It’s probably not necessary to remind you what semi-national holiday is today. From heart shaped donuts at the Krispy Kreme to special couples’ menu at the restaurants to the plethora of sweets and candied hearts in the office, today is indeed National Heart Health Day! Okay, maybe that was two weeks ago (National Wear Red Day) and all those sweets would probably be terrible for your heart. I won’t sugar coat it anymore (*wince) but it is indeed Valentine’s Day. A day dedicated to the celebration of your loved one(s) and to supporting the flowers/confectionery/greeting card industry.

But in the midst of all that love, can you spare some for Sunlight?

Sure we aren’t your significant other, or even casually dating, but we have been there for you when you needed us most…

Remember that time you thought your ‘loved’ one was cheating on you and found all that weird campaign finance and lobbying spending on Influence Explorer?

Or when you weren’t sure if you were ready to commit because of all the stuff you were reading in the news media? We helped you run a Poligraft on that.

And whenever there was a break in your social calendar, we helped you fill it up with the hottest parties in town with Party Time. Speaking of which, did you make it to the V-Day breakfast this morning?

And when your friend Kevin was freaking you out by putting together a compilation of scary political ads about China, you were able to look at the influence for yourself with the Foreign Lobbying Influence Tracker.

And lastly, when you were sick of being nagged to ‘take out the trash - we got you the proof of every time you have been told to do it in Capitol Words (apparently only a handful of times, so stop being so sensitive!)

They say a functional relationship is one where there is a healthy give and take… and after all that we have given you, we only ask for one thing. Scientific research shows that people are more prone to respond positively to favors and request if presented in poetry, so here we go:

Roses are red,

Violets are blue,

Do you love Sunlight?

Vote for us for a Shorty Award!

Watch out Buddy Roemer, we are coming for you, even if your #superPACvalentine is pretty awesome. Voting closes on the 17th, so please tweet your vote today!

Totally non-transparency/opengov related Valentine’s Day fun: http://awkwardfamilyphotos.com/2012/02/13/afp-valentines-slideshow/

Military defense contractors and lobbyists are rushing to support the wife of Congressional House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon in her bid for California state assembly, according to a Salon article earlier this month.

The article reports that in the first few months of fundraising, Patricia McKeon was able to collect $19,200 from defense contractors or their lobbyists. This includes $3,000 from Lockheed Martin - a company currently locked in a battle to maintain funding for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jet.  It also includes donations from lobbying firm Beau Boulter LLC, which lobbies on behalf of Proxy Aviations, and Bruce Leftwich, a DC-based government affairs specialist.

The California Secretary of State's website provides campaign finance data for all candidates running for public office, including Patricia McKeon's. The data can be searched by contributions received or made, expenditures made, late and high dollar contributions, and late independent expenditures. The contributions listed on Mrs. McKeon's disclosure page include:

• $3,000 given to Mrs. McKeon's campaign on Oct. 28, 2011 from Bethesda-based Lockheed Martin.
• $1,500 given to the campaign by the Arlington, VA lobby shop Beau Boulter on Dec. 29, 2011. The Center for Responsive Politics' lobbying firm look up tool shows that in 2011 Beau Boulter LLC earned over $1.5 million from lobbying on behalf of several companies from the sea and air transport and defense industries.
• $500 donated to Mrs. McKeon on Nov. 15, 2011 from DC lobbyist Bruce Leftwich. A search using Sunlight's Influence Explorer indicates that in 2011-2012 Leftwich lobbied on veterans affairs and education issues along with the federal budget and appropriations. He also donated $2,000 to Mrs. McKeon's husband, Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), in 2007-2008.
• The campaign finance data provided by the Secretary of State does not indicate the industry associated with the donations (where applicable), so the $19,200 from the defense industry reported by Salon was likely the result of manual research into the names of employers on Mrs. McKeon's donation list. The National Institute on Money in State Politics and the Center for Responsive Politics both provide research tools that associate individuals and corporations with an industry.

• The top industries supporting Rep. McKeon financially across all years include Defense Aerospace, Misc Defense, Defense Electronics, Lobbyists, and General Contractors.
• Rep. McKeon was the number one beneficiary of the Defense Aerospace industry in 2011-2012.
• He was also the number one recipient for campaign contributions from Beau Boulter LLC in 2011-2012. The other top beneficiaries of the lobby shop during the 2011-2012 election cycle were also all Republican members of the House Armed Services Committee.

There are almost 27,000 people—or 1/100th of one percent of the United States population—who spent more than $10,000 to influence elections during the 2010 election cycle.

The top 10 people from this elite class of donors together spent more than $23 million on the last election. The majority of that money went to Super PACs used for independent expenditures. Eight contributed their money exclusively to Republican groups and candidates; two contributed exclusively to Democratic groups and candidates.

In total, this tiny group of relatively unknown individuals was responsible for $774 million of the $3.2 billion that poured into the hotly contested mid-term elections. That money went not only to candidate campaigns and political action committees, but to Super PACs, officially known as “independent expenditure-only committees.” After the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Citizens United and the Federal Election Commission’s two advisory opinions that followed, individuals and corporations effectively have unlimited giving potential. By giving to Super PACs, they can bypass traditional giving limits.

The group that benefited most from the top 10 mega-donors largesse: American Crossroads. That Super PAC received millions of dollars from seven of the top donors, and $7 million from just one donor, Bob Perry.

Here’s a look at who’s who among America’s top 10 most influential givers:

1. Bob Perry is the CEO of Perry Homes. Perry has been influential in politics and a prominent donor for a number of years. In 2004, he gave $8 million to a number of nonprofit political groups known as 527 committees. Most notably, $4.4 million of that money went to the political group Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, which opposed Sen. John Kerry’s presidential bid. During the 2010 election cycle, Perry donated $7.3 million to political efforts. All but a small portion of his money for the 2010 election went to American Crossroads, a group cofounded by former George W. Bush strategist Karl Rove and former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie.

2. Wayne Hughes, owner and chairman of Public Storage, Inc. According to disclosures, Hughes gave a total of $3.28 million to conservative candidates and committees, with $3.25 million going to American Crossroads. Hughes also gave $4,800 to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va.

3. Fred Eshelman is the CEO of Pharmaceutical Product Development. Eshelman spent $3 million in 2010 funding his own group, RightChange. RightChange registered with the FEC as a Super PAC and spent those millions of dollars to defeat Democratic candidates including Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado and Sen. Patty Murray of Washington.

4. Robert Rowling, CEO and Chairman of TRT Holdings, a holding company that owns Golds Gyms and Omni Hotels as well as oil and gas interests. Rowling spent $2.59 million during the last election on conservative efforts. He gave $2.5 million of that money to American Crossroads.

5. Donald Sussman is the Chairman of the holding company Paloma Partners. Sussman, who earlier this year married Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, gave $1.26 million in 2010 to Democratic candidates. He has also funded a group called the Democracy Fund, a separate but predecessor organization to the United Republic Action Fund. Both of these groups have been affiliated with United Republic, and both have been dissolved.* Sussman gave a little more than $750,000 to the Super PAC Women Vote! and its parent organization Emily’s List. Those two organizations support pro-choice female political candidates.

6. John Ricketts is the founder of TD Ameritrade and still a board member there. In 2010, his total political contributions were $1.25 million. He gave to a variety of Republican candidates, including House Speaker John Boehner.
   

7. Jerry Perenchio is the CEO of the investment firm Chartwell Partners and former owner of the Spanish-speaking television network Univision. In 2010, he gave $1.12 million to conservative candidates and groups, including $1 million to American Crossroads.

8. Trevor Rees-Jones is the president of Chief Oil & Gas. In 2010, he gave $1.1 million to Republican efforts. $1,000,000 of that was given to American Crossroads.

9. Rachel Hunter is the Treasurer for the organization Media Matters and an heir to the Hyatt Hotels fortune. She’s related to Penny Pritzker who was the national finance chairwoman of the Obama campaign in 2008. In 2010, Hunter gave more than $1 million to democratic groups and candidates. The bulk of that money went to the 527 organization, Bring Ohio Back.

10. John Childs is on the Board of Directors for Club for Growth and is the founder of JW Childs Assoc., a private equity firm. In 2010, he gave a total $923,000 to Super PACs supporting Republicans and to Republican candidates directly. He gave $100,000 of that money to American Crossroads and $650,000 to his own group, Club for Growth.

For a full list of the top donors for 2010, see the embedded spreadsheet below.

Also, as a disclaimer, we think it is important to note that there are funders of the Sunlight Foundation on this list. For example, David Bonderman and Marjorie Roswell are numbers 9 and 103 on the list and have donated to the Sunlight Foundation. Additionally, the founder of the Open Society Foundations, George Soros, is 134th on the list. Open Society Foundations has provided grant support to Sunlight.

*Based on inaccurate information received from a source at United Republic, we originally reported incorrectly that Donald Sussman is a funder of that organization.

Last week I blogged on the Influence Around Us and took a look at the amount of money spent by the groups and businesses on campaign contributions and lobbying right in our neighborhood.

We heard lots of positive feedback and interest from our readers who wanted to explore the influence of money in politics around them. So, to help sweeten the sleuthing, we are launching a photo contest! Take your own photo or screenshot from street view on Google Maps and tag it with data from Influence Explorer using Thinglink. We will send you a prize for your participation and if your photo is worth more than our intersection, you will win a grand prize! Send your Thinglinked photos to info@sunlightfoundation.com or post a link to your picture to our Facebook wall to enter!

For a few months now, Occupy Wall Street (OWS) has been garnering attention and support around a central frustration over the undue influence of money in politics. Wall Street (hence the OWS moniker) was targeted as the embodiment of corporate excess, economic inequality and a particularly cozy relationship with the federal government. Occupys all over the country have channeled their frustrations over government bailout of banks into catchy protest slogans like:

‘Banks got bailed out, we got sold out’ and ‘Hey, hey, ho, ho, this corporate greed has got to go’.

But the influence of money in politics is not just aggregated in the iconic buildings of Wall Street or the halls of the Capitol. Those businesses and institutions that participate in the game of influencing our federal government are all around us: from the ruby red hue of the Bank of America on the corner to your local fast food joint to the innocuous looking buildings on Wall Street, K Street or Main Street. Without a scarlet L emblazoned on the awnings of the powerful lobbying firms, it is hard to spot the influence with the naked eye (although there is a map of the top ones in DC). But with a little research it’s easy to uncover the influence.

Take for instance the intersection of Connecticut and N Street (scroll over image right) as seen from our offices by Dupont Circle. We have two banks within sight: Wells Fargo and Citibank. For data available from Influence Explorer, Wells Fargo contributed $13.8 million in campaign contributions and spent a total of $24.1 million in lobbying while Citibank dropped $31.1 million into campaign coffers and lobbied to the tune of $108.2 million.* (Just a drop in the bucket compared to the $7.77 trillion the federal government spent to save the financial system as reported recently by Bloomberg News)

But the influence isn’t limited to banks; our neighbors the National Association of Broadcasters (a group representing broadcast networks) donated $9.7 million to political candidates and matched Citibank’s lobbying efforts at $108.2 million. A little further down the street, the Western Coal Traffic League spent $1 million on lobbying efforts to protect the interest of coal product consumers. Even the American Society for Microbiology got into the influence game by throwing $2,415 at candidates and schmoozing legislators for $80,000.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, but this photo is actually worth roughly $305 million in influence.

Can you spot the influence in your neighborhood?

*Influence Explorer has earliest aggregated data available from 1989 for campaign contributions and lobbying data since 1998.

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley filed a lawsuit yesterday against five major U.S. banks for violating the state’s laws to protect consumers by conducting unfair and deceptive practices during the foreclosure crisis.

The complaint claims that Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citi, JP Morgan Chase and Co., and Ally Financial all committed violations of the state’s laws to protect consumer rights and damaged public records through faulty and fraudulent foreclosure proceedings, failing to modify home loans and the use of a system known as the Mortgage Electronic Records System (MERS).

Much of the outrage towards these banks and others stems from the money they received during the housing and financial crisis that began in 2008. All five of these banks received billions of dollars in emergency funds through the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) to ensure their stability and keep them from failing. But now, after many citizens and politicians feel the banks haven’t reciprocated the concern the public and the government had for their financial troubles, they’ve found themselves in legal and political trouble, including this lawsuit.

The violations these banks are accused of committing come after a series of programs that were intended to help the banks help the people. Regularly, before and after those programs were put into place, these banks take part in influential tactics to keep their own bottom line on the minds of lawmakers and not necessarily the financial stability of the public through campaign contributions, lobbying and other less-expected and less-expensive ways.

According to InfluenceExplorer.com, contributions to candidates across the country affiliated with these five banks totaled nearly $14 million. However, only a rather insignificant portion of that money—$173,000—went to Massachusetts politicians.

Also according to Influence Explorer, Bank of America’s political action committee and its employees and their family members gave $4.8 million to state and federal candidates during the 2009-10 election cycle. Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank received $25,000 of that money.

BofA also lobbied heavily on a variety of bills related to finance and other issues, spending $7.4 million during those same two years. BofA frequently disclosed lobbying on the Dodd-Frank bill—officially known as H.R. 4173, The Wall Street Transparency and Accountability Act of 2010. Presumably, the banking giant spent a great deal of that money to influence the formation and implementation of this bill, which was intended to regulate many banking practices that had no formal regulation before and threatened to significantly lower the profits a bank could rake in. The goal of that bill, according to lawmakers, was to make sure the country would never see a financial crisis like the one recently experienced again.

According to Federal Advisory Committee Act data also displayed on Influence Explorer, as of 2011, Bank of America has five employees sitting on federal advisory committees. Those employees are in the position to advise various agencies on how to implement regulations and do business, usually doing so on issues that affect their own business matters. Walter Muller, the bank’s Chief Investment Officer, sits on the Department of Treasury’s Advisory Committee of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.

JP Morgan is a big spender in Washington as well. During the 2009-10 election cycle, there were $3.4 million campaign contributions affiliated with financial company. There were also $13.4 million in lobbying expenditures reported. Like BofA, JP Morgan reported lobbying heavily on the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform bill.

JP Morgan doesn’t currently have any employees on any federal advisory committees, but did in 2010 when the company’s Executive Director of Environmental Affairs sat on an advisory committee with the Department of Commerce.

If you’d like more influence data about these two companies, or the remaining three being sued by Massachusetts—Well Fargo, Ally Financial (formerly GMAC) and Citi—you can visit InfluenceExplorer.com and TransparencyData.com.

Part of the lawsuit has been brought about because the attorney general Martha Coakley doesn’t believe the banks have adequately satisfied promises to modify mortgages and slowdown the rampant foreclosures happening in the state. For information on that issue, see the report we did on the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), which is a funded through TARP.

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.

Do you remember the AT&T/T-Mobile merger that dominated the news earlier this fall? It caused quite the stir in Washington, with numerous outlets reporting on AT&T's massive lobbying efforts to push through the merger. Bloomberg was one such news outlet, reporting a story of expensive steaks and 'lobbyist's libations' in early September. The story focused on the numerous swanky fundraisers AT&T was hosting as well as their generous campaign donations to key lawmakers.

This was undoubtedly a great investigative piece and involved a good deal of skilled journalism. Using this article as a guide, however, it's possible to see how any of us - or you - could do a similar investigation.

Fundraisers

The article begins describing the lavish fundraisers AT&T had been hosting for lawmakers, citing Sunlight's Party Time data.

• "AT&T hosted at least nine fundraising receptions and dinners since the deal was announced on March 20."
• One of which was held at Charlie Palmer Steak, where "AT&T and one of its outside firms, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, shared hosting duties for a June 14 fundraising dinner for Representative Henry Waxman, of California."
• Another was held at BLT Steak. The article says it "was the scene of a June 21 fundraising dinner hosted by AT&T for Representative Peter Roskam, an Illinois Republican who sits on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee."

Sunlight's Party Time data is free and available for anyone to use. We manually collect fundraiser and event invitations and put them online. They are searchable by a variety of of criteria including committee, leadership PAC, beneficiary, host, and venue.

For example, a PartyFinder search for "AT&T" as a "Host" returns a list of all the fundraisers hosted by AT&T's Federal PAC. The most recent one was September 20th. A PartyFinder search for "Charlie Palmer Steak" as "Venue Name" returns a list of all the fundraisers held at the restaurant mentioned in the article. It's a popular locale - already three fundraisers are scheduled to be held there next month.

Campaign Donations

The article makes a number of points that suggest AT&T exerted its political influence through campaign donations. The article notes the following, frequently citing data obtained from the Center for Responsive Politics:

• "AT&T's political action committee gave $805,500 to federal candidates."
• The company's PAC "was the most generous corporate PAC this year."
• "House Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and Representative Fred Upton... each received $5,000 from AT&T’s PAC."
• During the past year AT&T Senior Executive Vice President Jim Cicconi donated "$1,500 to Boehner, $2,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and $1,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee."
• Since 2009, AT&T Chief Executive Officer Randall Stephenson has donated "$2,000 to Boehner, $6,000 to the Republican senatorial committee and $4,000 to the Republican congressional committee."
• "AT&T’s contributions this year have split 64 percent to Republicans and 36 percent to Democrats, compared with... 55 percent Republican and 45 percent Democratic in the previous election cycle."
• "AT&T’s PAC has given Waxman $4,000 so far this year, and Akin Gump’s PAC gave him $1,200."
• "Roskam received $3,500 from AT&T’s PAC."
  

Lobbying Efforts

The article notes that AT&T "boosted lobbying spending by 30 percent to $11.7 million in the first six months of 2011 compared with a year earlier" and that the company "supplemented its own in-house lobbyists with 18 outside firms pushing for the merger." The article specifically notes:

• "The firm of former U.S. senators John Breaux [ ... ] and Trent Lott [ ... ] received $240,000."
• "A company headed by former U.S. Representative J.C. Watts [ ... ] got $100,000."
• "Former House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin’s firm was paid $50,000"
• "Wiley Rein LLP, a law firm [ ... ] co-founded by former Federal Communications Commission Chairman Richard Wiley, received $160,000."
• "Clyburn Consulting LLC, where the principal [ ... ] a cousin to Representative James Clyburn [ ... ] received $60,000"
• "Akin Gump received $240,000 this year to lobby on behalf of the merger and other issues."

It’s well known by now that the Occupy Wall Street protesters are occupying Zuccotti park – a park just a couple blocks away from Wall Street in lower Manhattan. That occupation was almost ended when the owner of the park asked that the park be cleared so it can be cleaned last week.

That owner, Brookfield Properties, has not only become the unhappy landlord of a movement that has spread across the country, but also takes part in the some of the practices #occupy protesters appear to have an issue with: using money to push corporate interests through Congress and influence the political process. It should be noted that Brookfield’s involvement in politics through contributions and lobbying and the presence of Occupy Wall Street protestors in their park is purely coincidental and neither Brookfield nor people emailed with the OWS movement have said otherwise. It is, however, an interesting coincidence.

Zuccotti park operates as a public space and is open 24 hours a day. It is privately owned by Canada-based Brookfield Properties. Brookfield is a publicly traded real estate company with land and buildings in some of the most prestigious areas of the United States. They also happen to lease properties to Bank of America and Wells Fargo, both banks given TARP money during the financial bailout in 2008 and an issue that helped spark the OWS movement.

Brookfield employees have been active in political giving on the federal level for the last decade. Brookfield CEO Richard Clark and Chariman John Zuccotti—the man the park is named after—are both donors to various politicians in New York and other states and donors to an influential real estate trade political action committee. In the 1970’s, Zuccotti was the chairman of the New York Planning Commission and following that position was deputy mayor of New York.

Between 2000 and 2010, Richard Clark made at least $169,950 in contributions to PACS and committees such as Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the National Association of Real Estate Trusts and various politicians such as Kristen Gillibrand(D-NY) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Records also show that Clark has given to Super Committee Member Chris Van Hollen (D-MD).

John Zuccotti’s contributions between the years 2002 and 2010 were $195,300 to many of the same committees, PACs and politicians as Clark, according to TransparencyData.

Brookfield Asset Management—a company listed on Brookfield Properties’ website as having a controlling stake in the company—has reported spending just over $500,000 lobbying the federal government on energy, financial and tax issues since 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Occupy Wall Street movement has been protesting what participants consider corporate greed for 34 days now. The protest has been replicated across the country in Washington DC, Denver and San Diego, to name just a few places. The movement cites the Arab Spring at Tahrir Square in Egypt and protests also inspired by poor economic conditions that took place in Spain earlier this year as inspiration for the occupations.

Koch Industries, the closely held firm led by conservative and libertarian political donors Charles and David Koch, has a long record of entanglements with federal regulatory authorities; its foreign subsidiaries traded with Iran and some of its foreign employees violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by using bribes to get business deals, according to an exhaustive account by Bloomberg News. That record wasn't sufficient to prevent an executive from the company, Don Clay, from holding a position advising the government on some of the very issues the multi-billion dollar conglomerate has been in trouble for violating, according to official records available through the Sunlight Foundation’s Influence Explorer.

Clay, who before joining Koch Industries served as an assistant administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency, sat on the agency's advisory committee for the the Clean Air Act and on some of its subcommittees that provided advice on various matters including regulation of toxic substances. Records show that Clay sat on multiple EPA federal advisory committees beginning in 1998 -- when he left his official post at the EPA and joined Koch Industries, through 2009.

Clay was in a position to advise the government on how to regulate a company he worked for, which is owned by people regularly fighting for less regulation in general. The EPA did not respond to questions about what issues Clay worked on exactly while he was on the advisory committee.

EPA enforcement data records presented on InfluenceExplorer.com, show details of some of the enforcement actions carried out against Koch Industries and its subsidiaries by the EPA, such as an incident in 2001 where Koch Pipeline dumped over 300,000 pounds of a toxic substance in Iowa, violating the Superfund. The company was fined $2.3 million dollars for that violation.

The table below is taken from InflunceExplorer.com and shows EPA violations by Koch Industries and its subsidiaries dating back to 2001. The data is new to the site and allows access to information that was once hard to obtain.

During the span of years that Clay held his position on the federal advisory committee, Koch Industries reported spending close to $32 million to influence multiple issues including the environment in 1998 and between 2006-2009, according to information obtained from lobbyist disclosure forms and displayed on TransparencyData.

Clay’s position on the advisory committee, in combination with lobbying efforts, gave Koch Industries an additional avenue to influence government. Not only could the company use its lobbyists to influence lawmakers and administration officials, it also had an inside advisor who could recommend policies preferred by the company directly to the EPA.