On the same day that President Obama met with a number of health care organizations, a group of 45 conservative Democrats sent an angry letter to three House committees protesting the secrecy around the production of health care legislation in the House. The New York Times reports that this large group of Blue Dog Democrats is "'increasingly troubled' by their exclusion from the bill-writing process." The Blue Dogs largely represent more conservative-leaning districts and take positions that are often favorable to industry. They are also big fundraisers, with their coalition PAC raking in large amounts from corporate PACs.

The Blue Dog PAC pulled in $2.26 million in PAC contributions during the 2008 election cycle. Approximately eighteen percent of that amount -- $410,300 -- came from PACs connected to the health sector. During the 2008 cycle, individuals members of the Blue Dog Coalition raised a combined $6.24 million from the health sector. The average contribution to a Blue Dog Democrat in the 2008 election cycle was slightly higher -- $122,370 -- than the average contribution to a Democratic lawmaker -- $116,748.

Rep. Mike Ross, who is noted in the Times article as leading the Blue Dog Health Care Task Force, received nearly twice the average for a Blue Dog Dem -- $259,625 -- from the health sector, the most from any sector. Some other top Blue Dogs, many of whom are on the Health Care Task Force, are also leading recipients of contributions from the health sector. Reps. Bart Gordon ($395,178), Earl Pomeroy ($392,699), Jim Matheson ($350,994), Jason Altmire ($336,729), John Tanner ($264,299), Ross ($259,625), Mike Thompson ($254,625), and Patrick Murphy ($239,371) all rank in top 50 recipients of health sector campaign contributions.

When examing health sector campaign contributions over the careers of the 51 members of the Blue Dogs, the numbers jump up dramatically. For their collective careers (some spanning decades, others only one or two election cycles), the Blue Dogs have raised a total of $17.6 million from the health sector. Two members -- Gordon and Pomeroy -- have received over $1 million in contributions. Three more -- Jim Cooper, Matheson and Tanner -- are close to reaching that mark.

A spokesman for House Energy & Commerce chair Henry Waxman, one of the recipients of the letter, stated that he has already met with members of the Blue Dogs and did not understand what the commotion was about. They obviously want a seat at the table. But are they bringing their campaign funding friends with them?

Health Sector Campaign Contributions to Blue Dog Democrats in 2008

Bart Gordon	($395,178)
Earl Pomeroy	($392,699)
Jim Matheson	($350,994)
Jason Altmire	($336,729)
John Tanner	($264,299)
Mike Ross	($259,625)
Mike Thompson	($254,625)
Patrick Murphy	($239,371)
Average Democrat	($116,748)
Average Blue Dog Democrat	($122,370)

The Wall Street Journal reports that the Home Builders lobby is ramping up their campaign for a section of the bailout pie.

Struggling U.S. auto makers left Washington empty-handed after weeks of pleading for a handout, but that hasn't deterred home builders from stepping up to lobby Congress for help.

But any federal assistance would require policy makers to figure out how to stimulate demand for housing -- the problem at the root of the global financial meltdown -- without artificially propping up home values.

The builders' lobby is ramping up its sales pitch for a $250 billion stimulus package called "Fix Housing First," arguing that financial markets won't recover until home prices stop falling. They are calling for a generous tax credit for home purchases and a federal subsidy that would lower a homeowner's mortgage rate.

The Home Builders should be relatively welcome on Capitol Hill, their PAC, the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), has spread around $1.7 million in contributions over the past two years. As has been explained before, PAC contributions are integral to formulating a working relationship with Congress. In fact, they appear a vital tool in obtaining bailout bucks. Total contributions from the Home Builder industry reach to $9.15 million for 2008.

Here's a list of the top recipients of Home Builder dough in the House:

2008 Home Builder Contributions to the House

Buchanan, Vernon (R-FL)	$97,500
Neal, Richard E (D-MA)	$38,900
Costa, Jim (D-CA)	$37,298
Cantor, Eric (R-VA)	$36,600
LaTourette, Steven C (R-OH)	$32,800
Wolf, Frank R (R-VA)	$32,300
Turner, Michael R (R-OH)	$26,550
Neugebauer, Randy (R-TX)	$25,450
Nunes, Devin Gerald (R-CA)	$24,400
Klein, Ron (D-FL)	$24,150
Tiberi, Patrick J (R-OH)	$23,998
Paul, Ron (R-TX)	$23,845
Davis, Geoff (R-KY)	$23,750
Kirk, Mark (R-IL)	$23,700
Mahoney, Tim (D-FL)	$22,750
Feeney, Tom (R-FL)	$22,500
Castle, Michael N (R-DE)	$22,371
Pastor, Ed (D-AZ)	$21,400
Chabot, Steve (R-OH)	$21,300
Donnelly, Joe (D-IN)	$21,300

Contributions in the Senate look like this: 2008 Home Builder Contributions to the Senate

McCain, John (R)	$489,238
Obama, Barack (D)	$219,128
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY)	$198,229
Cornyn, John (R-TX)	$57,050
Reed, Jack (D-RI)	$56,200
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY)	$51,550
Coleman, Norm (R-MN)	$49,800
Reid, Harry (D-NV)	$44,100
Dole, Elizabeth (R-NC)	$40,000
Sununu, John E (R-NH)	$38,100
Chambliss, Saxby (R-GA)	$37,450
Collins, Susan M (R-ME)	$37,150
Graham, Lindsey (R-SC)	$31,950
Biden, Joseph R Jr (D-DE)	$30,900
Alexander, Lamar (R-TN)	$28,000
Martinez, Mel (R-FL)	$26,250
Lautenberg, Frank R (D-NJ)	$19,950
Roberts, Pat (R-KS)	$19,500
Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R-TX)	$19,100
Specter, Arlen (R-PA)	$18,600

The "Fix Housing First" campaign doesn't end with the Home Builder industry - as represented in Washington by the NAHB. The lobbying campaign's web site lists some other serious lobbying power houses as supporters including the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the Business Roundtable. For the year of 2008, the Home Builder industry, NAM, and the Business Roundtable have spent a combined $19.76 million on lobbying in Washington.

(All totals are based on data culled from Open Secrets.)

If ever there was a doubt that campaign contributions effect the votes of lawmakers, look no further than today's Op-Ed from Amy Showalter in Roll Call. Showalter is the President of the Showalter Group, providing advice to corporations and trade associations on how to leverage grassroots pressure and PAC contributions in their lobbying efforts. Showalter's Op-Ed attempts to reveal why certain lawmakers changed their votes on the recent bailout legislation. In doing so, Showalter winds up higlighting the seedy behavior of feeding campaign contributions to lawmakers in exhange for votes and the stealth nature of grassroots lobbying. On PAC contributions she writes:

Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R-Mich.), who faced one of the toughest re-election fights in the House, told the Associated Press that he changed his mind after he received telephone calls from General Motors Corp. chief executive officer G. Richard Wagoner Jr. and other auto and corporate executives. “I’ve never talked to as many bank presidents in my life, over my entire life,” he said.

Knollenberg has received $131,500 from GM since he started serving in Congress in 1993, according to Federal Election Commission records, illustrating another “predictor of influence success.” Our survey showed that giving a legislator the maximum allowable political action committee contribution is a predictor of persuasion success.

Lobbyists representing the housing, financial, auto and other business sectors pushed hard for the bailout bill. Several of the lawmakers who changed their minds have received campaign contributions from those industry PACs.

Schmidt has received $70,100 from American Financial Group Inc., a Cincinnati-based insurance holding company, and $16,500 from the American Bankers Association since she was elected to Congress in 1989.

Rep. Judy Biggert (R) was the only Illinois lawmaker to change her mind about the bailout package. Since she began representing her suburban Chicago district in 1989, she has received $45,000 from the National Association of Realtors, $39,500 from the National Automobile Dealers Association and $37,548 from the ABA.

Most lawmakers say they aren’t influenced by campaign contributions, but the recent bailout votes suggest otherwise. We found that the most successful influence attempts typically include campaign contributions. In other words, a PAC contribution represents “exchange” and cements relationships.

While campaign contributions do have to be disclosed to the public, they are only disclosed in quarterly filing reports. This prevents the type of real-time oversight that could be occuring if these "exchanges" were made available to the public as they happened.

Showalter also emphasizes the need for lawmakers to here from "key influentials" in their district. These are often business leaders or small business owners who can be engaged in a grassroots lobbying campaign organized by trade associations. After the initial failure of the bailout bill in Congress, the business community, along with AARP, began a huge grassroots campaign to get business owners to call their congressmen and senators to push for passage of the bill. That grassroots push provided the many examples that Showalter uses in her Op-Ed to show the importance of constituent communications and likely pushed the bill to its ultimate, overwhelming success.

While coalitions that often engage in this type of manufactured grassroots pressure are required to disclose their activities under the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, the actual effort of grassroots lobbying is still left untouched by disclosure requirements. In the world according to Showalter, a pro at influencing lawmakers, the best ways to get to a lawmaker's heart are still through means not fully policed by disclosure laws.