new members cover photo

CREW’s analysis of fundraising by newly elected members of Congress in their first year finds that they increasingly rely on special interest money after coming to Washington, especially if they hold a vulnerable seat or serve on committees of particular interest to major industries.

Executive Summary

Many first‐time members of Congress win their seats on a message of changing Washington, DC and breaking the grip that special interest groups have on the nation’s capital. As soon as they get elected, though, new members of Congress face tremendous pressure to build their re‐election war chests. To meet this demand, they often turn to the very special interests they once decried.    New research by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) reveals the extent to which the freshman class of the 114th Congress embraced fundraising from special interests immediately after entering office.  In 2015, new members of the House of Representatives collectively raised nearly $17.3 million from political action committees (PACs) tied to corporations, unions, and issue groups. The 2015 numbers represent a 15.8 percent increase over the $14.9 million they raised as candidates from these PACs during the entire two‐year 2014 election cycle.

More than half of the 58 new members raised more special interest money in 2015 than in the two years leading up to their election. The data analyzed by CREW suggests that freshman lawmakers don’t just raise more money from special interests after entering office. They also become more reliant on special interests for their fundraising. In the 2014 election cycle, special interest PAC money accounted for, on average, 17.3 percent of the total funds raised by new members. In 2015, special interest PAC money accounted for, on average, 37.6 percent of the total funds they raised.

block quote 1

The desire of corporations and other interested parties to endear themselves to new members is not the only factor contributing to the increased reliance on special interests for fundraising. Almost immediately after winning the election, new members are told by party leadership that they need to begin aggressively raising money for their next election. Though nearly all members of Congress are under pressure to constantly fundraise, the pursuit of campaign money is even more demanding for members in competitive races. CREW’s research found that the most vulnerable new members generally received more special interest PAC contributions than their colleagues in safer seats; on average, vulnerable new members raised nearly twice as much money from special interest PACs.

When it comes to fundraising, committee assignments also matter. On average, new members on certain “bonus” committees increased their special interest fundraising by 106 percent, compared to an average increase of 49.7 percent for members who don’t sit on those committees.

Introduction

Since 2003, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has aggressively pursued individual accountability for government officials who put their own interests ahead of the public interest.    Our research team also uses its expertise to promote greater public understanding of how Washington works, particularly with respect to the corrosive effect of money in politics, in order to empower the public and strengthen our democracy.

Members of Congress are speaking out about the impact fundraising requirements have on their work.  When a recent episode of 60 Minutes publicized the call centers where many members of Congress spend many hours per week soliciting donations, the show asked: “Are members of Congress becoming telemarketers?”1

In order to better understand how members of Congressfundraise, CREW set out to study the fundraising patterns of one group of them: those newly elected to Congress.   Many first‐time members of Congress win their seats on a message of changing Washington, DC and breaking the grip that special interest groups have on the nation’s capital. As soon as they get elected, though, new members of Congress face tremendous pressure to build their re‐election war chests. To meet this demand, they often turn to the very special interests they once decried.

New Members of Congress Attract Special Interest Money

New research by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethicsin Washington (CREW) revealsthe extent to which the freshman class of the 114th Congress embraced fundraising from special interests immediately after entering office. In 2015, new members of the House of Representatives collectively raised nearly $17.3 million from political action committees (PACs) tied to corporations, unions, and issue groups. The 2015 numbers represent a 15.8 percent increase over the $14.9 million they raised as candidates from these PACs during the entire two‐year 2014 election cycle.

pie charts

More than half of the 58 new members raised more special interest money in 2015 than in the two years leading to their election.2 Twelve new members more than doubled their 2014 hauls from special interest PACs, including six who more than tripled their 2014 special interest fundraising numbers. Rep. Steve Knight (R‐CA) made the biggest jump by raising $203,699 from special interest PACs in 2015, compared to $14,550 in 2013 and 2014, a 1,300 percent increase. Reps. John Katko (R‐NY), Cresent Hardy (R‐NV), Will Hurd (R‐TX), Bruce Poliquin (R‐ME), and Carlos Curbelo (R‐FL) also more than tripled their receipts from special interest PACs. The median new member of Congress increased fundraising from special interest PACs by 6 percent in 2015 compared to what that member raised in the 2014 election cycle while special interest PAC fundraising increased, on average, by 83 percent. Due to large outliers that skew the average, the median is likely a more accurate measure.    The data analyzed by CREW suggests that freshman lawmakers don’t just raise more money from special interests after entering office. They also become more reliant on special interests for their fundraising. In the 2014 election cycle, special interest PAC money accounted for, on average, 17.3 percent of the total funds raised by new members. In 2015, special interest PAC money accounted for, on average, 37.6 percent of the total funds they raised. In fact, all but two new members had a greater concentration of special interest PAC money in 2015 than in the 2014 cycle.

The rush of special interest money to new members is almost certainly greater than what isreflected in CREW’s numbers. As USA Today noted in December 2014, special interests begin investing in new members in the final days before Election Day and the weeks that follow.3 Laurie Knight, the executive vice president for government affairs for the National Beer Wholesalers Association explained to USA Today why her organization’s PAC targeted freshman lawmakers with campaign contributions before they were even sworn into office: “To be able to build those relationships as they are coming into Congress is important.”4

CREW’s research demonstrates how such relationship building continues once the new Congress begins. Honeywell’s PAC, for instance, made contributions to all but two of the 58 new members in 2015, distributing $274,371. Lockheed Martin’s PAC contributed $175,500 to 54 new members while AT&T’s PAC gave $141,000 to 52 new members. Some corporate PACs gave to fewer members, but in greater amounts. For instance, American Crystal Sugar’s PAC contributed $202,500 to 35 new members, and was the top contributing special interest for five of them. The insurance industry was the top contributing industry for 16 new members while the oil and gas industry, building trade unions, and the crop production and basic processing sector were each the top contributing industry for seven new members in 2015.

Research suggests business interests view PAC contributions as a strategic tool to gain access and favor with members of Congress.5 Though members may deny that campaign contributors expect special access,6 research also demonstrates that congressional offices are more responsive to campaign donors. Political scientists, working with a liberal political organization, found that when the group’s members requested meetings, “[m]embers of Congress were more than three times as likely to meet with individuals when their offices were informed the attendees were donors, an over 200% increase in access. Putative donors were likewise more than 400% as likely to meet with either a member of Congress or a chief of staff.”7

The Pressure of the Permanent Campaign

The desire of corporations and other interested parties to endear themselves to new members is not the only factor contributing to the increased reliance on special interests for fundraising. Almost immediately after winning election, new members are told by party leadership that they need to begin aggressively raising money for their next election.

For instance, just 10 days after the 2012 election, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) held an orientation for the recently elected soon‐to‐ be lawmakers in which the new members were encouraged to dedicate more hours per day to fundraising than to the actual work of Congress.8 The new members were also told that their fundraising progress would be closely monitored.9 Republicans face similar pressure. In September 2015, the Washington Post obtained a copy of the agreement that members of the National Republican Campaign Committee’s (NRCC) “Patriot Program” are required to sign.10 As part of the agreement, the members are obligated to set quarterly fundraising goals and to report on their progress on a weekly basis.11

This pressure leads new members into the open arms of lobbyists and the intereststhey represent. Rep. Alan Grayson (D‐FL) told the Boston Globe that the same party leaders encouraging freshmen to prioritize fundraising also introduce new members to lobbyists.12 “Of course they are all people with specific agendas, generally corporate agendas,” Grayson said. “So that’s how the ball gets rolling in terms of the interaction that leadsto lobbyistsinfluencing legislation, and members turning to lobbyists for money.”13 Former Rep. Brad Miller (D‐NC) told the Huffington Post how the intense focus on fundraising can affect members’ legislative behavior. “It really does affect how members of Congress behave if the most important thing they think about is fundraising,” Millersaid.14 “You end up being nice to people that probably somebody needs to be questioning skeptically.”15

Fundraising is ingrained in Washington, DC and all new members are quickly introduced to the open coffers of special interests seeking access and favor. But not every new member is created equal when it comes to special interest fundraising. Though PAC contributions are viewed by lobbyists as part of the price of doing business, companies and interest groups regularly make strategic choices about how to spend their PAC money.16 CREW’s research illustrates how factors like electoral vulnerability and committee assignments can influence who benefits the most from special interest fundraising.

Vulnerable Freshmen Raise More Special Interest Money

Though nearly all members of Congress are under pressure to constantly fundraise, the pursuit of campaign money is even more demanding for members in competitive races. CREW’s research found that the most vulnerable new members of the 114th Congress generally received more special interest PAC contributions than their colleagues in safer seats.

block quote 2

For the purposes of this analysis, CREW identified a member as “vulnerable” if that member was part of the DCCC’s Frontline program or the NRCC’s Patriot Program.17 Nineteen new members in CREW’s study were classified as vulnerable. Members of both programs are required to set and meet ambitious fundraising goals as they gird themselves for tough re‐election fights.18 On average, vulnerable new members raised nearly twice as much money from special interest PACs in 2015 compared to the rest of the 114th Congress’ freshman class.

Roughly one third of new members are considered vulnerable, but the vulnerable members constitute nearly one half of those who received more special interest money in 2015 than they did as candidates. Only three of the 19 vulnerable members have yet to exceed their 2014 haul. In addition, every one of the six members who tripled their 2014 special interest numbers are NRCC Patriots. Only three freshmen are DCCC Frontline members, reflecting the Democrats’ poor electoral showing in 2014. Two of them, Rep. Brad Ashford (D‐NE) and Rep. Gwen Graham (D‐FL), have raised more from special interests in 2015 than in their 2014 election races.

Rep. Steve Knight (R‐CA), whose 14‐fold increase was the largest jump in special interest money among all freshmen, vowed to “take a stand against politics as usual in Washington DC” when he ran for Congress.19 In 2014, thanks to California’s top‐two primary system, Rep. Knight, whose district “leans only slightly Republican,” did not face a Democratic opponent in the general election, but several Democrats have already stepped up to challenge him in 2016.20 Following a weak fundraising haul in the first quarter of 2015, Rep. Knight joined the NRCC’s Patriot Program in May 2015, after which he significantly increased his fundraising.21 In all, during 2015 Rep. Knight brought in $601,935, which is $188,875 more than what he raised in the 2014 cycle. Notably, 33.8 percent of his contributions came from special interest PACs, compared to only 3.5 percent during the 2014 cycle when he raised just $14,550 from special interests.

bar graph

Rep. John Katko (R‐NY) saw the second biggest jump in special interest cash. When he ran for Congress, Rep. Katko criticized his opponent, then‐Rep. Dan Maffei (D‐NY), for the contributions he received from outside the district, which included special interest PAC money.22 Rep. Katko argued the special interest money meant “Dan Maffei can never change Washington because he is Washington.”23 In the 2014 campaign, Rep. Katko raised almost $1 million, of which only 4.5 percent came from special interest PACs. In 2015, however, Rep. Katko received $464,118 from special interest PACs, more than ten times what he received in the entire 2014 cycle. The special interest PAC money accounts for nearly 43 percent of Rep. Katko’s total contributions last year.

Rep. Cresent Hardy (R‐NV), a former state assemblyman who won his seat in a surprise victory in 2014,saw the third biggest jump in special interest money.24 A member of the NRCC Patriot Program, Rep. Hardy has been described as “the most vulnerable Republican in the country.”25 Rep. Hardy has fundraised aggressively, raising more money than he did in his 2014 campaign, thanks in large part to special interests.26 In 2015, 28.5 percent of the $851,552 Rep. Hardy raised came from special interest PACs, compared to just 10.1 percent during the 2014 cycle.

Rep. Will Hurd’s (R‐TX) special interest PAC donations increased more than five‐fold from the 2014 election cycle to 2015, giving him the fourth largest increase among all freshmen. Rep. Hurd, who beat former Rep. Pete Gallego (D‐TX) by a slim margin in 2014, joined the NRCC’s Patriot Program in February 2015.27 Facing a rematch with former Rep. Gallego in 2016, Rep. Hurd’s fundraising efforts have been aided by contributions from his Republican colleagues.28 He’s also turned to special interests for support, particularly the oil and gas industry, which contributed $68,500 to his campaign in 2015. Indeed, Rep. Hurd’s share of special interest money has increased significantly, rising from 5.7 percent of all his donations in 2014 to nearly a third of the $1,660,683 he brought in during 2015.

Rep. Bruce Poliquin (R‐ME), the first Republican in 20 years to hold his district’s seat, had the fifth largest increase in special interest money fundraising.29 Rep. Poliquin said after being elected that he wasn’t going to Washington “to go to cocktail parties or hang out with special interests.”30 But that hasn’t stopped him from bankrolling his re‐ election campaign with special interest money. In 2015, Rep. Poliquin raised $1.8 million, nearly 30 percent of which came from special interest PACs. In the 2014 election, only about 6.7 percent of Rep. Poliquin’s $1.5 million campaign war chest was built on special interest PAC money.

In 2014, Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R‐FL) beat Democratic Rep. Joe Garcia (D‐FL) in a tight race in which former Rep. Garcia outspent him,31 but was dragged down by scandals and an onslaught of ads from outside groups.32 In February 2015,soon after taking office, Rep. Curbelo joined the NRCC’s Patriot Program.33 He has been an aggressive fundraiser, pulling in more than $1.6 million in 2015, a third of which came from special interest PACs. Rep. Curbelo’s $497,338 in special interest PAC funds in 2015 is a 228 percent increase from the 2014 cycle. His fundraising pace is unlikely to let up. Already facing a tough re‐election battle,34 a new map for Rep. Curbelo’s congressional district was approved in December 2015 and the district now favors Democrats even more than when Rep. Garcia held the seat.35

The Perks of Committee Assignments

When it comes to fundraising, committee assignments matter. Sen. Jeff Flake (R‐AZ), then a member of the House, explained to This American Life how the committees that a member sits on can affect his or her ability to raise money. “I can tell you the difference between the fundraising potential when you’re sitting on the Ways and Means Committee or sitting on the Science Committee,” Sen. Flake said.36 “There’s a difference. There’s a big difference.”

In fact, both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party rank committees based on their fundraising potential, upon which they then base their fundraising expectations for committee members.37 Though these lists are not released to the public, the Sunlight Foundation analyzed historical campaign finance records and committee assignments in 2012, creating an estimate of which committees are the best for fundraising.38 Sunlight’s Lee Drutman found that seven committees in the House offer a statistically significant fundraising “bonus” for PAC contributions: Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, Financial Services, Agriculture, Transportation and Infrastructure, Homeland Security, and Appropriations.39 Four of these committees – Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, Financial Services, and Agriculture – were estimated to provide a “bonus” of more than $100,000.

Though a seat on a “bonus” committee isn’t necessary for a significant increase in special interest funding, it helps. Thirty four of the 58 new members analyzed by CREW held seats on one of the “bonus” committees identified by the Sunlight Foundation. These new members increased their special interest fundraising by, on average, 106 percent, compared to an average increase of 49.7 percent for members who don’t sit on “bonus” committees. Only nine of the 34 “bonus” committee members failed to raise more special interest PAC money in 2015 than in the 2014 election cycle. Eight of the 10 lawmakers who saw the greatest special interest fundraising growth held seats on “bonus” committees.

The House Ways and Means Committee, which is responsible for tax policy, is by far the most lucrative committee, according to Sunlight’s analysis.40 Only one freshman, Rep. Bob Dold (R‐IL), landed a seat on Ways and Means.41 Rep. Dold, who previously served in the 112th Congress, also raised by far the most special interest PAC money in 2015, pulling in $757,538.42 Rep. Dold’s impressive haul represents a 95.6 percent increase over his 2014 efforts, when he raised $387,238 from special interest PACs.

The Sunlight Foundation found the House Energy and Commerce Committee to be the second most lucrative assignment for PAC contributions. None of the new members of the 114th Congress, however, sit on the committee.43

Five new members did land seats on Sunlight’s third most lucrative committee, the Financial Services Committee: Reps. Tom Emmer (R‐MN), Frank Guinta (R‐NH), Bruce Poliquin (R‐ME), French Hill (R‐AR) and Mia Love (R‐UT).44 All of them raised more special interest money in 2015 than they did in the entire 2014 election cycle, placing them in the top half of the freshman class. Rep. Emmer’s special interest fundraising, which grew by 56.7 percent, is noteworthy as he didn’t join the committee until late May 2015, when he replaced Rep. Dold, who moved to Ways and Means.45

The industries overseen by the Financial Services Committee were important contributors to these members. The insurance industry, which falls under the jurisdiction of the committee,46 was the top donating industry for Reps. Hill, Poliquin, Guinta, Love, and Emmer, who received $81,500, $81,500, $69,500, $66,000, and $34,000 respectively from insurance companies and trade groups. The PACs of commercial banks, securities and investment firms, and accounting firms were also significant contributors to these members. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Reps. Dold and Poliquin raised more money from Wall Street interests in the first half of 2015 than any other contenders in “toss up” House races.47

Nine new members sit on the House Agriculture Committee, six of whom raised more special interest PAC money in 2015 than they did during the entire 2014 election cycle.48 The seat on Agriculture was important even for the committee members who saw less fundraising growth. The top donating industry for five of the nine freshmen on the committee was crop production & basic processing, which donated $164,250 to these members alone: Rep David Rouzer (R‐NC) raised $44,000, Rep. Ralph Abraham (R‐LA) raised $37,000, Rep. Rick W. Allen (R‐GA) raised $31,000, Rep. Dan Newhouse (R‐WA) raised $31,000, and Rep. John Moolenaar (R‐MI) raised $21,250.

Methodology

CREW examined campaign contributions to members of the House of Representatives who were first elected on November 4, 2014 and who were sworn in on January 6, 2015. CREW’s analysis did not include new members of the 114th Congress who were elected in special elections or took office early, thus excluding Rep. Alma Adams (D‐ NC), Rep. David Brat (R‐VA), Rep. Daniel Donovan (R‐NY), Rep. Trent Kelly (R‐MS), Darin LaHood (R‐IL), and Rep. Donald Norcross (D‐NJ). CREW also did not include non‐voting delegates in the analysis. Fifty‐ eight new members were included in CREW’s analysis.

For each of the new members of Congress in this study, CREW downloaded contribution data from the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) website, specifically data filed under “Other Committees Contributions” for the 2014 election cycle and 2015. “Other Committees Contributions” data generally includes contributions from PACs as opposed to contributions from individuals or party committees. CREW examined the “Other Committees Contributions” and identified contributionsfrom special interest PACs, excluding leadership PACs and PACs with ties to political parties. CREW included PACstied to corporations, unions, and issues groups in its definition of special interest PACs. CREW relied on the classifications used by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) to categorize each PAC by industry and did not include any PACs CRP labeled “Republican / Conservative” or “Democratic / Liberal.” CREW did not look for individual contributions that may have come from employees of special interest groups. CREW also relied on the FEC’s website for total contribution numbers for each new member for both the 2014 election cycle and 2015.

 

Appendix 1: New Members, Ranked by Increase in Special Interest Money

New Member % change, 2014 cycle to 2015 Special interest $, 2013-2014 Special interest $, 2015
Steve Knight (R-CA)* 1299.99% $14,550 $203,699
John Katko (R-NY)* 942.96% $44,500 $464,118
Cresent Hardy (R-NV)* 484.33% $41,500 $242,497
Will Hurd (R-TX)* 457.31% $81,850 $456,156
Bruce Poliquin (R-ME)* 441.60% $100,550 $544,580
Carlos Curbelo (R-FL)* 228.17% $151,550 $497,338
John Ratcliffe (R-TX) 182.98% $81,100 $229,498
Lee Zeldin (R-NY)* 167.44% $165,850 $443,554
Tom MacArthur (R-NJ) 124.46% $132,787 $298,049
Rick W. Allen (R-GA) 120.85% $93,500 $206,499
Martha McSally (R-AZ)* 112.93% $197,925 $421,449
Ralph Abraham (R-LA) 102.04% $63,600 $128,500
Bob Dold (R-IL)* 95.63% $387,238 $757,538
Mike Bost (R-IL)* 94.68% $172,899 $336,599
Rod Blum (R-IA) 93.68% $90,330 $174,949
Brad Ashford (D-NE)** 73.53% $196,180 $340,430
French Hill (R-AR) 73.23% $235,750 $408,392
Mark Walker (R-NC) 67.61% $88,000 $147,500
Tom Emmer (R-MN) 56.69% $183,800 $287,999
Evan Jenkins (R-WV) 54.72% $213,650 $330,565
Bruce Westerman (R-AR) 45.03% $112,850 $163,667
Gwen Graham (D-FL)** 42.67% $408,044 $582,147
Elise Stefanik (R-NY)* 35.97% $327,585 $445,409
Frank Guinta (R-NH)* 22.46% $217,450 $266,300
David Young (R-IA)* 12.68% $388,440 $437,699
Seth Moulton (D-MA) 11.33% $217,000 $241,590
Dan Newhouse (R-WA) 9.16% $242,900 $265,154
Brenda Lawrence (D-MI) 8.14% $175,150 $189,400
Brian Babin (R-TX) 6.62% $255,764 $272,699
Mia Love (R-UT) 5.47% $321,781 $339,369
Barbara Comstock (R-VA)* 4.68% $542,233 $567,598
Mimi Walters (R-CA) 2.26% $441,756 $451,749
Mark Takai (D-HI) 0.41% $347,064 $348,500
Steve Russell (R-OK) -0.46% $103,950 $103,467
Garret Graves (R-LA) -4.33% $403,459 $385,997
Pete Aguilar (D-CA)** -5.64% $454,753 $429,103
Ryan Zinke (R-MT) -6.64% $254,348 $237,449
Gary Palmer (R-AL)            -8.39% $171,100 $156,749
David Trott (R-MI) -8.92% $172,430 $157,048
Glenn Grothman (R-WI) -10.94% $124,100 $110,520
Jody Hice (R-GA) -11.67% $73,000 $64,483
Ryan Costello (R-PA)* -15.81% $606,550 $510,629
Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) -18.82% $264,472 $214,700
David Rouzer (R-NC) -22.06% $428,275 $333,799
Don Beyer (D-VA) -23.83% $527,722 $401,959
Buddy Carter (R-GA) -25.38% $365,234 $272,523
Mike Bishop (R-MI)* -25.97% $365,524 $270,595
Brendan F. Boyle (D-PA) -30.89% $498,840 $344,750
Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) -33.39% $311,300 $207,350
John Moolenaar (R-MI) -35.18% $308,350 $199,884
Alex Mooney (R-WV) -39.43% $264,000 $159,917
Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) -43.88% $177,750 $99,749
Norma Torres (D-CA) -43.99% $283,000 $158,500
Ken Buck (R-CO) -46.90% $216,400 $114,901
Kathleen Rice (D-NY) -49.72% $500,369 $251,590
Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA) -50.79% $304,840 $150,000
Debbie Dingell (D-MI) -52.84% $552,950 $260,750
Ted Lieu (D-CA) -56.31% $454,078 $198,400
TOTALS: 15.84% $14,921,920 $17,286,002
  *Indicates NRCC Patriot

**Indicates DCCC Frontline

   

 

Appendix 2: New Members, Ranked by Special Interest Money Receipts, 2015

New Member Special interest $, 2015 Special interest $, 2013-2014
Bob Dold (R-IL)* $757,538.00 $387,238.00
Gwen Graham (D-FL)** $582,147.00 $408,044.00
Barbara Comstock (R-VA)* $567,598.00 $542,233.00
Bruce Poliquin (R-ME)* $544,580.00 $100,550.00
Ryan Costello (R-PA)* $510,629.00 $606,550.00
Carlos Curbelo (R-FL)* $497,338.00 $151,550.00
John Katko (R-NY)* $464,118.00 $44,500.00
Will Hurd (R-TX)* $456,156.00 $81,850.00
Mimi Walters (R-CA) $451,749.00 $441,756.00
Elise Stefanik (R-NY)* $445,409.00 $327,585.00
Lee Zeldin (R-NY)* $443,554.00 $165,850.00
David Young (R-IA)* $437,699.00 $388,440.00
Pete Aguilar (D-CA)** $429,103.00 $454,753.00
Martha McSally (R-AZ)* $421,449.00 $197,925.00
French Hill (R-AR) $408,392.00 $235,750.00
Don Beyer (D-VA) $401,959.00 $527,722.00
Garret Graves (R-LA) $385,997.00 $403,459.00
Mark Takai (D-HI) $348,500.00 $347,064.00
Brendan F. Boyle (D-PA) $344,750.00 $498,840.00
Brad Ashford (D-NE)** $340,430.00 $196,180.00
Mia Love (R-UT) $339,369.00 $321,781.00
Mike Bost (R-IL)* $336,599.00 $172,899.00
David Rouzer (R-NC) $333,799.00 $428,275.00
Evan Jenkins (R-WV) $330,565.00 $213,650.00
Tom MacArthur (R-NJ) $298,049.00 $132,787.00
Tom Emmer  (R-MN) $287,999.00 $183,800.00
Brian Babin (R-TX) $272,699.00 $255,764.00
Buddy Carter (R-GA) $272,523.00 $365,234.00
Mike Bishop (R-MI)* $270,595.00 $365,524.00
Frank Guinta (R-NH)* $266,300.00 $217,450.00
Dan Newhouse (R-WA) $265,154.00 $242,900.00
Debbie Dingell (D-MI) $260,750.00 $552,950.00
Kathleen Rice (D-NY) $251,590.00 $500,369.00
Cresent Hardy (R-NV)* $242,497.00 $41,500.00
Seth Moulton (D-MA) $241,590.00 $217,000.00
Ryan Zinke (R-MT) $237,449.00 $254,348.00
John Ratcliffe (R-TX) $229,498.00 $81,100.00
Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) $214,700.00 $264,472.00
Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) $207,350.00 $311,300.00
Rick W. Allen (R-GA) $206,499.00 $93,500.00
Steve Knight (R-CA)* $203,699.00 $14,550.00
John Moolenaar (R-MI) $199,884.00 $308,350.00
Ted Lieu (D-CA) $198,400.00 $454,078.00
Brenda Lawrence (D-MI) $189,400.00 $175,150.00
Rod Blum (R-IA) $174,949.00 $90,330.00
Bruce Westerman (R-AR) $163,667.00 $112,850.00
Alex Mooney (R-WV) $159,917.00 $264,000.00
Norma Torres (D-CA) $158,500.00 $283,000.00
David Trott (R-MI) $157,048.00 $172,430.00
Gary Palmer (R-AL) $156,749.00 $171,100.00
Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA) $150,000.00 $304,840.00
Mark Walker (R-NC) $147,500.00 $88,000.00
Ralph Abraham (R-LA) $128,500.00 $63,600.00
Ken Buck (R-CO) $114,901.00 $216,400.00
Glenn Grothman (R-WI) $110,520.00 $124,100.00
Steve Russell (R-OK) $103,467.00 $103,950.00
Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) $99,749.00 $177,750.00
Jody Hice (R-GA) $64,483.00 $73,000.00
TOTALS: $17,286,002 $14,921,920
*Indicates NRCC Patriot

**Indicates DCCC Frontline

 

 

Appendix 3: New Members, Ranked by Total Contributions from Top Contributing Industry, 2015

New Member Receipts from Top Contributing Industry, 2015 Industry
Bob Dold (R-IL)* $107,500 Insurance
Bruce Poliquin (R-ME)* $81,500 Insurance
French Hill (R-AR) $81,500 Insurance
Frank Guinta (R-NH)* $69,500 Insurance
Will Hurd (R-TX)* $68,500 Oil & Gas
Mia Love (R-UT) $66,000 Insurance
Buddy Carter (R-GA) $64,000 Health Professionals
Ryan Costello (R-PA)* $58,000 Pharmaceuticals/Health Products
Martha McSally (R-AZ)* $57,000 Insurance
Garret Graves (R-LA) $56,500 Oil & Gas
Lee Zeldin (R-NY)* $55,000 Transportation Unions
Brendan F. Boyle (D-PA) $50,200 Building Trade Unions
David Young (R-IA)* $49,500 Insurance
Elise Stefanik (R-NY)* $49,000 Insurance
Carlos Curbelo (R-FL)* $48,500 Insurance
Brian Babin (R-TX) $46,500 Health Professionals
John Katko (R-NY)* $46,000 Transportation Unions
David Rouzer (R-NC) $44,000 Crop Production & Basic Processing
Barbara Comstock (R-VA)* $40,500 Insurance
Pete Aguilar (D-CA)** $37,500 Building Trade Unions
Ralph Abraham (R-LA) $37,000 Crop Production & Basic Processing
Mimi Walters (R-CA) $37,000 Pharmaceuticals/Health Products
Tom Emmer (R-MN) $34,000 Insurance
Evan Jenkins (R-WV) $34,000 Health Professionals
Gwen Graham (D-FL)** $34,000 Building Trade Unions
Mark Takai (D-HI) $32,500 Building Trade Unions; Transportation Unions
Bruce Westerman (R-AR) $31,500 Forestry & Forest Products
Mike Bishop (R-MI)* $31,500 Insurance
Rick W. Allen (R-GA) $31,000 Crop Production & Basic Processing
Brad Ashford (D-NE)** $31,000 Insurance
Dan Newhouse (R-WA) $31,000 Crop Production & Basic Processing
Debbie Dingell (D-MI) $30,500 Electric Utilities
Tom MacArthur (R-NJ) $30,250 Building Trade Unions
Don Beyer (D-VA) $29,499 Automotive
Seth Moulton (D-MA) $28,500 Securities & Investment
Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) $27,500 Transportation Unions
Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA) $27,500 Building Trade Unions
Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) $26,000 Building Trade Unions
Ryan Zinke (R-MT) $25,500 Oil & Gas
Mike Bost (R-IL)* $25,000 Agricultural Services/Products
John Ratcliffe (R-TX) $24,500 Crop Production & Basic Processing
Brenda Lawrence (D-MI) $24,000 Public Sector Unions
David Trott (R-MI) $24,000 Electric Utilities
Kathleen Rice (D-NY) $24,000 Insurance
Ted Lieu (D-CA) $24,000 Health Professionals
Steve Knight (R-CA)* $21,500 Defense Aerospace
John Moolenaar (R-MI) $21,250 Crop Production & Basic Processing
Mark Walker (R-NC) $21,000 Crop Production & Basic Processing
Norma Torres (D-CA) $19,500 Public Sector Unions
Cresent Hardy (R-NV)* $19,000 Oil & Gas
Gary Palmer (R-AL) $18,000 Insurance
Alex Mooney (R-WV) $16,500 Health Professionals
Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) $16,000 Insurance
Steve Russell (R-OK) $14,500 Oil & Gas
Rod Blum (R-IA) $12,500 Electric Utilities
Ken Buck (R-CO) $12,500 Oil & Gas
Glenn Grothman (R-WI) $9,917 Misc Manufacturing & Distribution
Jody Hice (R-GA) $5,000 Oil & Gas; Food & Beverage
TOTALS: $2,119,116  
*Indicates NRCC Patriot

**Indicates DCCC Frontline

 

STAY UPDATED