With the House of Representatives and the Senate Republicans imposing an earmark moratorium and President Barack Obama jumping on the bandwagon, earmarkers are left with only one outlet. The Senate Democratic caucus does not appear willing to stop earmark spending among their members. Michael Crowley at Time's Swampland flags some comments from Democratic senators:

From the New York Times:

Senator Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat and a veteran member of the Appropriations Committee, said “the president is dead wrong on this issue.” “I think there's a valid and good reason why senators and congressmen should be able to direct certain monies,” Mr. Harkin said. A spokesman for Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said individual senators should decide if they favor earmarks. Because Democrats will retain control of the Senate in the next Congress, a decision by them to continue allowing earmarks could keep the practice alive, at least in spending bills passed by the upper chamber.

From Bloomberg:

"I don't think the earmark process will disappear,” said Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia.

And so we are left with the obvious path for all earmarks: through the Democrats on the Senate Appropriations Committee. If you are a firm that makes a living off of earmarks there is only one thing to do start contributing money to Senate Democrats and hire a lobbying firm boasting former Democratic senators and former Senate Democratic staffers.

According to data obtained from the Center for Responsive Politics, sixty-three lobbyists previously worked for Senate Appropriations Democrats. Not all of these lobbyists currently work on appropriations issues, but quite a few do and they could see a big increase in business. Also, in the current down market for former Democratic staffers seeking to be lobbyists this is one bright spot for Democrats looking for a way to sell their skill set to K Street firms.

The revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street continues to spin.

Former Rep. Deborah Pryce, formerly the Republican Conference Chair, is heading to Clark, Lytle & Geduldig, and all-Republican lobbying shop. She plans on registering to lobby.

Pryce is a former member of the House Financial Services Committee. This committee produces a ton of talent for K Street as the financial sector is one of the biggest in the lobbying game.

Clark, Lytle & Geduldig boasts many financial companies as clients including the American Bankers Association, the Consumer Bankers Association, the Consumer Credit Industry Association, Financial Services Roundtable and Mastercard.

Pryce received $2,806,622 over the course of her career from the finance, insurance and real estate sector. That constituted the largest amount--over one-quarter of her total career campaign contributions--from any individual sector.

The firm is already touting Pryce's close relationships with Minority Leader John Boehner and other Republican heavyweights.

The 2010 midterms are fast approaching and it looks like some senators will be out of a job by next January. It's likely that a number of them will stick around Washington to find jobs at lobbying firms or trade groups to use their expertise while making far more money than they did as senators. A good way to see where the coming crop of ex-senators will be headed is to look at where the deposed and retired senators of the past two elections landed.

Below is a chart of the defeated and retired senators of 2006 and 2008. Some of the fields are left empty because I couldn't find the current employment for some former senators. If you know anything, leave it in the comments and I'll check and update.

• designates registered lobbyist ** designates consultant at lobby/law firm or organization lobbying

Last Friday, two congressional committees held closed door discussions with 31 representatives from industry and activist groups to discuss writing a new broadband Internet policy, largely focused on whether and how to implement net neutrality rules, into the Telecommunications Act of 1996. While the meeting contained more proponents of net neutrality, opponents of implementing the policy hold a lop-sided advantage in lobbying spending and contributing to political campaigns.

In attendance were some of the major organizations on both sides of the debate. The biggest organizations in attendance in support of the legislation included Google, Microsoft, Amazon.com and two service providers breaking with their industry, DISH Network and Sprint. Opponents included AT&T, Verizon, National Cable & Telecommunications Association, Communications Workers of America and the US Telecom Association. A number of public interest and consumer groups were also present.

According to data obtained from the Center for Responsive Politics, net neutrality opponents represented at the meeting combined for $19.7 million in lobbying in the first quarter of 2010. Supporters, on the other hand, only combined for $4.7 million in first quarter lobbying expenses. (Organizations with undefined, or unidentifiable, positions combined for just under $1 million.)

The major campaign contributors opposed to net neutrality gave $6.9 million to political candidates from 2009-2010 while major contributors in support gave $2.2 million.

Both sides of the debate sent lobbyists with previous government experience into the closed-door meetings with the committees. Eight of the 31 organization representatives present at the meeting previously worked in Congress. Five of those eight previously worked for one of the two committees holding the meeting.

Lobbyists for net neutrality proponents had good connections to the lawmakers in the room. Google's Johanna Shelton previously worked on the House Committee on Energy & Commerce; Microsoft's Paula Boyd used to work for the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation; Amazon.com sent lobbyist Emmett O'Keefe, a former staffer to Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation member Sen. Byron Dorgan.

Two organizations in opposition sent lobbyists with similarly good connections: National Cable & Telecommunications Association sent James Assey, a former staffer on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and US Telecom Association sent Walter McCormick, another former staffer from the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

The meetings, held jointly by the House Committee on Energy & Commerce and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation, are the result of years of efforts by Congress to pass net neutrality legislation and recent developments involving the Federal Communications Commission's attempts to impose net neutrality rules the industry.

Net neutrality rules would disallow broadband service providers from discriminating against users and content by preventing them from slowing access to certain users and charging money to acesss certain content.

The FCC attempted to impose these rules after Comcast slowed service to certain users using the BitTorrent file-sharing service. In April, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against the FCC, stating that they did not have the regulatory authority to stop Comcast from blocking or slowing certain users of their broadband service.

Broadband providers have largely opposed the implementation of net neutrality rules, while Internet companies have largely backed them.

The committees are scheduled to hold another talk this Friday. The list of organizations and their representatives, provided by Tech Daily Dose, can be found below:

AT&T, Tim McKone Amazon, Emmett O'Keefe CDT, David Sohn Cisco, Jeff Campbell CompTel, Jerry James Consumers Union (CU), Joel Kelsey CTIA, Jot Carpenter CWA, Debbie Goldman Dish, David Goodfriend Free Press, Derek Turner Free State Foundation, Randolph May Google, Johanna Shelton ITI, Dean Garfield ITIF, Rob Atkinson Level 3, John Ryan MAP, Andy Schwartzman Microsoft, Paula Boyd NARUC, Brian O'Hara NASUCA, Brenda Pennington NCTA, James Assey NTCA, Tom Wacker OIC, Markham Erickson PFF, Dan Horowitz Phoenix Center, Larry Spiwak Public Knowledge, Ernesto Falcon Qwest, Melissa Newman RCA, Tim Donovan Sprint, Bill Barloon TIA, Grant Seiffert US Telecom, Walter McCormick Verizon, Peter Davidson

As leaders in Congress announced a series of hearings this June to tackle huge telecommunications issues with a focus on the Internet, the top phone and cable organizations that control the majority of the access to the Internet have hired 276 former government officials to lobby both the Congress and the executive branch.

According to data obtained from lobbyist disclosure forms and the Center for Responsive Politics, seventy-two percent of the lobbyists hired by AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Verizon, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association and the US Telecom Association have previous government experience. These organizations combined to spend $20.6 million lobbying the federal government in the first quarter of 2010.

Eighteen of the 276 revolving door lobbyists are former members of Congress. These include the powerful former senators John Breaux and Trent Lott. The Breaux Lott Leadership Group reported spending $150,000 lobbying on behalf of AT&T in the first quarter of 2010.

Both Breaux and Lott served in the leadership of their respective parties while in the Senate with Lott serving as Majority Leader. Lott also served on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation, the committee with jurisdiction over the telecommunications industry.

The eighteen former lawmakers include a heavy representation from the House Committee on Energy & Commerce, the House committee with telecommunications jurisdication. In 2010, the organizations hired former Energy & Commerce Committee members Jim Davis (AT&T), Jack Fields (Verizon), Ron Klink (Comcast), Chip Pickering (Comcast and National Cable and Television Association) and Al  Wynn (US Telecom Association).

The organizations are also hiring former lawmakers with previous clout in both the House and the Senate. Former Sen. Don Nickles, hired to lobby for Comcast, was the Republican Majority Whip from 1996 to 2001. Comcast also hired the former House Majority Whip William H. Gray.

Aside from Breaux and Lott, AT&T has hired two other lawmakers with strong resumes, former House Republican Conference Chair J.C. Watts and longtime California Democrat Vic Fazio.

The top telecom organizations are also hiring a number of lobbyists who previously worked on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation or the House Committee on Energy & Commerce. Fourteen lobbyists used to work on the House committee and thirteen previously worked at the Senate committee. In addition, the six organizations employ 26 former staffers of current members of the House committee and 22 former staffers of current members of the Senate committee.

These staffers include the former chief of staff, Lane Bailey, and deputy chief of staff, Patrick Robertson, to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation. Robertson lobbies for Comcast and Bailey lobbies for the National Cable and Television Association.

The former counsel to Sen. John Kerry, the number two Democrat on the committee, Barry LaSala, is registered to lobby for Verizon.

Comcast and Time Warner Cable lead the way in hiring former government officials as lobbyists. Ninety percent of lobbyists hired by Time Warner Cable previously worked in government. Two Time Warner lobbyists served as congressmen and two others served as staffers to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation.

In first quarter lobbyists disclosure filings for 2010, eighty-eight percent of all lobbyists hired by Comcast had previous experience in government. While this percentage is slightly lower than Time Warner's, Comcast hired more than twice as many lobbyists with former government experience as Time Warner did—82 to 38. This includes five former members of Congress and four Energy & Commerce Committee staffers. Comcast, as it seeks government approval of its purchase of NBC Universal, has also hired six former officials from the Department of Justice.

Broadband regulation has been a major issue over the past few years as many Democrats, including President Obama, have called for the institution of net neutrality rules to govern broadband transmission. Net neutrality regulations would prevent broadband service providers from blocking or slowing transmission to certain sites, services and users.

In April, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was rebuffed by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit after trying to stop Comcast from slowing broadband access to users using the BitTorrent file-sharing service. The court ruled that the FCC did not have sufficient regulatory authority to require Comcast to provide equal access to all sites and services online.

In the wake of the court's decision, four committee and subcommittee chairmen announced a series of meetings with industry players to discuss a rewrite of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The meetings will focus on the changes in telecommunications brought on by the revolution in Internet technologies over the past fifteen years. Much of that time is expected to be spent on the regulation of broadband routes.

A group of 74 Democratic lawmakers recently sent a letter to FCC Commissioner Julius Genachowski asking that the FCC not institute net neutrality rules without specific instruction from Congress. The 74 Democrats were comprised of a mix of Blue Dog Democrats, New Dems and members of both the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC).

At least, six of the letter signatorees—Reps. Joe Baca, Allen Boyd, Corrine Brown, Baron Hill, Eddie Bernice Johnson and Ciro Rodriquez—have former staffers lobbying for the top telecom organizations.

Senators selected to work to combine the House and Senate financial regulation bills in a conference committee are some of the top recipients of campaign contributions from the finance, insurance and real estate sector (FIRE). In total, these twelve senators have received over $57 million from the FIRE sector over the course of their careers, according to data obtained from Center for Responsive Politics.

New York's Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., is the leading recipient among the Senate conferees with $16.7 million in contributions over his career. Schumer has long been an ally of the New York-based financial industry, but has been remarkably quiet as Congress has focused on reforming Wall Street. Schumer remains in support of the bill despite hometown pressure from industry friends, campaign contributors and Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

His support for the financial reform bill goes against a long history of supporting deregulatory actions for Wall Street. In the late 1990s and 2000 Schumer enthusiastically supported measures that ended the Glass-Steagall separation between commercial and investment banks and the enforced deregulation of derivatives trading.

The new rules for derivatives trading included in the Senate bill remain a serious sticking point in the coming conference committee. Senate Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., has already attempted once to eliminate a provision in the bill, penned by conference committee member Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., ($2.61 million), requiring banks to spin off their derivatives trading portofolios. Dodd is the second largest recipient of FIRE campaiagn contributions on the conference committee with $14 million for his career.

Dodd is also connected to Wall Street with seven of his former staffers currently lobbying for financial organizations. Organizations represented by Dodd's former staffers include Goldman Sachs, Genworth Financial, MBIA, National Association of Mortgage Brokers and New York Bankers Association.

One former Dodd staffer turned financial industry lobbyist runs a financial lobbying firm with the former senior advisor to Dodd's Republican counterpart on the Banking Committee, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., the third highest recipient of contributions from the FIRE sector on the conference committee ($5.63 million).

Andrew Lowenthal and Lendell Porterfield run a bipartisan lobby shop providing clients with instant access to the Senate Banking Committee and, with both of their former bosses on the financial reform conference committee, the final chance to change the sweeping regulatory bill.

Recently joining Lowenthal and Porterfield as a partner in their firm is Dwight Fettig, a former Legislative Director to Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., the sixth highest recipient of FIRE contributions appointed to the conference committee ($3.15 million). Johnson stands to become the next chairman of the Banking Committee after Dodd retires this year. The credit card industry, largely based in his state, has always counted on the support of the senior South Dakota senator.

Johnson, a career recipient of $391,400 in campaign contributions from the credit card industry, was one of ten Democrats to vote against an amendment to the financial reform bill capping “swipe fees” for debit card transactions. “Swipe fees” are charges to merchants for purchases made by customers using debit cards and often drive up retail prices for consumers. Credit card companies and banks are still lobbying hard to remove this provision from the bill. Johnson, however, is only one of four conference committees members to vote against the amendment making it unlikely the provision will be removed.

The conference committee will have to decide which portions of the House and Senate bills will be placed into a final version to be voted on and signed by the President. The House and Senate must pass bills with identical language. To do so, conference committees including members from both chambers meet to craft a compromise between the House and the Senate. The House has yet to name conferees.

The remaining members on the conference committee include Democrats Jack Reed, D-R.I., ($2.92 million), Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, ($2.53 million) and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., ($637,282) and Republicans Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., ($3.51 million), Bob Corker, R-Tenn., ($3.19 million), Mike Crapo, R-Wyo. ($1.81 million) and Judd Gregg, R-N.H., ($1.07 million).

Concerned about seeing their huge profits cut, six big banks are leading the charge to weaken or block new financial regulations being considered in the United States Senate. To push their cause these banks have hired 145 former government officials--congressmen, staffers and executive branch officials--to lobby on Capitol Hill and in the executive branch.

The top six bank holding companies engaged in lobbying on financial regulation include Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, these banks spent a combined total of $23.8 million lobbying Washington in 2009.

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="320" caption="Click to enlarge"][/caption]

Former government officials accounted for seventy-one percent of all lobbyists hired in 2009 by these six banking companies. The company with the highest percentage of former government officials working as lobbyists is Goldman Sachs. Eighty-two percent of the lobbyists hired by Goldman Sachs previously worked in government.

Fifty-five of the 145 former government employees previously worked in the Senate, the current point of lobbying in the financial regulation debate. Fourteen of these former staffers turned lobbyists previously worked for the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs or members of the committee. The senator with the most former staffers working as lobbyists for these big banks is Sen. Max Baucus with four former staffers who have gone through the revolving door.

One chief concern of the major bank holding companies is the derivatives language introduced by Sen. Blanche Lincoln and passed out of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Lincoln's legislation would require these banks to spin off their derivatives trading desks into separate entities. This would slash the profits that these companies currently make from derivatives trading.

According to the Office of the Comptroller or the Currency, five of these big banks -- JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citigroup, Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs -- account for 97% of the derivatives holdings of United States commercial banks. The investment of millions of dollars in lobbying could save the companies billions of dollars in lost revenue.

Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan's chief executive, stated earlier that derivatives reform could cost his company "$700 million or a couple billion dollars," depending on how tough the regulations were. This calculation likely excludes the possibility that banks would spin off their derivatives trading desks, which could, according to some analysts, lead to the banks getting out of derivatives trading entirely.

The former staffers turned big bank lobbyists worked in other parts of government aside from the Senate. Sixty-five of the 145 previously worked in the House of Representatives. Forty-two worked previously in the executive branch in some capacity and of those with executive experience eight previously worked for either the Treasury Department or the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Earlier this week, Peter Roberson, a top staffer on the House Financial Services Committee, jumped ship to lobby for Intercontinental Exchange, Inc., the owner of the largest credit-default swap house. Today, Financial Services Committee Chair Barney Frank issued a statement banning committee staff from talking to Roberson about financial regulation or financial matters until Frank is no longer chairman.

Roberson previously worked as a lobbyist for the financial services industry. From 2000 to 2006, Roberson worked for the Bond Market Association. In 2006, Roberson joined the Financial Services Committee as a senior advisor and worked as part of a team to draft rules in the financial reform bill to cover over-the-counter derivatives and credit-default swaps. Ryam Grim reported that the part of the bill that Roberson worked on "has been criticized as one of the weakest elements of the package. Since its passage, Frank has said that he would be pleased if the Senate is able to pass tighter derivatives regulation."

Roberson is one of the worst examples of the revolving door between government and the lobbying world. Both require expertise and those with that expertise can move in and out of either world to increase their market potential. Roberson began as a financial services lobbyist, went into Congress to write rules governing financial services companies and then left Congress to help a financial services company navigate and circumvent the very rules he helped write. There are fewer more striking examples of corruption than Roberson's spin through the revolving door.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln has put herself front and center in opposing efforts by her party's leadership to pass or implement comprehensive caps on carbon emissions in the United States. She opposes the proposed cap and trade legislation that passed the House of Representatives and has been touted by President Barack Obama and senators John Kerry, Lindsay Graham and Joe Lieberman. Similarly, she has signed on to legislation that would block the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from implementing their own regulations to cap carbon emissions should cap and trade legislation fail to pass Congress. In this effort she is aided by a coterie of former staffers who currently lobby for a variety of interests seeking to weaken or derail carbon capping whether through legislation or the EPA's rule-making authority.

Six of Lincoln's former staffers currently lobby for interests invested in influencing carbon capping legislation. These interests include oil & gas trade groups, agriculutural companies, the airplane industry and biofuel and bioenergy firms. As chair of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Lincoln holds a powerful position to influence carbon capping legislation and she has made no secret of her desire to block the legislation.

(For a full visualization of Sen. Blanche Lincoln's former staffers lobbying for the energy and climate industries click here or the image to the right.)

The most influential of Lincoln's former staffers is Kelly Bingel, a lobbyist for Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti. Bingel is a former chief of staff to Lincoln and has been called "Sen. Lincoln’s alter ego." Bingel's clients include two incredibly powerful organizations opposed to carbon capping: the American Petroleum Institute (API), the lead trade group for the oil industry, and Koch Industries, one of the largest oil manufacturing, trading and investment companies in the country. David Koch, one of the two owners of Koch Industries, is a big contributor to conservative movement organizations and is an outspoken opponent of cap and trade legislation. Koch has invested millions in various conservative organizations that have led lobbying and grassroots stimulation efforts to get people to advocate to their lawmakers to oppose cap and trade legislation. API spent $7.32 million on lobbying last year, almost double what it spent in 2008. API states that any carbon capping legislation or regulations will cost the industry jobs and increase taxes.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Lincoln is currently the number one recipient of campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry from 2005 to 2010. She has received, through her campaign committee and her leadership political action committee (PAC),$309,500 from the industry.

Another former staffer to Lincoln, Ben Noble, lobbies for organizations opposed to carbon capping efforts including a variety of agricultural interests. Agricultural companies and trade groups have a major stake in cap and trade legislation as it moves through Congress. According to the EPA, agriculture accounts for 6 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The industry is seeking to avoid carbon capping regulation in cap and trade legislation or through EPA regulation.

One of Noble's clients, the USA Rice Federation, opposes cap and trade legislation and recently praised Lincoln for her stance against the legislation, "We applaud Chairman Lincoln for putting the American economy and jobs first in this debate. While there are a number of questions surrounding the issue of climate change, there is absolutely no question about the severe impact that pending legislation and regulation would have on our economy and jobs."

Lincoln is the top recipient of campaign contributions from a variety of agricultural industries including agricultural services, crop producers, food processors and meat processors and plants. Since 2005, Lincoln has received $789,372 from the agribusiness sector.

Both Bingel and Noble also represent organizations generally supportive of cap and trade legislation, so long as it contains language that allows them to maximize their profits under the new system. Bingel represents the electrical utility trade group the Electric Edison Institute (EEI). EEI, which includes members who have received specific benefits in the House-passed cap and trade legislation, sees the legislation as an openning into new markets with high potential to increase their share of energy distribution.

Noble represents the massive bio-tech, agribusiness firm Monsanto. Monsanto seeks to gain profits from a cap and trade system by getting farms and agribusiness to switch to a "no-till" method of farming. The "no-till" method would require farmers to purchase herbicides and seeds made by Monsanto. The lobbying effort by Monsanto is detailed in Tom Philpott's explanation at Grist.

Last week, Lincoln released her first campaign advertisement in the uphill battle to retain her Senate seat. The ad touts her continued opposition to the passage of cap and trade legislation. This continues her statement from last year that cap and trade is a "complete non-starter."

(Revision: Todd Wooten no longer lobbies for Enerkem. He is currently employed by Duke University.)

Last Friday, the White House released a new batch of visitor logs covering last October, fulfilling a pledge they made last month. Over here at the Sunlight Labs, we took the logs and added them to the handy online, searchable database we created last month, so that you can see for yourself who is coming to the White House and why.

This is the first full month that has been release by the administration and adds almost 100,000 new records for October. As we mentioned back in January, this is a positive step by the Obama administration, and we are happy to see that they are committed to releasing this data in a timely basis.

We still don’t know how many records are being withheld, and for what purposes. It would be nice for the White House to release at least a number, and ultimately a justification (read: national security) for why those names have been redacted. None the less, this is still part of a much larger, unprecedented level of transparency on behalf of the administration.

One of the other problems with the White House visitor logs is that there is no real accurate way to ensure that if you see a “Samuel L. Jackson” in the logs, it's actually the actor. It could just be another Sam. That’s why we caution you, when you are reading through the records and doing your own independent research not to jump to conclusions. Otherwise, happy hunting!