 Mark Foley scandal. I'm not really sure that it rises to that level for a number of reasons. That being said, let's take a look at what made the Foley scandal toxic for the congressional leadership who covered it up.

1) Members of Congress were aware as early as 1995 that Foley was interested in teenage male pages. Foley was elected in 1994. A male page who served in 1995 stated later, "Almost the first day I got there I was warned. It was no secret that Foley had a special interest in male pages." In 2000, then-Rep. Jim Kolbe and Clerk of the House Jeff Trandahl were informed of complaints of inappropriate e-mails from Foley to teenage male pages. In 2002 or 2003, Foley appeared in the page dormitory after-hours and was visibly drunk. This information was conveyed to Trandahl who then informed Foley's chief of staff Kirk Fordham and Fordham subsequently informed Speaker Dennis Hastert's chief of staff Scott Palmer that Foley exhibited inappropriate behavior around pages, but did not tell him about the drunken dorm incident. Trandahl stated that Hastert's office was informed of Foley's behavior in 2003 and was given regular updates about his conduct.

2) In the specific incident that led to Foley's removal from the House, congressmen were made aware of the lascivious e-mails in early-2005 (the story broke in September of 2006). Hastert's office was made aware in the fall of 2005 and Hastert was specifically informed in early-2006. Other congressional leaders, Majority Leader John Boehner and National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds, were informed of the emails and IM conversations in the spring of 2006. Boehner and Reynolds stated that they both told Hastert about the allegations.

3) Foley was hitting on teenage pages and engaging in sexual relationships with ex-pages. This is a far-cry from going on dates with adult congressional staffers. Parents entrust their children to Congress when they are serving as pages and expect that members of Congress aren't going to be making sexual advances on them -- or that, if such a case were to arise that congressional leaders would do something about it. Also, did I mention that Foley was hitting on teenagers, not adults.

I can't really see the Massa issue rising to this level of extreme malfeasance by leadership. It appears to have come as somewhat of a surprise to people in Washington. This is probably because the guy was only a congressman for about 14 months. The complaints that were made with Pelosi's office, if the story is accurate, rise to the level of talking to Massa's staff, but certainly not to an Ethics Committee investigation. The complaints received by Hoyer's office were rather more serious and his office referred the matter to the Ethics Committee almost immediately. If this is the full story, it certainly doesn't rise to the level of the actual cover-up of Foley's repulsive behavior.

Since the House already voted to send the issue back to the Ethics Committee, we'll have to wait and see if everyone's story is accurate.

Seven key Democrats seen as potential vote-flippers on the health care reform bill are heavily reliant on campaign funds from party leadership and online progressive activists.

According to campaign finance data at the Center for Responsive Politics, all seven Democrats--Reps. Jason Altmire, Suzanne Kosmas, Frank Kratovil, Scott Murphy, Glenn Nye, Michael McMahon and Betsy Markey--list Leadership PACs (political action committees) in the top three career industry donors. Three of the seven members are also heavily reliant on money from Democratic campaign committees or outside progressive fundraising through the web site Actblue.

The seven Democrats were identified in an Associated Press survey of members who previously voted "No" on the House health care reform bill. With pressure mounting to pass the Senate's health care reform bill and the resignation of key members along with the death of Rep. John Murtha, Speaker Nancy Pelosi must round-up lawmakers like these seven to vote "Yes" after a previous "No" vote.

The upper Democratic leadership is particularly active in contributing to these lawmakers. Five of the seven lawmakers--Kosmas, Kratovil, Murphy, Nye and Markey--count the PACs of Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Majority Whip James Clyburn in their top twenty career individual donors. Rep. McMahon counts two of the three Democratic leadership PACs (Hoyer and Clyburn) in his top twenty.

All of these seven lawmakers are either freshmen or, in Rep. Altmire's case, a sophomore. Freshmen and sophomore lawmakers are often in greater danger of losing their next election and, therefore, more reliant on party and leadership funds to finance their victories. This puts them in a situation where the leadership has significantly more sway over their floor votes than other members.

Similarly, outside activists can push a lawmaker towards a certain vote by contributing or withholding funds. Rep. Scott Murphy, who won a special election in New York to replace appointed-Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, is the top recipient among the seven lawmakers of money from ActBlue, the online progressive clearinghouse for campaign contributions. Murphy received $315,807 in individual contributions through the ActBlue site making ActBlue his number one career individual donor. Rep. Betsy Markey also received a significant amount of campaign money through ActBlue with $124,090 coming in from the site.

See below for totals:

Lawmaker	Industry	Amount	Rank
Jason Altmire	Leadership PACs	$220,662.00	3rd
Suzanne Kosmas	Leadership PACs	$201,978.00	2nd
Frank Kratovil	Leadership PACs	$182,115.00	3rd
Betsy Markey	Democratic/Liberal	$263,329.00	1st
	Leadership PACs	$229,248.00	3rd
Michael McMahon	Leadership PACs	$168,300.00	2nd
	Candidate Committees	$122,500.00	3rd
Scott Murphy	Democratic/Liberal	$383,017.00	1st
	Leadership PACs	$203,400.00	3rd
Glenn Nye	Leadership PACs	$190,791.00	2nd