On March 16, the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets & Government Sponsored Enterprises held a hearing to discuss five pieces of legislation proposed by committee freshmen to increase investment and roll back aspects of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law enacted in 2010. This effort was part of the “identify and remedy” slow-motion assault on the financial reform law proposed by Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus, R-Ala.

While Republicans have begun identifying Dodd-Frank provisions to repeal, the financial sector has identified committee freshmen as prime recipients for campaign contributions.

A review of first quarter campaign finance filings by Sunlight shows that seven of the ten freshmen Republicans appointed to the House Financial Services Committee have received 40 percent or more of their political action committee (PAC) contributions from the finance, insurance, and real estate sector. Five of these members—Robert Hurt, R-Va., Steve Stivers, R-Ohio, Sean Duffy R-Wis., Francisco Canseco, R-Texas, and Bill Huizenga, R-Mich.—received over 50 percent of their total PAC contributions from the sector their committee oversees.

The sector contributed a total of $592,578 to the ten Republican freshmen on the committee. More than half of that total has come since the Subcommittee hearing in mid-March.

The Financial Services Committee has long been known as a “cash committee,” a hotbed of fundraising for favored freshmen facing expensive sophomore elections. That’s because no sector gives more money to congressional elections than finance.

Since 1998, the finance, insurance, and real estate sector has given nearly $2 billion to federal candidates for office, more than $700 million more than the second biggest contributing sector.

The top financial sector contributors to committee freshmen were New York Life Insurance ($51,000), Pricewaterhouse Coopers ($31,500), the Independent Community Bankers Association ($31,000), the Investment Company Institute ($29,000), and the Mortgage Bankers Association ($25,000).

The freshmen with a disproportionate share of their campaign funds from the sector they are meant to oversee are just following the fundraising strategy employed by Chairman Bachus. No congressman is more reliant on finance sector contributions than Bachus, who has pulled in 84 percent of his PAC contributions from the finance sector and 70 percent of his total contributions during the first three months of 2011.

Under the new Republican majority, the committee has turned into the central force opposing new rules and regulations being written by federal agencies as a part of the Dodd-Frank implementation process. The committee freshmen have been put front-and-center as sponsors of legislation to repeal sections of the financial reform bill.

Rep. Nan Hayworth, R-N.Y., is sponsoring a bill to repeal a Dodd-Frank provision on CEO pay disclosure. A provision requiring certain private equity firm advisers to register with the SEC is the target of a bill by Rep. Robert Hurt, R-Va. Rep. Steve Stivers, R-Ohio, is looking to repeal a controversial provision making credit ratings agencies liable for the ratings they assign. Oversight of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s decisions would increase under a bill pushed by Rep. Sean Duffy, R-Wis. Staten Island Rep. Michael Grimm, R-N.Y., introduced a bill to expand exemptions for commodity traders under the derivatives regulation currently being implemented by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

Committee freshmen have also signed on as cosponsors to a couple of bills to reign in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a noted target for banks and business groups created by Dodd-Frank. Eight committee freshmen signed on to a bill introduced by Chairman Bachus that would alter the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) by replacing the appointed director with a five-member commission.

Some of the big finance organizations contributing to committee freshmen are also backing bills that they've sponsored and cosponsored.

The Independent Community Bankers Association backs the Bachus bill to reign in the CFPB. In testimony before the committee a representative of the community bank trade group stated, “would help ensure that the actions of the CFPB are measured, non-partisan and result in balanced, high quality rules and effective consumer protection.” The ICBA PAC contributed $31,000 to committee freshmen in the first quarter.

The bill is also supported by the American Bankers Association, which gave $14,000 to committee freshmen. A representative for the Bankers Association also testified before the committee to explain their support for this measure, “The resulting practically boundless grant of agency discretion is exacerbated by giving the head of the Bureau sole authority to make decisions that could fundamentally alter the financial choices available to customers.”

Meanwhile, the American Benefits Council, a trade group for some of the biggest corporations in America, has been lobbying for Rep. Hayworth’s bill to repeal a CEO pay disclosure provision. Many members of the Benefits Council are contributors to the committee freshmen including Bank of America, Citigroup, Deloitte, Ernst & Young, the Investment Company Institute, JPMorgan Chase, New York Life Insurance, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, and Wells Fargo.

Another bill, cosponsored by freshmen Reps. Francisco Canseco, R-Texas, and James Renacci, R-Ohio, is at the center of one of the biggest lobbying battles of 2011. The Consumer Payments System Protection Act would delay the implementation of a Federal Reserve rule that would limit the amount that banks can charge retailers for every swipe of a debit card. These fees, known as interchange fees, account for billions in business for banks. The bill is supported by contributors to committee freshmen including the ICBA, the ABA, the Credit Union National Association, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, MasterCard, and Visa.

Last year House Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., stated his philosophy on how the relationship between Washington and Wall Street should proceed, "In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks." According to first quarter campaign contribution filings due today the financial sector generously supports Chairman Bachus' philosophy.

Bachus raised over seventy percent of his total first quarter campaign contributions from the finance, insurance, and real estate sector (FIRE). This totaled $212,335 out of Bachus' haul of $299,439.

The majority of this money, $122,506, came from FIRE sector political action committees. This accounted for eighty-four percent of the total political action committee contributions Bachus received. Another $89,835--fifty-eight percent of all individual contributions to Bachus--was contributed by individuals who work in the FIRE sector.

Bachus is leading the charge against the implementation of a host of rules mandated by the Dodd-Frank law passed last year including those governing derivatives, consumer protection, and debit swipe fees. At the end of last year, Bachus stated that he would go "page by page . . . to identify job-killing provisions or lending-killing provisions."

A previous Sunlight Foundation study found that Bachus was the most reliant on contributions from the FIRE sector in 2010 having raised sixty-three percent of all contributions from the sector.

Political action committees contributing to Bachus this year include big banks, credit unions, real estate companies, and electronic payment networks. Below is a full list of FIRE PACs giving to Bachus and the dates of their contributions:

PAC	Date	Amount
Affinity Federal Credit Union	03/04/11	2500
America Institute of Certified Public Accountants	02/10/11	1000
America Institute of Certified Public Accountants	03/31/11	4000
American Express	01/27/11	2500
American Financial Services Association	01/27/11	5000
Bank of America	01/18/11	1000
C.V. Starr & Company	03/31/11	2500
C.V. Starr & Company	03/31/11	2500
Capital One Financial Corp	03/24/11	5000
Chicago Board Options Exchange	03/04/11	5000
Coastal Federal Credit Union	02/25/11	1000
Community Financial Services Association	03/31/11	2000
Compass Banc	02/10/11	1000
Credit Union Legislative Action Council	03/12/11	5000
Crowe Horwath	03/31/11	4000
Credit Union National Association Mutual Group	03/04/11	1000
Deloitte & Touche	03/31/11	4000
Ernst & Young"	02/10/11	5000
Independent Community Bankers Association	01/27/11	1000
Independent Community Bankers Association	03/11/11	4000
Independent Community Bankers Association	03/11/11	5000
Independent Insurance Agents of America	03/24/11	1000
Insured Retirement Institute	03/24/11	1000
IntercontinentalExchange	02/03/11	1000
Investment Company Institute	02/10/11	2500
JPMorgan Chase	02/11/11	5000
JPMorgan Chase	02/11/11	5000
KeyCorp	01/27/11	1000
MetLife	03/11/11	2500
Mortgage Bankers Association	03/31/11	1000
National Association of Federal Credit Unions	01/27/11	5000
National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors	02/03/11	1000
National Multi Housing Council	01/27/11	5000
National Venture Capital Association	01/07/11	2000
New York Life Insurance	03/24/11	5000
QC Holdings	03/04/11	4000
Security Service Federal Credity Union	03/12/11	1000
The Northern Trust Company	02/10/11	1000
Total System Services	03/12/11	2500
UBS Americas	03/08/11	5000
VISA	01/27/11	5000

In the first two months of 2011 groups associated with a coalition opposing the implementation of new rules for debit “interchange” fees that banks charge to businesses had already contributed over $500,000 in political action committee money to dozens of lawmakers, including backers of a bill that would delay the rules from going into effect.

The Electronic Payments Coalition is opposing a new rule proposed by the Federal Reserve as part of the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill that would cap debit “interchange” fees at 12 cents per transaction. This amounts to a more than seventy percent reduction in cost per transaction.

Interchange fees have become an increasing profit center for banks and credit network companies. In the past, credit networks like Visa and MasterCard have set the fees, while the banks issuing cards reaped the profits, which topped $45 billion in recent years. Electronic network operators like Visa and MasterCard gain business by setting higher fees, which then entice banks to issue more cards on their respective networks so that banks can profit from the fees.

It is no surprise then that the coalition opposing limits on interchange fees consists of the network providers, the biggest banks, and their trade groups. Credit unions and smaller community banks have also joined the coalition. These smaller, more locally focused banks fear that the rule may affect their much smaller profits and benefit the bigger banks that can weather a haircut over interchange fees. This is despite the fact that the rule applies only to fees paid to banks with profits of $10 billion or more.

The majority of the PAC contributions flowing to lawmakers in the early months of 2011 have come from the trade companies associated with the credit unions and community bankers. The Credit Union National Association (CUNA) contributed $146,500 and the Independent Community Bankers Association (ICBA) contributed $163,500 to lawmakers. This accounts for more than half of all the PAC contributions to lawmakers.

The Huffington Post’s Zach Carter explained that the ICBA has a direct stake in the interchange fee rules as the trade group issues its own debit card and rakes in profits from the interchange fees charged to merchants.

In March Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., introduced the Debit Interchange Fee Study Act, a bill to delay the implementation of the new rules for one year while the Fed conducts a further study of their impact. In the two months preceding the introduction of the bill Tester received $9,500 in PAC contributions from five of the twenty biggest members of the coalition. Tester is the fourth highest recipient of Electronic Payments Coalition PAC money among senators.

Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., is the top recipient of money from top coalition members in the Senate. Carper, an original cosponsor of Tester’s bill, received $13,000 over January and February. Carper is known as a bank friendly Democrat as his home state of Delaware is home to many banks taking advantage of the state’s low tax rates.

Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W. Va., introduced an identical bill in the House of Representatives. Capito, the Chair of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, received $5,000 from coalition members in the first two months of the year. The top recipient of PAC money from coalition members was House Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus, R-Ala. Bachus, an opponent of the Dodd-Frank law, received $71,000 in contributions from coalition members in January and February. Bachus explained his opposition to the fee rules in a letter to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, "Hastily written rules may end up doing more harm than good to consumers and have negative effects on competition in the marketplace." A previous Sunlight Foundation report showed that Bachus received more than sixty percent of his campaign contributions from the finance, insurance, and real estate sector.

The other top recipients include party leaders like Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy; key committee members such as, Ways & Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp and Financial Services Committee members Patrick McHenry and Steve Stivers.

Already in 2011 coalition members are increasing their lobbying presence as the campaign against the debit fee rules ramps up. The major coalition partners hired twenty-four lobbying firms in 2010 that listed lobbying on the interchange fee rule in their disclosure forms. Eighteen of those firms were registered with the two major credit network companies, MasterCard and Visa.

These firms include some of the biggest in Washington including Akin Gump, Ogilvy Government Relations, Quinn Gillespie, Sidley Austin, and Williams and Jensen.

Sixty-eight of the seventy-nine lobbyists for these eighteen firms registered with Visa or MasterCard previously worked in government, according to data obtained from the Center for Responsive Politics.

Former Reps. Dick Gephardt, Donald Sundquist, and Robert Walker are all registered with Visa. MasterCard retains the law firm of Clark Lytle & Geduldig, which is also registered to lobby for the Electronic Payments Association, the American Bankers Association, and the Financial Services Roundtable. One of the firm’s partners, Sam Geduldig, is a former senior staffer on the House Financial Services Committee.

Visa has continued to beef up their lobbying practice with two new registrations this year. The company hired FIRST Group in January and Hollier & Associates on the first of April.

The Federal Reserve stated recently that it will fail to meet the April 21 deadline to issue the new rules due to the 11,000 comments from the public on the rules.

Facing a battle with the Peruvian government over a smelting operation that has caused severe environmental damage to a town in the Andean mountains, the Renco Group and its owner, billionaire Ira Rennert, assembled a formidable lobbying team in a matter of months that includes eight former government officials from five different Washington firms, and has succeeded in getting members of Congress from both parties and the Obama administration to aid it in its cause.

Renco Group’s hiring spree, uncovered using Sunlight’s Lobbying Registration Tracker, shows how private interests strategically employ lobbyists with insider connections to current officials to influence public policy. However, because lobbyists are not required to disclose which members of Congress they’ve contacted, and because none of Renco Group’s lobbyists would comment for this story, we can only note the connections between the lobbyists and the members of Congress who acted on the company’s behalf.

Among its hires, the Renco Group retained the services of a pair of lobbyists with ties to Rep. Donald Payne, D-N.J., and House Financial Services Committee chairman Spencer Bachus, R-Ala. In January, both lawmakers wrote letters to the Treasury Department about Doe Run Peru (DRP), Renco’s subsidiary, and its dispute with the Peruvian government, Treasury letters responding to the congressmen show.

In February, eleven days after his former chief of staff, Kerry McKenney, registered to lobby on Renco’s behalf, Payne had a letter entered into the Congressional Record addressed to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in which he expressed a “serious concern” about Lima’s treatment of Doe Run Peru and the Renco Group.

"Secretary Geithner has indicated that they have approached the Peruvian government about the issue," Laverne Alexander, Payne's current chief of staff, said.

At issue is a complicated financial and environmental dispute involving a metal smelter that began operations in 1922 in the town of La Oroya, Peru. The Blacksmith Institute, an organization that focuses on industrial pollution in the developing world, called La Oroya one of the ten most polluted places on earth in 2006—a 2005 study found that nearly all of the children in the town of 35,000 under six suffered from lead poisoning. When it purchased the facility in 1997, Renco promised to remediate some of the contamination, but has received numerous extensions from the Peruvian government, and has yet to complete the work.

The company claims that Lima has failed to uphold its own obligations under the environmental cleanup agreement that was part of the terms under which the smelter was sold to Renco.

The Renco Group is no stranger to environmental controversy—in 1998, the Environmental Protection Agency rated its MagCorp subsidiary, based in Utah, as one of the biggest polluters in the country, and in 2010, its Doe Run subsidiary, based in St. Louis, agreed to spend $65 million to bring the operations of its Missouri facilities into compliance with environmental regulations, and agreed to a $7 million civil penalty for breaking a series of environmental laws.

In the dispute with Peru, members of Congress sided with the company, and pressured the Treasury Department to do the same. In response to the letters from Bachus and Payne, Marisa Lago, the Assistant Treasury Secretary for International Markets and Development, wrote on February 15 that, “Our embassy has been in touch with the Government of Peru on a number of different occasions with respect to this case, emphasizing that we expect it to make a good faith effort to work with DRP to resolve the pending financial and environmental issues.”

Those issues are daunting. Operations at DRP’s smelter in La Oroya, Peru, have been shut down for two years as the company has unsuccessfully sought to borrow money to resume work there. Meanwhile, the Renco Group still faces a lawsuit filed on behalf of bondholders who allege the company misrepresented the environmental liabilities of its MagCorp subsidiary.

Lima’s bankruptcy agency is now considering whether to restructure the idle company or liquidate its assets; Doe Run Peru has filed its intent to commence arbitration through the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. That trade deal allows for a neutral resolution of disputes though an international arbitration court, a fact mentioned by Lago in her letters to Payne and Bachus.

In its lobbying effort, Renco Group hired Palmer C. Hamilton, a former Treasury official and banking lobbyist who hosted a fundraiser with and contributed $18,000 to the campaigns of fellow Alabaman Spencer Bachus. The company also hired former Ways and Means Chairman Jim McCrery, R-N.J., who, as ranking member in the 109th Congress, was instrumental in securing passage of the U.S.-Peru free trade agreement, and Timothy Keeler, the former chief of staff of the United States Trade Representative office, whose responsibilities included overseeing the implementation of free trade agreements. Over a span of 82 days beginning in November 2010, Renco Group hired eight former government officials working at five different Washington firms. So far, those firms have reported receiving $245,000 to lobby.

Renco Group’s headquarters are in New York, as is Fair Field, the largest mansion in the United States and the home of the company’s owner, billionaire Ira Rennert, ranked by Forbes in 2010 as the 144th wealthiest man in the world, with a fortune estimated at $5.3 billion.

For more on this story, read the complete report and background information at the Reporting Group site.

Thomas Hoenig, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, recently penned an op-ed in the New York Times questioning how the biggest financial firms that survived the financial crisis had grown 20 percent larger than they were prior. How could Washington, in its financial reforms, allow too big to fail to continue?

Hoenig answered this himself:

How is it possible that post-crisis legislation leaves large financial institutions still in control of our country’s economic destiny? One answer is that they have even greater political influence than they had before the crisis. During the past decade, the four largest financial firms spent tens of millions of dollars on lobbying. A member of Congress from the Midwest reluctantly confirmed for me that any candidate who runs for national office must go to New York City, home of the big banks, to raise money.

There is no bigger contributor to political campaigns than the financial sector. Since 1999 the financial sector has contributed more than $1.8 billion to federal candidates for election. As Hoenig notes, much of that sector is located in New York City.

Overall, over the past six election cycles, New York state residents employed in the finance, insurance and real estate sector have sent more than $50 million to congressional candidates running for office in a state other than New York, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. This is a crucial source of money for congressional candidates, particularly those in high-cost Senate races. (The animated map linked in the image below shows where those contributions went over time.)

Out of state Democrats accounted for over half of the money contributed by individuals in the New York State financial sector. Democrats received over $30 million to the slightly more than $16 million received by Republicans. The Independent candidacy of Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman pulled in more than $11 million.

The Sunlight Foundation's Party Time database of political fundraisers shows a total of 37 fundraisers held in New York City for congressmen and senators who do not represent New York State. (These numbers are incomplete and the number of fundraisers is almost certainly higher.)

There are 12 fundraisers listed in 2010, including a recent one for Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA). In October Rep.-elect Mike Fizpatrick (R-PA) held a fundraiser with incoming Financial Services Committee chairman Spencer Bachus (R-AL). (Bachus raised nearly 63% of his 2010 contributions from the finance sector.) Other fundraisers are for lawmakers from California, Oklahoma, Kentucky and various other states spanning the country. (View all 37 of these Party Time fundraisers here.)

Hoenig's example of fundraising in New York is just one anecdote in the larger story of the financial sector's influence in Washington. Since the 1998 election cycle the finance sector has spent nearly $2 billion on campaign contributions to federal political candidates. Over the same period of time the sector has spent more than $4.2 billion on lobbying in Washington.

This leads to a total of more than $6.2 billion spent by the finance sector over a thirteen year period to influence outcomes in Washington. The finance sector has spent almost $1 billion more than any other economic sector on federal campaign contributions and lobbying combined. (The motion chart on the right shows the accumulation of contributions and lobbying over time. The green dot is the finance, insurance and real estate sector.)

Former IMF economist Simon Johnson in an article for The Atlantic last year explained that Wall Street "gained political power by amassing a kind of cultural capital--a belief system." People in Washington believed that those in Wall Street knew what they were doing and believed that the accumulation of wealth in the financial sector was a national good, Johnson argues.

That belief system was aided by the $6.2 billion investment that Wall Street made in Washington. The sector invested in staffing agencies and congressional committees and in financing the increasingly costly campaigns. Those investments were then cashed out as staffers and lawmakers flocked to lobbying firms and cushy Wall Street gigs.

The New York Times wrote in April that “more than 125 former Congressional aides and lawmakers are now working for financial firms as part of a multibillion-dollar effort to shape, and often scale back, federal regulatory power, data shows.” These included former Rep. Michael Oxley, the most recent former chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and former Rep. Richard Baker, who previously chaired the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets.

Other powerful former lawmakers recently registered to lobby for the financial sector include Senate Majority Leaders Trent Lott and Bob Dole, House Majority Leaders Dick Gephardt and Dick Armey and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert.

The particular target of Hoenig's ire in his above quoted NYT op-ed is the 1999 passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which tore down the wall between investment and commercial banking. The bill was named after its three main cosponsors: Sen. Phil Gramm, Rep. Jim Leach and Rep. Thomas Bliley. Since retiring from Congress, Gramm went on to become the president of the Swiss bank UBS AG and Bliley works as a registered lobbyist, often for financial interests. (Leach serves under President Obama as the Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities.)

Now, recently departed Office of Management and Budget head Peter Orszag is jumping ship to Wall Street. Orszag, following in the footsteps of former Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin, is slated to join Citigroup as a high level executive with a multimillion dollar salary. Recently, President Obama's counsel Greg Craig left the White House and joined Goldman Sachs. It is unclear if either of them will register as a lobbyist.

Even without Orszag and Craig registering to lobby, the industry has more than enough clout. The Center Responsive Politics reports 1,390 former government employees working as lobbyists for the financial sector.

Another prime spot for investment by the financial sector has been the House Financial Services Committee.

The majority party in the House of Representatives often puts favored freshmen and sophomore lawmakers on the House Financial Services Committee, the committee that oversees the financial sector, so that they can raise piles of money from Wall Street.

The Huffington Post's Ryan Grim and Arthur Delaney explained how this worked under the outgoing Democratic majority:

The banking committee is the second-largest in Congress -- the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has three more members -- and is known as a "money committee" because joining it makes fundraising, especially from donors with financial interests litigated by the panel, significantly easier.

The Democratic leadership chose to embrace this concept, setting up the committee as an ATM for vulnerable rookies. Eleven freshman representatives from conservative-leaning districts, designated as "frontline" members, have been given precious spots on the committee. They have individually raised an average of $1.09 million for their 2010 campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive Politics; by contrast, the average House member has raised less than half of that amount.

Meanwhile lawmakers and staffers keep cycling in between the financial sector and Washington. Delaney and Grim showed that, as of the end of 2009, “almost half of the 126 people who [left the Financial Services Committee] registered as lobbyists, mostly for the financial services industry.” Also, “[s]ixteen of the committee's 86 current staffers -- including a good chunk of the senior staff -- worked as lobbyists before coming to the committee.”

The committee will soon be headed by a lawmaker, Rep. Spencer Bachus, who received nearly 63 percent of his campaign and political action committee contributions from the finance sector. Bachus recently stated his philosophy for governing the committee, "In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks."

The freshmen congressmen appointed to the committee include the largest recipient of finance sector contributions among freshmen and a former bank lobbyist.

Meanwhile, the Senate Banking Committee is set to be chaired by Sen. Tim Johnson, whose state of South Dakota is home to the credit card industry. Johnson recently hired Dwight Fettig, a lobbyist for the American Bankers Association, JPMorgan Chase and Freddie Mac, as a senior adviser. Fettig will likely become the next staff director for the Banking Committee.

The entirety of this enterprise—the doling out of campaign contributions, revolving in between the public and private sector, spending money to influence policy-makers—is entirely legal. That system, however legal it is, is structurally unjust and unsound. As James Fallows notes in a post bemoaning Orszag's revolving door spin, "When we notice similar patterns in other countries -- for instance, how many offspring and in-laws of senior Chinese Communist officials have become very, very rich -- we are quick to draw conclusions about structural injustices."

The intense amount of organized money and human capital has succeeded in making Washington captive to the financial sector. All of this at a low cost when compared to the soaring profits they enjoyed at the height of the boom and the trillions of dollars in aid they received when the bottom fell out.

Ultimately, the $6 billion investment in Washington was the least risky one that the financial sector made over the past twelve years. The firms that survived the storm are bigger than ever and ready to spend billions more to keep their investment afloat.

Eight of the twelve new members chosen to take seats on the House Financial Services Committee can count the finance, insurance and real estate sector as the top contributor to their election.

Incoming Rep. Robert Dold is the top recipient of money from the finance, insurance and real estate sector among all freshmen elected in November's midterm elections. Dold, who raised $554,024 from the sector, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, is one of ten freshmen appointed to the committee overseeing the financial sector.

Another new member of the committee, Rep.-elect Steve Stivers, previously worked as a lobbyist for Bank One, which is now owned by JPMorgan Chase. Stivers received $294,105 from the finance sector.

In July 2010, Stivers came to Washington for a fundraiser thrown by financial lobbyists in Washington and hosted by incoming Financial Services Committee chairman Spencer Bachus. Bachus received nearly 63% of his 2010 campaign contributions from financial interests.  Bachus recently stated his philosophy for governing the committee, "In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks."

Bachus also hosted a fundraiser for incoming committee member Michael Fitzpatrick. Fitzpatrick, who this year reclaimed the Philadelphia suburbs seat he lost in 2006, raised $122,250 from the finance sector.

Two freshmen from the nation's financial capital, New York, were appointed to the committee as well. Rep.-elect Michael Grimm, who won election from Staten Island, raised $222,350 from the finance sector. This amounted to 24 percent of the total money that he raised for his campaign, the largest percentage from the finance sector of all newly appointed members. Grimm defeated Democrat Michael McMahon, who also sat on the Financial Services Committee. Rep.-elect Nan Hayworth, hailing from upstate New York, raised $204,215 from the finance sector.

The Financial Services Committee has always been a coveted spot for lawmakers facing tough reelection races in expensive districts. These lawmakers are in need of large campaign contributions and the finance sector is the biggest contributing industry of all. Since 1998 the finance sector has contributed nearly $2 billion to federal election campaigns.

Most recently, the Democrats appointed eleven of their "frontline" freshmen lawmakers to the committee to help them raise money for reelection. According to the Huffington Post's Ryan Grim and Arthur Delaney the committee is "known as a "money committee" because joining it makes fundraising, especially from donors with financial interests litigated by the panel, significantly easier."

Nearly all of the freshmen appointed to the committee are likely to face tough reelection races in either 2012 or 2014.

Dold's North Shore district went heavily for Barack Obama in 2008. Fitzpatrick's district is a classic swing district won by Barack Obama and John Kerry in recent elections. Sean Duffy represents a Wisconsin district that was held by Democrat David Obey for 40 years and won by both John Kerry and Barack Obama. Quico Canseco won by a small margin in a Texas border district that narrowly went for Barack Obama in 2008. Robert Hurt barely won election over freshman Democrat Tom Perriello in a Virginia district that John McCain won by a couple of points in 2008. Stivers, Hayworth and Grimm could all face challenges in a different climate come 2012.

See below for all new members and the amount raised from the finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE) sector. All data provided by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Lawmaker	Total FIRE	Total Raised	FIRE rank as contributor
Robert Dold	$554,024	$2,458,562	#1
Steve Stivers	$294,105	$5,237,413	#1
Michael Grimm	$222,350	$925,231	#1
Nan Hayworth	$204,215	$1,762,048	#2
Steve Pearce	$176,580	$2,235,263	#3
Blaine Luetkemeyer	$170,735	$1,270,308	#1
Robert Hurt	$127,200	$1,899,261	#3
Michael Fitzpatrick	$122,250	$1,590,663	#1
Lynn Westmoreland	$107,809	$703,253	#1
Fransisco Canseco	$101,550	$1,227,610	#1
Sean Duffy	$91,175	$1,620,447	#3
Bill Huizenga	$68,250	$591,028	#1

With expectations running high that they will take the majority in the House of Representatives, Republican House members are putting up their own campaign and political action committee money to fund the party's national House electoral arm.

According to data obtained from TransparencyData.com, 157 current Republican House members--out of a total of 179--have ponied up more than $24 million to the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) so far this cycle. This accounts for more than a quarter of the total raised by the party committee.

The NRCC is charged with helping to elect new Republican members to the House and protect current members from defeat. The money raised will largely go towards advertising and campaign activities that will be necessary for the party to win back the majority.

Leading the charge in giving money to the NRCC are the current party leaders and those in line to chair committees in the event of a Republican takeover of Congress.

Minority Leader and Speaker-in-waiting John Boehner--through his campaign committee, political action committee and a committee set up by his staffers--has given nearly $2 million to the campaign committee. Minority Whip Eric Cantor, in line to become Majority Leader in the event of a GOP victory, has given over $1 million.

Following the two major party leaders in giving are some important potential chairmen of powerful committees. Rep. Spencer Bachus, in line to head the House Financial Services Committee, has given $905,180 and Rep. Dave Camp, in line to lead the House Ways & Means Committee, has given $873,200. Rep. Frank Lucas, in line to head the House Agriculture Committee, sent $646,000 to the NRCC this cycle.

Many of the other top NRCC givers are members likely to be seeking leadership posts in the 112th Congress. Reps. Jeb Hensarling, Kevin McCarthy and Mike Pence are all likely to seek important leadership posts if the Republicans retake the majority. To help them do so, they've contributed hefty amounts to the NRCC. Hensarling has given $690,150, McCarthy gave $589,394 and Pence has given $564,000.

Pence is currently the Republican Conference Chairman and McCarthy is the Chief Deputy Whip. Both are featured co-authors with Cantor in a book touting new leaders among House Republicans titled "Young Guns."

Hensarling previously sought the position of Conference Chairman after the Republicans lost their majority in the 2006 midterms, but stepped aside to allow Pence to take the spot.

Twenty-two House Republican members have not given money to the NRCC this cycle. This list largely consists of party back-benchers and retiring members, but also includes the media star Rep. Michele Bachmann. The members who have not ponied up to the campaign committee are Reps. Bachmann, Brian Bilbray, Henry Brown, Steve Buyer, Charles Djou, Jo Ann Emerson, Elton Gallgley, Tom Graves, Parker Griffith, Dean Heller, Wally Herger, Pete Hoekstra, Timothy Johnson, Walter Jones, Blaine Luetkemeyer, Dan Lungren, Adam Putnam, Phil Roe, Adrian Smith, John Sullivan, Lee Terry and Don Young.

One year after the biggest economic collapse since the Great Depression, Congress is still debating new financial regulations to protect consumers and prevent risk-taking in the financial sector. The House Committee on Financial Services is currently undertaking the important first step of writing, amending and voting on some of the pieces of the long-proposed financial regulatory reform. While debating these issues top committee members have been the recipients of disproportionate campaign contributions from the very industry that they are tasked with regulating.

Twenty-seven committee members have so far received over one-quarter of their contributions from the finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE) sector. This includes Chair Barney Frank, Ranking Member Spencer Bachus, four subcommittee chairs and four subcommittee ranking members. Of the twenty-seven, twelve committee members received over 35% of their contributions in 2009 from the FIRE sector. All contribution data was collected from the Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org.

Ranking Member Bachus, a crucial decision maker on the committee, received 71% of his campaign contributions from the finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE) sector so far this year. (These numbers run from January 1-June 30.) For his career, the Alabama congressman receives 45% of his contributions from the FIRE sector. Bachus leads the committee in his reliance on FIRE sector campaign contributions. Bachus has taking a position in opposition to most of the regulatory reforms. Bachus recently stated in a hearing, "this is absolutely the wrong time to be creating a new government agency empowered not only to ration credit, but to design the financial products offered to consumers."

Top Recipients of FIRE Campaign Contributions by % (2009)
Name	Party	FIRE Contributions	Total Contributions	Percentage
Spencer Bachus	R	$161,200	$226,930	71.04%
Kenny Marchant	R	$25,000	$46,043	54.30%
Paul Kanjorski	D	$215,200	$397,215	54.18%
Greg Meeks	D	$114,900	$218,340	52.62%
Mike Castle	R	$104,000	$200,027	51.99%
Dennis Moore	D	$139,097	$275,480	50.49%
Mel Watt	D	$23,000	$50,696	45.37%
Melissa Bean	D	$269,800	$634,535	42.52%
Ed Royce	R	$200,635	$504,418	39.78%
Randy Neugebauer	R	$146,810	$384,205	38.21%
Jeb Hensarling	R	$140,660	$371,731	37.84%
Nydia Velazquez	D	$58,100	$164,750	35.27%
View the bar chart

Pennsylvania Rep. Paul Kanjorski is the Chair of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises and is tasked with crafting many of the initial bills for the proposed financial regulatory reform. While undertaking this important work Kanjorski has had enough time to raise large sums for his reelection. Of the $397,215 that Kanjorski has raised in 2009, 54% of it comes from the FIRE sector. For his career, Kanjorski received 44% of his contributions from the FIRE sector. Of all Financial Services Committee members, only Kanjorski and Bachus receive over 40% of their career campaign contributions from the FIRE sector.

Kanjorski has stated that he will be watchful of the influence the finance and insurance companies hold in the committee, “"We must ensure that special interests do not weaken particular solutions to the point of becoming toothless.” Earlier this year, however, Kanjorski held a fundraiser that was thrown by lobbyists for financial services organizations. Kanjorski refused to release a list of attendees to the fundraiser.

Recently, Kanjorski has introduced a series of bills to reform the regulatory structure for the SEC, hedge funds and insurance. Many trade groups and companies that have donated to Kanjorski and other committee members are organizing to oppose large sections of the bills.

The industry has already had successes this year. Committee consideration of a bill to create a proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency was delayed after industry trade groups sent a letter to the committee demanding they delay consideration. The bill was later changed to be narrower in focus than the original language.

A Bloomberg report also notes that the derivatives lobby, headed by large banks JPMorganChase, Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse, worked the New Democrats, including Rep. Melissa Bean, to get changes made to a bill aimed at filling holes in derivative regulation. Officials in the Obama administration stated that the resulting bill, released as a discussion draft, "created too many loopholes and had the potential to exclude all hedge funds and corporate end-users from oversight." Bean received 42% of her $634,535 in campaign contributions in 2009 from the FIRE sector.

While top committee committee members are seeing the FIRE sector make it rain on their campaign committees, a number of less senior members are pulling in more modest sums. Thirty-five committee members receive 20% or less of their 2009 contributions from the FIRE sector. Ten of these thirty-five members received 12% or less from the FIRE sector so far in 2009, half of the 24% committee average.

These bottom twelve include Rep. Maxine Waters, who has received no money from the sector, and Rep. Ron Paul who has pulled in only $1,000 or 3% of his 2009 campaign haul. The other members in the bottom ten are Reps. Steve Driehaus (8%), Keith Ellison (8%), Mary Jo Kilroy (8%), Frank Lucas (9%), Carolyn McCarthy (11%), Alan Grayson (12%), Adam Putnam (12%) and Al Green (12%).

All campaign contribution data is courtesy of the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) A CSV of the research is available. Feel free to use it, but please cite Sunlight and CRP/OpenSecrets.