New contribution disclosure rules provide some transparency in the world of "soft" influence seeking. In this case, these disclosure rules require the disclosure of contributions made "in honor of" a covered official, a lawmaker, executive branch or military official. A Seattle Times article looking into these contributions in honor of Washington state lawmakers shows Rep. Norm Dicks, a senior member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, as a frequent honoree for contributions made by corporations seeking defense contracts.

Boeing gave $10,000 earlier this year to one of Congressman Norm Dicks' favorite charities, the National Guard Youth Foundation.

So did Boeing's archrival, EADS, the parent company of Airbus.

But that's small change compared to another defense contractor, TriWest Healthcare Alliance, which gave $100,000 to the youth foundation's gala dinner in February honoring Dicks, a Bremerton Democrat, for his staunch support of the charity.

TriWest followed that up with a $50,000 contribution to another charity event hosted by Dicks and four other members of the powerful defense-appropriations subcommittee that doled out $459 billion in contracts this year.

Giving money to a charity favored by a lawmaker isn't quite like giving to their campaign committee, but it will likely gain you brownie points when money for your business is on the table. In this case, the desire to influence behavior, while denied by all parties involved, is plain as day for anyone looking from the outside.

Keith Ashdown of Taxpayers for Common Sense is quoted in the article saying, "There's nothing outrageous at all about giving to something that helps a National Guard entity ... I think it's a soft lobbying tactic that can make lawmakers think you're in their camp and loyal to their interests."

Not everyone has that kind of appetite apparently. Businesses and lobbying firms are still complaining about the disclosure of contributions - both campaign and honorary - required in the new lobbying disclosure forms (LD-203). "This is insanity. It is grossly overreacting on the part of the Hill," says one senior vice president of government relations.

The new lobbying reports are available online (you can search them here) and CQ Politics went through and picked out some of the contributions:

Chevron gave $1.2 million to an education program in Africa and South America that has a congressman on its board.

Wal-Mart Stores gave $200,000 to the Cancer Research and Prevention Foundation for a dinner honoring three lawmakers.

Coca-Cola Co., AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals and Anheuser-Busch Companies each chipped in six-figure contributions to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation.

...

• The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights spent $240,000 on its annual dinner, which honored Rep. John Conyers Jr. , D-Mich., at the Hilton Washington and Towers.

• Wal-Mart contributed $200,000 to the cancer foundation’s spring fundraiser March 14 at the National Building Museum. Sen. Tom Harkin , D-Iowa, and Reps. Norm Dicks , D-Wash., and Edward Whitfield , R-Ky, were honored as co-chairmen.

• The American Medical Association gave Harkin and House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer , D-Md., awards for outstanding government service at a dinner April 1 that cost $155,224.

• Pfizer Inc. gave Research! America $100,000 for a dinner March 18 at the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium that honored Sen. Edward M. Kennedy , D-Mass., with an award for advocating medical research.

There's way more available at both the Senate Office of Public Records site and the Clerk of the House's Lobbying Disclosure site. So, good hunting.

I'm sure the I'll have some time to go through these soon, so check back here too.

The New York Times printed a really interesting story today about the coziness between the Congressional Black Caucus and the tobacco industry and how that relationship is playing out in a controversy over a potential ban on menthol cigarettes.

Philip Morris over the years has been one of the biggest contributors to the caucus’s nonprofit Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. That financial support, in some years exceeding $250,000, and lesser amounts at times from other cigarette makers, has been the reason some critics perceived an alliance between big tobacco and African-American members of Congress, some of whom were willing to help fend off antitobacco efforts.

Among them, some critics have said, was Charles B. Rangel of New York. Although he supported some antitobacco initiatives, until the last few years Mr. Rangel staunchly opposed federal tobacco tax increases. He has said his stand was based on the disproportionate effect of excise taxes on the poor, not the thousands of dollars he received in tobacco industry political action committee donations.

Some caucus members have always seen tobacco money as a Faustian bargain and refused to take such donations, urging their colleagues to do likewise. One of them, John Lewis of Georgia, once told a reporter, “People are reluctant to criticize the giver, to bite the hand that feeds them.”

Black lawmakers who maintain strong tobacco industry ties include James E. Clyburn, who represents a tobacco-growing region of South Carolina and is majority whip of the House. Last year, Altria, the parent of Philip Morris, donated $50,000 to an endowment he established at South Carolina State University, a historically black college.

The donation to James Clyburn's endowment at South Carolina State University is of particular interest mainly because these are the types of influence-building contributions that fly under the radar. There isn't any dislcosure requirement for entities that are connected to a member to which corporations can donate. Recent controversies have swelled over contributions to the Reform Institute, a non-profit connected to Sen. John McCain, and the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York, affiliated with Rep. Charles Rangel.

The article is worth a read to see how influence takes place outside of typical channels like campaign finance and lobbying.