The Pentagon has spent billions of dollars since 2001 funneling roughly more than a million assault rifles, pistols, shotguns, and machine guns into Iraq and Afghanistan, helping to fuel lasting conflict there, according to a new report by a London-based nonprofit research and advocacy group Action on Armed Violence.

At least 949,582 of these small arms were given to security forces in Iraq, and at least 503,328 small arms were given to local forces in Afghanistan, the group said. They called this an “under-estimate” based on the information they were able to acquire.

If the figures are correct, the US exports amounted to more than one small arm for each member of Afghanistan’s security forces, which totaled roughly 355,000 soldiers, police, and airmen in February 2015, according to a NATO operational update on the force. The number of armaments sent to Iraq also vastly exceeded the current size of that country’s active military and paramilitaries - 209,000, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies’ 2016 Military Balance report.

Until now, the Pentagon hasn’t published such a tally of its own, so the group’s researchers spent a year scouring multiple databases to arrive at its estimate: a general Pentagon contract list, a government-wide contracting list, and multiple government reports on military spending. They finally calculated that the overall value of the contractually-agreed small arms shipments, just to those two countries, was roughly $2.16 billion.

U.S. intelligence reports and eyewitnesses have previously said that a significant fraction of the U.S.-financed arms were either lost or stolen, and that many wound up in the hands of forces opposed to US interests, including terrorist groups such as the Islamic State, or ISIS.

In 2007, for example, the General Accountability Office said the coalition forces in Iraq could not account for 190,000 U.S.-supplied weapons. A July 2014  audit by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction sharply criticized the Pentagon for not paying adequate attention to the fate of weaponry sent to Afghanistan, citing rampant discrepancies in records of gun serial numbers and other problems. In many instances over the past two years, U.S.-advised forces in those two countries have engaged in protracted clashes with terrorists equipped with captured caches of U.S. small arms, as well as U.S. tanks, artillery, and armored personnel carriers.

“There are direct and real consequences,” said Iain Overton, a veteran investigative journalist who is the group’s director, including “a destabilized Middle East.” He said Americans believe “that good guys with guns will get rid of bad buys with guns but that system doesn’t work when you throw guns into lawless, anarchic societies.” His group says its funding comes from “governments, institutions, and foundations,” and that it has a “partnership” with Norway’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The report was released as international discussions are under way in Geneva about how to improve the implementation of a 2013 accord meant to provide transparency about small arms transfers, known as the Arms Trade Treaty. While the treaty does not restrict the number or type of weaponry that can be exported, it asks signatories not to sell arms that will create an overwhelming risk of negative consequences, including war crimes and attacks on civilians. The United States has signed the treaty but has not ratified it and is not a state party. As a result, it has not submitted annual reports of its arms transfers to others, as the treaty requires.

Indeed, finding information on arms exports to Iraq and Afghanistan is like trying to “[put] together a jigsaw puzzle with only half the pieces,” Nic Marsh, a researcher at the Peace Research Institute in Oslo, Norway who has worked on this issue since 2008 said in an email. Overton’s first attempts to gather information from the Pentagon about U.S.-financed exports of AK-47’s to Afghanistan, using the Freedom of Information Act, produced documents that he said were completely redacted.

It's clear that the Pentagon has not been eager to make the size of its small-arms exports as clear as it could. The Pentagon’s public announcements of contracts related to small arms exports to Iraq and Afghanistan, overseen by its press office, only list 19,602 of the 1.45 million small arms, or roughly 1 percent of the guns the department actually sent to Iraq and Afghanistan, the group’s report said. Of those publicly-disclosed contracts, a third were either mis-numbered or contained different information than versions of the same contracts that were listed in the Federal Procurement Database System, the report said.

When asked about the discrepancies, Mark Wright, a Pentagon spokesperson, responded in an email to the Center for Public Integrity that the two public accounts are based on different definitions, “which if not clearly understood, can lead to incorrect conclusions.”

Wright gave a slightly smaller overall tally: “We have a total of about 1.1 million weapons that DOD either provided or assisted in providing to Iraq and Afghanistan,” he said, noting that in some cases, individual contracts might have spelled out the maximum number of arms authorized to be shipped, rather than the number actually sent. 

Overton said he stood by his larger tally, and that the team scoured their information for inaccuracies after carefully examining the differences between various databases.

Asked whether or not the Pentagon attempts to track where the guns it sells wind up, Wright responded that speed was “essential” in the early years of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “As a result, lapses in accountability of some of the weapons transferred occurred,” Wright wrote in an emailed statement also provided to other reporters asking about the group’s report. He said that the department now “tracks the origin, shipping, and in-country distribution of all weapons” it exports to Iraq and Afghanistan.

But even if such measures are carried out with great care – an unlikely event in Afghanistan, given the documented low literacy rates among local security personnel there, they cannot prevent U.S. armaments from being seized by others on the battlefield. The United States is not the only country that provided weapons to Iraq and Afghani forces that went missing over the past fifteen years, and not the only one to have exported weapons that specifically ended up in the hands of terrorists. In 2014, the Center for Public Integrity reported that fighters associated with the Islamic State had acquired or seized weapons from at least 21 countries, including the United States, China, Russia, and several Balkan states.

“A significant percentage of these weapons will go into the environment and eventually end up in the hands of the Taliban, ISIS” and other non-state actors, says Ed Laurance, an expert on armed violence and professor of international policy and development at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey. “Ammunition comes in, it goes out. Terrorists can get it, civilians can get it…it’s impossible to keep track of [small arms]” because the environments are so insecure.

More than three dozen just-released audits reveal how some private Medicare plans overcharged the government for the majority of elderly patients they treated, often by overstating the severity of medical conditions like diabetes and depression.

The Center for Public Integrity recently obtained 37 Medicare Advantage plan audits from federal health officials through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The audits have never before been made public, and though they reveal overpayments from 2007—money that has since been paid back— many plans are still  appealing the findings.

Medicare Advantage is a privately-run option to standard Medicare which has been growing in popularity and now enrolls more than 17 million seniors. In 2014, Medicare paid the health plans more than $160 billion.

But there’s growing controversy over the accuracy of billings based on a formula called a risk score, which is designed to pay Medicare Advantage plans higher rates for sicker patients and less for people in good health. In a series of articles published in 2014, the Center for Public Integrity reported that overspending tied to inflated risk scores has cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars in recent years.

In May, a Government Accountability Office report called for “fundamental improvements” to curb excess charges linked to faulty risk scores.  In addition, at least half a dozen health-industry insiders have filed whistleblower lawsuits that accuse Medicare Advantage insurers of manipulating risk scores to boost profits.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services audits show that all but two of the 37 health plans audited for 2007 were overpaid – typically several hundred thousand dollars too much for the sample of 201 patients examined at each plan. Among the insurers charging the government too much: five Humana, Inc. health plans, three UnitedHealth Care Group plans and four Wellpoint, Inc. plans. None had any comment.

The high rate of overpayments for many diseases could signal millions in losses to the government, since many of the plans enroll thousands of people.

Among other findings:

• Auditors on average could confirm just 60 percent of more than 20,000 medical conditions plans were paid to treat. The confirmation rates were much lower for some conditions, such as diabetes with serious complications, depression and some forms of cancer.
• Overpayments triggered by unsupported medical diagnoses at the 37 plans audited topped $10,000 per patient for more than 150 patients. The health plans overcharged the government by $2,000 or more for at least 3,500 people in the 2007 sample group.
• The health plans overall were three times as likely to charge Medicare too much than too little for some of the 70 medical conditions examined as part of the audits. Two of the 37 health plans – Group Health Cooperative in Washington State and a Kaiser Foundation Health Plan in California – had no net overpayments.

Michael Geruso, an assistant economics professor at the University of Texas at Austin, said aggressive coding practices have had a “huge impact on taxpayer spending” for the Medicare Advantage program.

Geruso, co-author of a study on Medicare Advantage billing, noted that error rates revealed in the audits suggest many overcharges have escaped scrutiny. “Clearly, there’s room for more auditing,” he said.

Diabetes “without (medical) complications” was the most common disease code reported by the health plans and auditors typically validated the payments in three of four cases.

But extra payments made to health plans which claimed some diabetic patients also had complications of the disease, such as eye or kidney problems, were reduced or invalidated in nearly half the cases, sometimes more — meaning that auditors found insufficient evidence these complications actually existed. Some of these reductions are still being disputed by the plans.

Several other disease categories triggering larger payments, including “major depressive bipolar and paranoid disorders” and “drug/alcohol dependence” also were rejected as unfounded by auditors nearly as often as they were confirmed at many plans.

Not every medical condition impacted the bottom line and in more than 200 cases auditors said patients justified higher fees that plans charged because of the severity of their illnesses. But auditors were between three and four times more likely to slash payments than raise them for many medical conditions.

The audits provide new evidence of how federal officials have struggled to stamp out inflated coding, which is known in health policy circles as “upcoding.”

None of the plans faced closer scrutiny following the audits, no matter the size of the overpayment. The 2007 audits, which collected a total of $12 million in overpayments, are the only ones CMS has completed since officials adopted risk scores in 2004 at the behest of Congress. In some cases, health plans are still appealing the results, nine years later.  

The special Medicare Advantage audits are called Risk Adjustment Data Validation, or RADV. RADV audits involved a lengthy and secretive process in which medical records are selected from a sample of 201 patients enrolled in a health plan. Auditors review the medical files to confirm that the diseases billed for, and their severity, are properly documented. When they are not, CMS cuts or reduces the payment.  Some plans have disputed nearly every pay cut while others chose not to contest most of the findings.

Yet the paucity of these audits, and their tendency to drag on for years unresolved, brought a stern rebuke from the GAO, the watchdog of Congress, in its May report.

The GAO criticized the Medicare agency for not expanding the scope of the audits as required by a provision of the Affordable Care Act in 2010. It also said that CMS had failed to zero in on health plans with histories of charging too much, or whether some plans have persistently exaggerated the severity of certain illnesses in order to jack up their fees.“We think that CMS has a lot of work to do,” James Cosgrove, who heads the GAO’s health care division, said in an interview shortly after the report’s release.

In response to written questions from the Center for Public Integrity, CMS officials agreed that some medical conditions are overbilled more often than others. But they said the results were “not conclusive given that the audit samples were not designed to produce statistically valid results” of overcharges for each disease.

Asked why overcharges are so much more common than underpayments, CMS said health plans have an “incentive to submit diagnosis codes to CMS and, as a result, are less likely to under-report these diagnoses.”  Officials said unconfirmed diagnoses could be caused by “incorrect” coding by the health plan’s doctors or “incorrect diagnostic data” submitted to the government by the health plan.

Agency officials said they expect to complete 30 audits of 2011 billings by specific plans this year, but declined to say how much they expected to collect in overpayments. In the past, officials have put the figure at as much as $370 million.

That level of auditing would encompass about five percent of Medicare Advantage contracts for 2011. CMS  has asserted that its goal is to audit every plan annually, but officials declined to say whether that’s likely to occur. However, they said they plan to expand the auditing program in 2017.

Medicare Advantage plans have challenged the validity of the audits from the start. Clare Krusing, a spokeswoman for America’s Health Insurance plans, an industry trade group, said that CMS doesn’t allow health plans to submit “additional data” such as drug prescriptions that could verify patients have the diseases claimed. The group also has called the RADV audit process “not yet stable and reliable.”

Expanding Medicare Advantage audits also “could disrupt the care being provided by plans that are working hard to meet the needs of their enrollees,” the trade group says.

Who pays for it all?

Our political funding work is at the center of the history of the Center for Public Integrity and no more so than in this election year — though the rise of a candidate “theoretically” less beholden to vested interests has made that approach to money and politics challenging.

Michael Beckel analyzes the latest advertising data from affiliates of the Hillary Clinton campaign to illuminate the funders behind the most powerful super-PAC in the election: Priorities USA Action.

It is so far the primary vehicle for her attacks on Donald Trump’s character with 36,000 TV ads run since May, almost all in the key swing states. As Michael shows from our advertising data project, if you live in Florida you may have been exposed to one of these anti-Trump ads every 15 minutes. 

So who pays for it all? Michael reveals that it is a group of “liberal billionaires” with famous names like George Soros, Steven Spielberg, members of the Pritzker family as well as labor groups such as the Laborers’ International Union of North America. The group’s raised more than $110 million since January 2015. (I also appreciated the way Michael noted that Soros’ Open Society Foundations philanthropy group supports the Center.)

It’s been an ironic element of this campaign that Hillary Clinton is the prime beneficiary of the big spending of super PACs unleashed by the Citizens United case — a case involving  a group trying to raise money to fight her. Here is Dave Levinthal’s strong piece on that irony. And here’s deputy executive editor John Dunbar’s evergreen piece on what Citizens United is all about a piece that continues to draw huge numbers of eyeballs almost four years after it was written.

Take a look at the entire Buying of the President 2016 package from the federal political team, including Carrie Levine. Our news applications developer Chris Zubak-Skees has also updated his presidential advertising tracker.

Dave also had a nice scoop on Bernie Sanders managing to entirely avoid his already heavily delayed income disclosure. It was picked up widely with Dave appearing on SiriusXM and the piece quoted in the New York Daily News (including an editorial), run on NBC and the Huffington Post, among others. It is a good example of how widely Center for Public Integrity stories often travel.

Voter rights from young journalists

Each year in the dog days of August we have had a habit of opening our site to journalism students from the News 21 project hosted at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communications at Arizona State University. It is a terrific program run by former Washington Post editor Leonard Downie Jr. It’s supported by Carnegie Corporation and the James L. Knight Foundation and we are delighted to showcase the project’s work on our site.

I think it has been particularly relevant and additive to our own work this year because much of the project has been about voting rights and the various attempts to set barriers — often affecting minorities — to exercising democratic rights. For example, this piece on how voting rights legislation may affect African-Americans and this on Asian-Americans. They’re all in Accountability.

Our appreciation here also to our digital editor Jared Bennett, who managed publication of the hefty project on our site.

What we’re reading and thinking about …

Partisanship and bias

We have had some interesting conversations in the office about the implications of the Trump candidacy on our policy of non-partisanship. In my view as a relative newcomer to the U.S his personal comments and platforms — as opposed to Republican Party policy platforms — challenge some of the notions of what it is to stand for the most powerful office.

For example, his challenges to the First Amendment, singling out of racial and religious groups and perhaps his “sarcastic” incitement to violence against his rival. We have no intention of shifting policies and the team is dedicated to tackling both candidates hard, as the investigations into Hillary’s funding shows and the work the team has done on Donald Trump’s team illustrates. Not to mention John Dunbar’s recent “Propagandist in Chief” analysis.

I was struck by this commentary from the former editor of The Guardiannewspaper in the UK, Peter Preston, arguing that the Washington Post had decided to abandon impartiality in its treatment of Donald Trump. Preston writes in his column in The Observer in London: "There’s no pretence of artificial fairness here, more a howl of foreboding as stumble turns to freefall in a hapless row over assassinating Clinton,” adding: “The U.S. press that perennially makes a big, often self-regarding issue of its fairness and balance (in contrast to utterly unbalanced cable news) seems to declare Trump a special case where the rules don’t apply.” Preston makes an interesting comparison with the case of the BBC whose bias rules hampered its coverage of the Brexit vote. For what it is worth, I find the Washington Post’s editorial line understandable and committed and in line with the excoriating warning its editorial board issues in this piece which branded Donald Trump a unique threat to American democracy.

Our National Security editor R. Jeffrey Smith calls out this New York Review of Bookspiece, by noted political journalist Elizabeth Drew, of the of a new book "about how one party (the Republicans) completely mastered the process of gerrymandering over the past decade and shrewdly produced a chamber in Congress that will durably overrepresent their genuine constituency as a proportion of the voting public. It’s a topic that got only sporadic journalistic attention while it was under way, and the book appears to contain some revealing data and emails about how it unfolded. You have to look past the hyperventilating book title, though: “Ratf**ked: The True Story Behind the Secret Plan to Steal America’s Democracy.””

I welcome feedback on this note.

Peter Bale
CEO, The Center for Public Integrity
pbale@publicintegrity.org
@peterbale

Anyone criticizing the Federal Election Commission as toothless must now reckon with this: Today, the agency took on God and Satan — plus nearly 250 other officially registered presidential candidates it believes are bogus.

“Dear Candidate,” began the letter the FEC’s Reports Analysis Division sent to God for President, H. Majesty Satan Lord of Underworld Prince of Darkness!, Captain Crunch, Rocky Balboa and a cast of other characters seeking to challenge Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton.

“It has come to the attention of the Federal Election Commission that you may have failed to include an accurate name of the candidate and an accurate principal campaign committee … when you filed FEC Form 2.”

The FEC didn’t say exactly how the potential inaccuracies came to its attention. But it asked the recipients to submit additional paperwork confirming their candidacies or to withdraw the filings.

Credit the FEC’s awareness of these fictional presidential candidates in large part to “Deez Nuts,” the fake candidate created by a 15-year-old boy from Iowa who made national headlines when his support crested in an online poll.

He immediately sparked a rash of imitators — yet another crazy sideshow during what, by most any measure, is a bonkers 2016 election cycle.

Perhaps FEC analysts also lifted their eyebrows when they saw “God” was operating His presidential campaign from a Staten Island shopping center that shares an address with Beach Bum Tanning and the Divine Furniture & Mattress Outlet.

Or maybe they were tipped off by the Everdeen 2016 Committee (Effie Trinket, treasurer), which put forth Katniss Everdeen for president with the address“101 E Avenue of Tributes The Capitol, CO.” Any fan of “The Hunger Games” know Katniss Everdeen hails not from the Capitol, but from District 12.

Possibly it’s because Darth Vader so rarely files paperwork.

Either way, the FEC announced a week ago that it was sick of the flood of fake filings and was planning to take action, beginning with the sternly worded letters, which note there are penalties for false filings. The agency’s letters to presumably fake candidates note that if the recipients don’t respond by confirming the truthfulness of their filings, the agency will withdraw them from the database.

The rush of prank filings left the agency between an Alexander Hamilton and a Butt Stuff.

"The agency has no authority over and makes no judgement on an individual's qualifications or eligibility to run for office or obtain ballot access," FEC spokeswoman Judith Ingram wrote last year in a statement to the Center for Public Integrity.

Once a presidential candidate filing is submitted, the FEC is required to make it public.

Asked for a comment on the letters sent by the FEC yesterday, Ingram referred a reporter to the agency’s policy, announced last week.

Of course, those filing “false, erroneous, or incomplete information” open themselves up to FEC fines and, in theory, criminal penalties, though the government would have to devote resources to going after them.

The FEC’s letters specifically note that removing the filings doesn’t mean it’s waiving its right to seek penalties.

So Donald Drumpf, Pepe Le Frog, Obi Wan Kenobi and Reagan’s Ghost: you’ve been warned.

This story was co-published with TIME, NBC News, Philly.com and the Huffington Post.

Confidential emails revealed in the Panama Papers have opened a new front in a bitter court battle in Nevada involving a hedge fund led by an American billionaire, new court filings show.

NML Capital, a hedge fund managed by New York investor Paul Singer, is suing the Nevada office of Mossack Fonseca, the law firm at the center of the Panama Papers scandal, for obstruction of justice.

The current legal action has its roots in Singer’s long fight to reclaim funds lost when Argentina defaulted on government bonds held by NML. Mossack Fonseca was not named as a defendant, but its Nevada operations were targeted with a court order demanding information about companies administered through the law firm that the hedge fund claimed may have been involved in the theft of millions of dollars from Argentine government contracts.

NML reached a $2.4 billion settlement with Argentina earlier in the year, but the case remains open after the hedge fund accused MF Nevada employee Patricia Amunategui of perjury, and asked a federal court in Nevada to sanction Mossack Fonseca.

When she was called to testify in the Nevada case in 2014, Amunategui told the courts that MF Nevada was an “independent service provider” to Mossack Fonseca – and not a subsidiary or “alter ego” of the Panama firm.

According to NML’s recent court filings, emails published in April as part of ICIJ’s Panama Papers investigation show that, contrary to Amunategui’s claim, she closely followed instructions from Mossack Fonseca headquarters in Panama.

“The emails demonstrate a much more insidious course of conduct intended to influence the entirety of these proceedings,” lawyers for NML wrote.

“The evidence shows that Ms. Amunategui did not merely submit an ill-phrased or ill-informed declaration: she participated in efforts to destroy and remove evidence from this jurisdiction after she received NML’s subpoena.”

In court documents, MF Nevada denies acting in bad faith, and claims Amunategui’s denial of a parent-subsidiary relationship between the two companies did not amount to perjury since “the question of independence is a mixed question of law and fact.”

“With a non-party witness, the court has limited options for punishment,” said Mark Weidemaier, who is a Law Professor of UNC Chapel Hill. “It can only impose fines and ask for reimbursement of legal fees, but if NML have a decent argument, it’s not that much of an effort to pursue reimbursement; if we’re talking about legal fees in the seven figure range, they could be looking at recovering a considerable amount of cash.”

The Nevada case is one of a number of legal battles and investigations focused on Mossack Fonseca and its clients following the Panama Papers revelations.

In July the Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. federal prosecutors had launched a criminal investigation into the law firm’s employees over allegations they helped clients launder money or evade taxes. In response to the Wall Street Journal’s questions about the investigation, Mossack Fonseca referred to a statement on their website which says the firm has “never been accused or charged in connection with criminal wrongdoing.”

The New York banking regulator also levied a $180 million penalty against the Taiwanese Mega International Commercial Bank after an investigation by the state uncovered suspicious transactions flowing between the bank’s New York and Panama branches, and found links between the bank and Mossack Fonseca. Mega International Commercial Bank also now faces an official investigation in Taiwan.

Las Vegas Boulevard is shown north of Tropicana Avenue on Feb. 25, 2016, in Las Vegas, Nev.Simon Bouvierhttps://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/simon-bouvierhttps://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/09/01/20152/hedge-fund-sues-mossack-fonseca-alleged-obstruction-justice-nevada

The Federal Election Commission today announced a $7,150 fine against a shady super PAC that seemingly scammed nearly $50,000 from “James Bond” actor Daniel Craig as well as additional funds from scores of lesser-known donors.

The super PAC, known as Americans Socially United, was launched in 2015 to support Democratic presidential candidate U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, who had denounced super PACs — and Americans Socially United in particular— during his primary bid against Hillary Clinton.

It was operated by alleged fraudster Cary Lee Peterson, a self-described "congressional lobbyist and election campaign guru" who the FBI arrested earlier this year in connection with a securities fraud case.

Peterson's super PAC failed to file a mandatory campaign finance report earlier this year that would have detailed its financial activity between July and December of last year.

That’s the period during which Craig — a British actor who is also a U.S. resident legally able to make political donations — gave $47,300 to Americans Socially United. (Around the same time, Craig also donated the legal maximum of $2,700 to Sanders’ official campaign committee.)

“It’s nice to see that the FEC is keeping an eye on these things,” Brad Deutsch, who served as Sanders’ campaign lawyer, told the Center for Public Integrity. “I would hope the FEC doesn’t stop at this."

Last year, Deutsch authored two letters to Peterson, accusing him and his super PAC — which operated a number of purportedly pro-Sanders websites, including BetonBernie.com, BetonBernie2016.com, PledgeSanders2016.com and SociallyUnited.org — of being “illegal” and “causing harmful confusion for supporters of Senator Sanders’ campaign.”

Craig, the actor known for playing James Bond, hasn’t said how he initially came across Peterson or Americans Socially United. But other Sanders supporters have told the Center for Public Integrity that they discovered the super PAC by mistake.

It’s long been unclear how much money Peterson, who did not immediately respond to requests for comment, and Americans Socially United raised.

The super PAC has only filed one mandatory campaign finance report with the FEC. It did so last year nearly seven weeks after it was first due, after multiple inquiries from the Center for Public Integrity.

In this sole report, which is riddled with discrepancies, Peterson states that Americans Socially United raised about $100,000 from its formation in February through June 2015 — including about $28,000 from small-dollar donors who had each contributed $200 or less.

According to the filing, Americans Socially United was about $50,000 in the red on June 30, 2015. It has not filed a campaign finance filing since.

In March, Peterson was arrested by the FBI and then spent nearly three months in federal custody in California and New Jersey. He was released in June into the custody of his mother, who lives in Arizona, after posting a $200,000 secured bond.

The government has alleged that Peterson engaged in “wholly fictitious” business deals. Peterson has pleaded not guilty.

Within days of his release, Peterson registered two new political groups with the FEC: the Alliance Against Disabled Inmate Abuse and Democrats Socially United, a super PAC that is purportedly backing Clinton in the 2016 White House race.

Donald Trump hasn’t been shy about voicing hostility toward foreigners.

The Republican presidential nominee has proposed banning Muslim immigrants to the United States. He’s asserted that “a lot” of refugees fleeing Middle Eastern violence are members of the terrorist organization ISIS. And in a bid to curb illegal immigration and keep out drug dealers and “rapists,” he's called for a “big, beautiful” wall to be built on the U.S.-Mexico border.

And yet the Center for Public Integrity has determined that Trump’s presidential campaign, earlier this year, accepted an illegal contribution from a Canadian Muslim with a soft spot for Syrian refugees.

Foreigners are generally prohibited from making political contributions, and in response to questions from the Center for Public Integrity, Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks said the campaign is now refunding $225 to Shahriyar Nasir of Toronto, who may be among Trump’s least likely contributors.

Nasir is a millennial who works as a software engineer. On Twitter, he describes himself as a “proud Muslim,” and he’s been involved with an interfaith group that helps refugees from war-ravaged Syria settle in Canada.

Did Nasir have a conversion experience this year that led him to support Trump?

Far from it.

Here’s how his ill-fated Trump donation came to be: One of Nasir’s friends wanted to exercise more, so they made a bet. For each day the friend skipped a workout, he’d be required to donate to an “anti-charity,” which, in this case, was Trump.

When the moment of truth came in April, Nasir’s friend had missed enough days to owe 300 Canadian dollars. At the time, the friends calculated that amount equaled $225.

A few keystrokes later, though, Nasir was the one joining the ranks of thousands of Americans who have donated to Trump’s campaign. That’s because his friend used Nasir’s credit card to make the online donation — with the intent of paying Nasir back.

“I wanted him to feel the pain of having lost his bet,” Nasir told the Center for Public Integrity. “The donation that you discovered was made with the intent of helping my friend learn a powerful life lesson. Not with the intent of any kind of publicity or actually supporting Trump.”

The friends documented the learning experience in a video that was, until recently, posted publicly on YouTube. (It’s now private.)

During one moment of levity in the video, Nasir’s friend points to his right bicep and says: “The lack of guns here is a testament to how great your wall is going to be.”

Notably, Nasir and his friend may have never intended to financially support Trump’s presidential campaign.

Throughout the video, the young men repeatedly refer to donating to Trump’s “foundation.”

Trump does operate a charitable foundation, the Donald J. Trump Foundation, which is a separate legal entity from his campaign.

But they didn’t send the money to Trump’s foundation, which itself has been embroiled in controversy surrounding an illegal gift it made three years ago to a political group supporting Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi.

Nasir’s money instead went to Trump’s campaign, which, unlike the foundation, is prohibited from accepting money from foreign nationals unless they hold a green card, which Nasir does not.

“We didn’t pay close attention to the details of the transaction,” Nasir acknowledged to the Center for Public Integrity. “We inadvertently made the contribution to the political campaign and not the charitable foundation.”

Only U.S. citizens and immigrants with permanent resident status may lawfully contribute to federal political candidates.

To be safe, political campaigns should pay extra attention to contributions received from people living outside the United States, said Ken Gross, who heads the political law practice at the firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in Washington, D.C.

“Typically, a campaign or PAC will take steps to affirm that the donor is a U.S. citizen or green card holder,” Gross said.

Neither Hicks, Trump’s spokeswoman, nor Don McGahn, Trump’s campaign lawyer and a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, responded to questions about how the campaign vets contributions from foreign addresses.

(Update, Sept. 13, 2016, 9:58 a.m.: In a letter to the FEC filed Monday night, Trump campaign treasurer Timothy Jost stressed that the campaign has "safeguards in place to ensure that all contributions are made by permissible individuals only." Among the measures reportedly being taken: requesting copies of valid U.S. passports for donors giving foreign addresses. The Trump campaign, Jost continued, "rejects contributions from contributors whose status cannot be confirmed with a passport.")

Paul S. Ryan, deputy executive director of the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit campaign finance reform advocacy group, said that while this “light-hearted fun between buddies” was not “particularly troubling,” it was still a violation of the law prohibiting contributions from foreign nationals.

“You cannot undo a violation of federal law by getting a refund or seeking a refund of your contribution once you’re caught,” Ryan continued. “The question is whether it’s a significant enough violation that the FEC would care.”

FEC spokeswoman Judy Ingram declined to comment on the specifics of this case.

The agency typically sends letters to campaigns asking for additional information when it notices contributions that appear to be impermissible.

The FEC did just that in August, flagging Trump campaign contributions from three individuals with foreign addresses. But Nasir was not among them.

This story was co-published with Philly.com. A version of this story also appeared in TIME.

U.S. Rep. Roger Williams, a Texas Republican under investigation by the House Ethics Committee, asserts that he did nothing wrong when he offered an amendment that would benefit car dealers — despite the fact that he himself is a car dealer.

Members of Congress, say the rules, may not use their positions for personal financial benefit. But Williams asserted in a statement that he did not profit from his actions.

Instead, Williams revealed, he offered the amendment at the behest of a lobbyist. And the lobbyist — whose employer, the National Automobile Dealers Association, one of the congressman’s top donors — was even kind enough to send along “proposed language” for the text of the amendment.

The case is being considered by the House Ethics Committee. There is no timetable for when the committee will rule. But regardless of what happens, the Austin area congressman’s defense offers a rare glimpse at how business is often done in the Capitol.

In this case, at least, it reveals a place where lobbyists have enormous influence; where a legislator was arguably more concerned with his own interests and those of his donors than his constituents; and where actions that appear at first glance to be clear conflicts of interest, are in fact, routine.

A late night vote

The current controversy is over a bill pushed by Cally Houck, mother of Raechel and Jacqueline Houck, 24 and 20 years old, who were killed in 2004 when the Chrysler PT Cruiser they rented from Enterprise Rent-A-Car crashed into an oncoming semi-tractor trailer in central California. The car had been under a safety recall for a fire hazard that caused a loss of steering.

Houck successfully sued the company and embarked on a crusade to get a law passed that would prohibit rental car companies from offering vehicles that are subject to safety recalls.

The Raechel and Jacqueline Houck Safe Rental Car Act, finally made it into law as part of a massive transportation bill in 2015. But during the process, there was a hiccup. The bill faced resistance from the National Automobile Dealers Association, a powerful trade association which was concerned that its members might be forced to ground vehicles for “minor” defects.

Rep. Williams offered an amendment on the floor of the House just before midnight on Nov. 4 that alleviated the dealers’ concerns. It would, as understood by Williams and NADA, carve out an exemption for auto dealers. It would, in effect, allow them to rent or loan out vehicles even if they were subject to safety recalls. Dealers often loan or rent cars to customers who are getting theirs serviced.

Williams, in introducing the amendment, said, “I am a second-generation auto dealer. I have been in the industry for most of my life. I know it well.” Williams is chairman of Roger Williams Auto Mall in Weatherford.

Williams’ amendment would make the act apply only to companies whose “primary” business is renting cars, which would effectively exclude dealerships. No such provision existed in the Senate bill.

Consumer advocates and Cally Houck were livid. The Center for Public Integrity wrote a story about Williams’ action, raising the issue of whether what he did was a conflict of interest. Rosemary Shahan had no doubt.

“It seems to me that if it isn’t illegal, if it isn’t an ethics violation it ought to be,” said Shahan, president of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, a consumer group. “His amendment benefits nobody but car dealers. And he’s a car dealer.”

Williams declined to respond to Center inquiries for the report; the piece ran on the Center’s website, that of the Texas Tribune and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Once the story was posted, and began circulating, the congressman did respond.

“This is why people are so tired of politics,” he wrote. “A laughable ‘charge’ has been brought on by an editor of a publication backed by billionaire liberal George Soros. For years, the so-called Center for Public Integrity has mounted countless attacks against Republicans under the false description as a ‘nonpartisan’ ‘news organization’ (and I use those quotations intentionally because this organization is neither).”

The Center has received funding from the Open Society Foundations, which are funded by George Soros, a billionaire who has spent millions to help Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, get elected. The foundation, however, has no editorial control over the nonpartisan Center, a Pulitzer Prize-winning nonprofit organization made up largely of veteran journalists.

Complaint filed

Despite the protestations of the congressman, the story attracted the interest of the Campaign Legal Center, a watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. The organization wrote a letter to the Office of Congressional Ethics, an investigative body that reviews complaints against members and recommends whether the House Ethics Committee should conduct its own probe.

Williams did not cooperate with the OCE, according to the agency. The agency recommended in a report adopted April 22 that the House Ethics Committee use its subpoena powers to obtain records from the congressman’s dealership.

After the OCE report was issued, Williams, through his attorney, released a 12-page response, , defending his actions.

At the heart of the matter is whether, Williams “improperly took official action on a matter in which he had a personal financial interest.”

Specifically, House rules state members “may not permit compensation to accrue to the beneficial interest of such individual from any source, the receipt of which would occur by virtue of influence improperly exerted from the position of such individual in Congress.”

In addition, rules state that members “shall behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House,” and “shall adhere to the spirit and the letter of the Rules of the House.”

In addition, rules that govern all federal employees state that government workers should “never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not; and never accept for himself or his family, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of his governmental duties.”

The OCE, in a 6-0 vote, recommended that the House Ethics Committee extend its investigation into Williams’ conduct.

On June 27, 2016, House Ethics Committee leaders announced the body would “extend the Committee's review of the matter” in order to “gather additional information necessary to complete its review…”

The extension of the review “does not itself indicate that any violation has occurred,” the committee added.

Nothing to see here

In his statement, Williams says that his business does indeed offer rental cars for use by customers who are getting their vehicles fixed as well as loaner cars.

“In these instances, the dealership only provides the convenience of a relationship with a nearby rental company, Enterprise Rental, and at a special rate that is given to dealerships established by an agreement between FCA and Enterprise: $30 per day, taxes included. The dealership does not mark up rental fees for profit.”

Williams, in his defense, said he sometimes loses money under the arrangement and that the passage of the amendment would have “zero bearing” on his business interests.

Shahan said dealers still benefit indirectly.

“They benefit, of course, by profiting from having the repair business,” she said. “And you can be sure that it’s built into the price they charge for the repair.”

Shahan said it was clear that the congressman was not interested in consumers.

“It doesn’t get any clearer that he was not acting in the public interest, he was acting in the interest of the NADA members. He doesn’t even claim to be acting in the public interest,” she said.

As to loaner cars, Williams and NADA were concerned that the provision would apply to those too.

“This bill will regulate a small business dealer with a fleet of five loaner vehicles the same as it would regulate a massive rental car company with hundreds of thousands of vehicles in their fleet,” he said in remarks on the House floor.

Williams has a fleet of eight loaner cars, given to people who are having their cars worked on.

While it is up to the committee to determine whether Williams did anything wrong, the congressman’s defense itself made some rather illuminating admissions regarding his relationship with the National Automobile Dealers Association.

According to the statement, the top lobbyist for NADA, Michael Harrington, was concerned about the effect the rental car act would have on his dealer members. He emailed Sean Dillion, Rep. Williams’ legislative director on Oct. 29. Dillion in turn asked J. Spencer Freebairn, Williams’ deputy chief of staff, to contact Harrington to discuss “issues surrounding” the bill in question.

“Mr. Freebairn did so, and by that afternoon NADA had sent proposed language for Amendment 819 to him,” according to the statement, signed by Williams.

Williams agreed to offer the amendment, which consisted of adding a single word — “primarily” — to the bill. The added word effectively allowed automobile dealers to rent vehicles under recall, unlike big rental companies.

He submitted the proposed change to the House Rules Committee, which determined that the amendment could be considered, and then Williams met with Harrington to “further discuss legislative strategy.”

So did the congressman use the lobbyist’s suggested language verbatim? That’s not clear. Williams has declined to talk to the Center. Harrington has not returned a call requesting comment.

Powerful lobbying force

Car dealers are known to be an influential force in Congress. A dealership exists in practically every congressional district in the nation. And these often-wealthy businessmen and women are ably represented by Harrington, who is well qualified for the job.

Harrington is former director of external affairs for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under President George W. Bush. He also served as legislative director to U.S. Rep. Bob Franks, R-N.J. and deputy chief of staff to U.S. Rep. Clay Shaw, R-Fla.

Harrington lobbied the Houck bill for the auto dealers’ association, which spent more than $1.2 million on lobbying in the fourth quarter of 2015, including work on the rental car act. NADA has contributed $32,500 to Williams’ campaigns since 2011, according to Federal Election Commission records. Williams was first elected in 2012. The Almanac of American Politics calls him a “prolific fundraiser.”

Car dealers, not surprisingly, are major supporters of Williams.

The industry, through contributions from individuals and political action committees, has given him a total of $667,950 over his relatively short career, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That ranks him fifth among active and former House members, which is a little misleading.

Former congressman John Dingell, a Detroit-area Democrat who served 60 years, collected more than $1.1 million from car dealers and their political action committees. He’s number one. Joe Knollenberg, a Republican, also from Michigan, collected $990,162 during his 16-year tenure. He’s number two.

Republican Roy Blunt of Missouri, collected $818,723, and served in leadership positions in the House, which is a great way to attract big contributions. He comes in at third. And fourth place goes to Republican John Boehner, former House speaker, at $806,992.

Advocates and opponents of the amendment were particularly incensed that it was submitted on the House floor just before midnight, and slipped through on a voice vote.

Once the issue of the amendment was raised, the legislation went to a conference committee with the Senate. During that process, Williams’ amendment was tossed out. But the car dealers’ presence was still felt.

In the conference committee, it was decided that establishments that rent fewer than 35 cars would be excluded, meaning car dealerships would not be affected.

“It was a victory of low caliber,” said Cally Houck, mother of the young women who were killed. She won’t be happy until the loophole is eliminated altogether.

“I continue to look forward to taking them on again."

This story was co-published with the Dallas Morning News.

Election 2016 sometimes feels less like a national debate on which presidential hopeful possesses superior experience, better ideas and greater leadership bona fides — and more like a candidate-on-candidate slap fight over who’s shadier, sleazier and more deviously opaque.

Hillary Clinton’s recent reticence to reveal her bout with pneumonia provides new fodder for those who find the former secretary of state is overly secretive. And what about Donald Trump, the billionaire businessman who’s shrouded many of his financial dealings in mystery?

A new Center for Public Integrity/Ipsos poll shows only one in four respondents consider Trump “honest and transparent” about his financial, business or investment dealings. For Clinton, it’s about one in three.

Such data indicate that most Americans “do not trust either candidate, which is further evidence that 2016 is a battle of the least popular candidates," Ipsos pollster Chris Jackson said. "This election is similar to giving a child the option of either finishing their vegetables or changing their kid brother’s diaper.”

Neither candidate deserves a transparency award. But a Center for Public Integrity analysis shows Clinton, when compared head-to-head with Trump, is the clear winner when it comes to making information available to the public.

A telling indication: Clinton’s campaign answered questions for this article while Trump’s campaign did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

The Center for Public Integrity has explored the degrees to which Clinton and Trump have, across nine areas of concern to their campaigns, been transparent.

The areas include taxes, health, personal finances, press access and campaign money.

Health records

In 2008, questions about Republican presidential nominee John McCain’s health — he endured harrowing conditions in Vietnam as a prisoner of war, and later, underwent surgery for melanoma — swirled around the then-71-year-old candidate.

So months before Election Day 2008, McCain let reporters review 1,173 pages of his medical records and interview his doctors.

In contrast, Trump, 70, released a four-paragraph medical history letter from a doctor who acknowledged taking all of five minutes to write it.

Clinton, 68, in July 2015 released a comparatively voluminous eight-paragraph health letter written by her physician.

The letters declared both Trump and Clinton healthy and fit to serve as president.

But several medical professionals and health policy experts interviewed consider the health letters a poor substitute for the candidates releasing actual records, particularly given how old they are — ages when medical problems become more likely.

“If a person has any health risk that could lead to a problem, the public would want to know that,” said Dr. Howard Brody, a physician and ethicist who recently retired from the University of Texas Medical Branch Institute for the Medical Humanities, where he for years served as director. “And with presidential candidates, the public has become used to general openness about health.”

In a statement, the Clinton campaign argued that Clinton is “the only candidate in the race who has met the standard expected of presidential candidates and provided a detailed medical letter by her long time physician … Donald Trump has put forward a laughable letter that omits basic health information including the date of his exam, past medications, family medical history, heart rate, respiratory rate, EKG or cholesterol level.”

Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway, in a tweet Monday about Clinton’s health, declared that “lack of transparency is an overarching theme” for the former first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of state.

Trump last month promised to release his full medical records — no specific date provided. “I think that both candidates, Crooked Hillary and myself, should release detailed medical records. I have no problem in doing so! Hillary?” Trump tweeted Aug. 28.

Trump, on Monday, added that he recently underwent a medical exam, the details from which he said he’d release this week on the Dr. Oz Show. On Wednesday, Trump’s campaign reversed course, saying the full release would occur at a later date. But Trump did share a one-page summary of the exam with Dr. Mehmet Oz, indicating he weighs 267 pounds (later revised to 236 pounds) and takes a statin drug to control his cholesterol.

Clinton, who last week fell ill with pneumonia, is also “going to be releasing additional medical information,” Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon told MSNBC on Monday. Clinton offered almost no information about her condition until she nearlycollapsed Sunday at a 9/11 memorial ceremony in New York City.

On Wednesday, Clinton’s campaign indeed releasedadditionaldetails about her bout with pneumonia, medications and overall condition. (Update: 10:25 a.m., Sept. 15, 2016: Trump's campaign released a one-page letter offering more details on Trump's vital statistics and lab work.)

The verdict: Clinton currently edges Trump on the technicality that her paltry medical letter, coupled with its Wednesday update, contain marginally more information than what Trump has released.

Both candidates may yet reveal more details. But neither candidate has remotely approached the modern transparency standard set by McCain — one that President Barack Obama and 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney also fell short of.

Tax returns

Presidential nominees aren’t required to publicly release their income tax returns, but almost all do, according to the Tax History Project.

Some candidates are stingy, such as Romney in 2012, McCain in 2008 and 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry, at least when it came to the returns of his ultra-rich wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry.

Seventy-one percent of respondents in the Center for Public Integrity/Ipsos’ poll said all presidential candidates should release their 2015 tax returns. Just 12 percent said the candidates should not.

Tax documents “don’t necessarily present a full picture of someone’s wealth, but they do provide more detailed information on decisions about charitable contributions, investment strategies and foreign holdings,” tax reporter Richard Rubin wrote for Bloomberg last year.

Clinton has made public her annual income tax returns since 1977 — a fact she has regularly touted as proof of her commitment to transparency.

“Donald Trump is hiding behind fake excuses and backtracking on his previous promises to release his tax returns … what is he trying to hide?” Clinton said earlier this year upon releasing her 2015 tax return.

In a statement to the Center for Public Integrity, the Clinton campaign further asserted that Trump “is breaking with the long-standing bipartisan tradition of releasing his tax returns and is hiding the full extent of his financial entanglements.”

Never has Trump publicly released a tax return, which would likely provide deep insight into the financial and philanthropic priorities of a man who ranks among the nation’s wealthiest.

Trump has offered various reasons for withholding the returns: he’s being audited, they’re “very big,” people “don’t care,” there’s “nothing to learn from them.”

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, Trump’s running mate, has released his tax returns. Pence told Fox News Trump will be “releasing his tax returns at the completion of an audit.”

Former IRS commissioners have said an audit does not prevent Trump from releasing his tax returns at his leisure.

The verdict: It’d be difficult for Clinton to be more transparent with her tax returns. It’d be difficult for Trump to be less transparent. Trump, however, still has time to make his tax returns public, ensuring that he doesn’t become the first major presidential nominee in more than 40 years to not release his or her tax returns. Advantage Hillary.

Campaign money

Both Clinton and Trump earn plaudits for the information they provide the Federal Election Commission about the people who’ve contributed more than $200 to their respective campaigns this election.

More than 95 percent of such Clinton donors provide complete information about themselves: name, location, employer and occupation, according to data provided to the Center for Public Integrity by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign finance research organization. Such information helps illuminate the economic interests of a candidate’s supporters.

Trump isn’t far behind, with more than 92 percent of his major donors qualifying for “full disclosure” status, according to the Center for Responsive Politics’ rubric.

There’s no such parity when it comes to presidential campaign “bundlers” — usually wealthy and well-connected people who volunteer to raise hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of dollars for their favored candidate’s political committee. They then deliver their cash stash in a “bundle” to their campaign of choice.

Since campaign finance laws prohibit individuals from contributing more than $2,700 to a federal candidate per election, bundlers help candidates efficiently collect money. They’re a bit like overachieving PTA parents who crush school fundraising records — except the bundlers are more likely to own Bentleys and private jets.

Federal law doesn’t require presidential candidates to disclose their bundlers, unless the bundler is a registered federal lobbyist.

But George W. Bush, Kerry, McCain and Obama are recent presidential candidates who have volunteered at least some information about their bundlers, lobbyist or not.

During the 2012 election, for example, Obama disclosed the names, states and cities of his bundlers. He also provided dollar ranges — $50,000 to $100,000; $100,000 to $200,000; $200,000 to $500,000; and $500,000 and up — indicating their bundling totals.

Romney became the first major presidential candidate since 2000 to release no bundler information at all.

Clinton calls her bundlers “Hillblazers.” Her campaign maintains a list, available on her website, of Hillblazers who’ve bundled at least $100,000 — more than 870 bundlers in all.

While Clinton provides a city and state for each person listed, she offers no added detail about how much money a person has bundled. Nor does she provide additional identifying information about her bundlers. That’s hardly a problem if one wants to confirm the identity of “Andrew M. Cuomo / Albany, N.Y.” It’s a touch trickier for, say, “Richard Cohen / New York, N.Y.”

Trump has so far played the Romney card, disclosing no information about his campaign bundlers. He has not said whether he will change his mind between now and Nov. 8.

The verdict: Overall, a win for Clinton. Sure, she could provide more information about her biggest bag men and women, and she falls short of the disclosure standard Obama set. But some bundler transparency is worth more than none, and none is all Trump has offered to date.

Personal financial disclosures

In mid-May, federal law required both Trump and Clinton to file personal financial disclosures that detail — to an extent — their assets and income.

The primary purpose of these disclosures, filed by senior government officials as well as candidates for federal office, is to “assist agencies in identifying potential conflicts of interest between a filer's official duties and the filer's private financial interests and affiliations,” according to the United States Office of Government Ethics.

Both Trump and Clinton fully complied with federal requirements and submitted their information without delay, even though federal rules entitled them to apply for up to two, 45-day filing extensions. They offered no more, and no less, than what the forms required.

The documents themselves have limits.

Candidates, for example, are only required to provide values of their assets in broad ranges, meaning a stock holding worth $2.5 million would be listed as being worth “$1,000,001 to $5 million.” If a candidate is exceptionally rich, as both Trump and Clinton are, such reporting wiggle room makes it virtually impossible for anyone to accurately calculate a candidate’s overall wealth.

Moreover, candidates aren’t generally required to list the values of their residences or vehicles.

The documents, therefore, are not of much use for determining how much of a billionaire Trump really is. But that’s not Trump’s fault.

The verdict: A tie. Both candidates filed their documents on time, without delay, in accordance with the law.

Websites

A candidate’s website is a likely starting point for someone itching for detailed policy information straight from the source.

As of early September, Clinton’s website featured an “issues” section containing information on six topic areas: “economy and jobs,” “education,” “environment,” “health,” “justice and equality” and “national security.”

These six topic areas are then broken down into sections detailing 38 separate policy matters — from “LGBT rights and equality” to “Wall Street reform” to “protecting animals and wildlife.”

Added up, Clinton’s issues section contains about 22,000 words, by the Center for Public Integrity’s count. Most of the individual sections contain fewer than 1,000 words each. But many provide links to supplementary material such as related speeches, campaign videos, blog items and fact sheets. The fact sheets alone contain about 120,000 additional words worth of information.

Trump’s website features a “positions” section with seven topic areas: “economic vision,” “pay for the wall,” “healthcare reform,” “U.S.-China trade reform,” “Veterans Administration reforms,” “Second Amendment rights” and “immigration reform.”

Added up, Trump’s issues section contained about 9,200 words as of early September. More than one-fourth of those words detail Trump’s immigration and border wall plans.

Trump’s website also contains separate sections for press releases, statements and “issues.” The issues section is composed of 21 YouTube videos, most featuring Trump himself discussing both broad-based topics — the economy, the military — and the decidedly esoteric, such as “Trump University Truth” and “Live Free or Die.”

The videos are thick with superlatives, thin on specifics and range from 28 seconds in length to 3 minutes 7 seconds.

In one video from January, titled “Self Funding,” Trump makes statements that were largely true then, but demonstrably false now. “I’m totally self-funding my campaign so I don’t have to take donors and special-interest people and lobbyists — I don’t have to bring them in,” Trump declares.

Except Trump is not totally self-funding his campaign, nor is he anywhere close to doing so. Rather, Trump’s campaign has in recent months aggressively solicited money from individuals and political committees. Of the $128 million Trump’s campaign has raised through July, $52 million has personally come from Trump. Separately, Trump has welcomed the support of several pro-Trump super PACs, which may raise unlimited amounts of money to promote or attack candidates.

The verdict: Clinton’s website features more policy information and covers more topics. A political novice who wants to learn where the candidates stand on issues will learn much more from Clinton ‘s website than from Trump’s website.

Social media

You may consider Trump a blathering blabbermouth endlessly blubbering about one perceived ill or another: Muslims, Mexicans, Megyn Kelly, mosquitoes.

Then again, you may consider him a rare commodity in American politics: someone willing to communicate candidly with minimal self-censoring.

Trump calls CNN “unwatchable.” Sen. Ted Cruz is a “nasty guy” and a “loser.” Television host Bill Maher is an “idiot.” Trump’s Twitter account is equal parts tornado, torpedo and vaudeville, smashing, attacking and entertaining its way to attention and tackling almost any topic that tickles Trump’s fancy.

It’s tempting to dismiss Twitter — and Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram and others — as secondary to press conferences, campaign statements, commercials and other, more traditional forms of political messaging.

But Trump has 11.5 million Twitter followers. During Election 2016, reporters have written and broadcast hundreds of news stories about what Trump tweets.

Clinton has almost 8.8 million Twitter followers of her own, but her tweets come largely from her campaign, reveal less about the candidate and merit much less attention.

The verdict: Trump by a terabyte. No presidential nominee has ever, for better or for worse, been more unfiltered on social media.

Philanthropy

Presidential candidates are running to lead a country. How the candidates run their own charitable operations offers insight on how they lead.

The Clinton Foundation, in its own words, sounds like a leader and a winner. It exists to build “partnerships of great purpose between businesses, governments, NGOs and individuals to work faster, better and leaner; to find solutions that last; and to transform lives and communities from what they are today to what they can be, tomorrow.”

Like most charities, the organization — led in part by former President Bill Clinton and daughter Chelsea Clinton and formerly known as the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation when Clinton herself was directly involved — must file annual reports with the IRS detailing its finances.

It’s done that, and more. In December 2008, as Hillary Clinton was poised to become secretary of state, the Clinton Foundationsigned a memorandum of understanding requiring it to name its contributors.

On paper, the arrangement represents an “unusual” level of transparency among charitable initiatives, said Stacy Palmer, editor of The Chronicle of Philanthropy.

But, as The Hill recently noted, the Clinton Foundation has repeatedly stumbled with transparency — hardly an insignificant issue for the free world’s leader.

The foundation failed to reveal hundreds of donors to a Canadian affiliate, slow-walked other disclosures and provided donation figures in broad ranges, making it impossible to determine how much money a litany of questionable donors — foreign governments, included — have given.

While Charity Navigator this month gave the Clinton Foundation its highest rating for operational strength and transparency, the nonprofit watchdog organization last year placed the foundation on a “watch list” — a move prompting significant blowback from Clintonworld.

Meanwhile, Clinton is facing endless attacks from conservatives who consider the Clinton Foundation a pay-to-play monstrosity — author and activist Peter Schweizer wrote a 256-page book, “Clinton Cash,” about it. Write the Clintons a big check, get access to Bill and Hillary, the criticism goes. Even liberals such as MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow have questioned Clinton.

“The illegality of the Clinton Foundation has left it woefully unpopular among voters,” the Trump campaign said in an Aug. 25 statement, citing a Morning Consult poll.

“Secretary Clinton, the other day your campaign said that voters who are concerned about the ethics surrounding the Clinton Foundation should not vote for you. Do you agree?” Trump spokesman Jason Miller asked three days later, pointing to an MSNBC interview with a Clinton spokesman.

Blunting Trump’s criticism is the fact that his foundation gave $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation years ago. (Trump defended the donation to Fox News, saying, “The Clinton Foundation was helping with Haiti and with lots of other things, and I thought it was going to do some good work. So, it didn't make any difference to me.”)

Trump’s Donald J. Trump Foundation — a much smaller charity that in 2014 doled out less than $600,000 in grants, according to tax returns — has its own problems.

One big problem in particular: The Donald J. Trump Foundation straight up broke federal tax laws in 2013 when it illegally pumped money into a political organization supporting Pam Bondi, Florida’s attorney general. Charitable nonprofits are prohibited from making such political contributions.

The $25,000 donation to a pro-Bondi political group — the latest campaign finance-related trouble Trump has faced — came six days after a Bondi spokeswoman said Bondi’s office was “reviewing” allegations against Trump University, Trump’s for-profit program that offered courses in real estate investments. Critics have lambasted the program as a “scam,” “scheme,” “fraud” and “lie.”

Bondi’s office never pursued the Trump University matter.

After the IRS flagged the illegal donation, the Donald J. Trump Foundation coughed up a $2,500 penalty to placate the tax man.

"It was just an honest mistake," Jeffrey McConney, president and controller at the Trump Organization, told the Washington Post's David A. Fahrenthold. "It wasn’t done intentionally to hide a political donation, it was just an error."

Bill Clinton, speaking this month to a crowd in Orlando, disagreed.

"My charity helps people,” he said. “His is used to pay off your attorney general.”

This follows a damning report by the Washington Post that casts doubt on Trump’s claims of charity. Trump’s campaign refuses to provide documentation, including tax returns, detailing or verifying his charitable contributions.

“He makes contributions personally, and there’s no way for you to know or understand what those gifts are or when they are made,” Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks toldBuzzFeed.

CNN’s Alisyn Camerota on Tuesday asked Conway, Trump’s campaign manager, whether Trump would detail how much he’s given to charity.

“I doubt it,” Conway replied. “This is like badgering. I don't see it as journalism, I see it as badgering.”

And this weekend, the Washington Post published a scathing report explaining how Trump has taken credit for charitable activity funded by other donors to his foundation.

The verdict: Politically speaking, there are no winners here. Both foundations are different in size and service, but neither Clinton nor Trump have done themselves election season favors this year through their charitable operations.

Regardless of what good the Clinton Foundation is doing and has done, it has grown into a massive albatross for Clinton. USA Today, the Boston Globe, Huffington Post— hardly Trump train passengers — have either called on the Clinton Foundation to curtain its fundraising or shut down altogether.

Trump, meanwhile, faces continued fallout from his charity’s illegal political contribution: A Democratic organization has filed a complaint against the foundation with the U.S. Department of Justice, and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is opening an inquiry into the Donald J. Trump Foundation.

On balance, Trump has this election been less transparent about his philanthropy — to the extent he’s genuinely philanthropic — than Clinton has been. If Trump is generous with his money, he’s not offering much evidence of it.

Press access

Trump brings the fire.

Reporters are “dishonest,” “scum,” “horrible,” “sleazy” and “disgusting and corrupt” — although probably not worth killing. They’re targets of mockery. They get tossed from Trump rallies. Their news organizations are blacklisted and banned from obtaining coverage credentials. And, of course, there was the misdemeanor battery arrest in March of then-Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, who grabbed then-Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields after a news conference. (Lewandowski was not prosecuted.)

Clinton brings the ice.

First, there was Clinton’s reporterropejail. Then, she went 275 days between bona fide press conferences — or maybe 278?— and all but froze out journalists traveling with her. Like Trump, she flew around the country on a different plane than reporters, only bringing the press aboard earlier this month.

So much for Clinton’s promise to a roomful of journalists gathered last year in Washington, D.C., for Syracuse University’s Toner Prize political reporting award ceremony. There, Clinton said she’d aim for a“new relationship with the press” and “no more secrecy, no more zone of privacy.”

Leaders of several journalism organizations consider neither Trump nor Clinton paragons of transparency.

“Because of the power vested in the president, it is critical for the press to have access to the leading White House contenders so that the public stays well informed. As the general election heats up, both candidates can still do better on this score,” said Jeff Mason, president of the White House Correspondents’ Association and a Reuters reporter.

“If you want to be the leader of the free world, you shouldn't be afraid of holding a news conference and answering questions. If you want to prove to Americans you have the temperament to be president, you can't ban reporters because you don't like what they write,” said Thomas Burr, president of the National Press Club and reporter in the Salt Lake Tribune’s Washington, D.C., bureau.

Said Pam Fine, president of the American Society of News Editors: “It doesn’t serve the public when candidates either keep the press at arm’s length or constantly accuse the news media of being biased or self-serving.”

Despite Trump’s tempestuousness, the Republican nominee has in recent months repeatedly sat for lengthy, no-holds-barred interviews with national news outlets, including NBC’s “Meet the Press” with Chuck Todd, CNN’s “The Lead” with Jake Tapper, ABC World News Tonight with David Muir and Fox News’ “Fox and Friends.”

For example, while enforcing a ban on Washington Post reporters from campaign events, Trump was in the midst of 20-hours-worth of interviews for "Trump Revealed," said Michael Kranish, the book’s co-author and a Washington Post investigative reporter.

“That’s a high level of access — he took our questions, he answered follow-ups, he repeatedly called back,” Kranish said. “He’d both complain and say he respected what we were trying to do.”

NBC reporter Katy Tur, who’s traveled with Trump for more than a year, chronicled in Marie Claire her roiling reporter-candidate relationship with the Republican candidate. It’s boomeranged from him publicly demeaning her to sitting for exclusive interviews.

In contrast, New York Times reporter Amy Chozick, who’s covered Clinton for more than eight years, described in a July interview on public radio program "Fresh Air" how Clinton has been “very inaccessible” in 2016 with the reporters who cover her most closely. Chozick confirmed in an email last week Clinton has only conducted a single one-on-one interview with Chozick during Election 2016 while keeping most of her traveling press corps at bay.

Clinton, Chozick said, was notably more accessible during her 2008 presidential run. She flew on the same airplane with reporters, regularly joked and chatted with them — glass of wine in hand, occasionally — and even called some of their significant others on Valentine’s Day to apologize for keeping them tethered to the campaign trail.

Clinton’s campaign parried such access criticism, noting that the Democratic nominee “has sat for hundreds of interviews across the country from a wide range of outlets and has answered thousands of questions on every conceivable topic without ground rules on the questions that can be asked.”

Indeed, Clinton has recently sat for high-profile interviews with NBC’s Chuck Todd, CNN’s Brianna Keilar and others.

But an analysis last month by National Public Radio’s David Folkenflik shows that some of the interviews Clinton has conducted have been with non-journalists, such as entertainers or even other politicians. Clinton “favored television above all other forms of media” and “emphasized brief interviews with local television news stations,” the analysis concluded. “She also frequently graced local radio hosts with her calls.”

The analysis also showed that Trump has appeared for more interviews than Clinton on Sunday morning public affairs shows.

The verdict: Trump is unquestionably hostile toward reporters. He may even “hate” them. Many journalists are concerned his love of press freedom is somewhere between his fondness for federal Judge Gonzalo Curiel and windmills. But by most measures, Trump has been more accessible to the press during Election 2016.

Emails, immigration, transcripts

There’s no Trumpian analogue to what’s been Clinton’s most enduring transparency saga: her use of a private State Department email server.

Still unclear is why she had one, the degree to which she misused it and if she still continues to hide material the public is entitled to read. Oh, and why an aide destroyed two of Clinton’s BlackBerry devices with a hammer.

Last month, newly revealed emails showed how prominent Clinton Foundation donors had soughtaccess to key officials at the Clinton-led State Department. The whole matter has been the subject of an FBI investigation. Trump says it’s “worse than Watergate.”

“If you’re not telling the truth about your conduct, then that is the exact opposite of transparency,” said Tom Fitton, president of conservative nonprofit organization Judicial Watch, which has waged a years-long legal battle with the federal government to access Clinton’s emails.

And remember the paid, private speeches Clinton gave earlier this decade to Wall Street executives, including those at Goldman Sachs, the financial giant whose employees have over the years ranked among the nation’s most generous to Clinton’s political campaigns?

Despite criticism and calls by former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders to release transcripts of the speeches, Clinton has refused.

Trump isn’t dogged by email or transcript issues, making a direct comparison with Clinton moot. But Trump has been party to a variety of other transparency flaps — most notably involving lawsuits, the details of which he often doesn’t discuss.

Questions also remain about the immigration history of his Slovenian-born wife, Melania, who has all but disappeared since herspeech at the Republican National Convention plagiarized parts of first lady Michelle Obama’s 2008 Democratic National Convention speech.

On Wednesday, Melania Trump herself said she “correctly went through the legal process” in gaining her U.S. citizenship. She also released a letter from an immigration attorney, who said Melania Trump followed proper immigration procedures.

The verdict: Clinton’s secrets in part involve her service as secretary of state, the government official fourth in line to the presidency. They have caused her campaign sustained troubles that have yet to dissipate.

Her refusal to reveal transcripts of speeches to financial titans help fuel a criticism — raised again in recent days as she conducted a series of private fundraisers with some of the world’s most well-known people — that she’s quite candid and accessible to people with massive wealth and a willingness to use it to help her.

(Clinton’s campaign noted that “throughout this race, we have been the only campaign to provide press with background information about every fundraiser Hillary Clinton attends.”)

And while Trump is no open book, his lack of transparency in these regards hasn’t been nearly as much a campaign liability for him. Advantage Trump.

In conclusion

The Clinton campaign, in a statement to the Center for Public Integrity, said of Trump: “We know the least about Donald Trump of any major party nominee in recent memory.”

Trump’s staff, meanwhile, has accused Clinton of waging a “campaign to deceive media and the public.”

But while Clinton is known for her secrecy, by virtue of her tax returns, her willingness to name campaign bundlers and list donors to her charity, she trumps Trump on the transparency issue, albeit incompletely.

Versions of this story appear on NBC News, Public Radio International and Philly.com.

A pair of passionate Donald Trump supporters living abroad were surprised to learn this week that the Republican presidential candidate no longer wanted their money.

Henryk Zaleski, a 64-year-old retired U.S. Navy veteran who now lives in Norway, has given Trump $275. He told the Center for Public Integrity that he was “floored” when he discovered Trump’s campaign had returned his contributions.

Likewise, 52-year-old investment banker Ben Gelfand of Toronto was thrown to hear that the Trump campaign had rejected his $1,000 donation from June.

Gelfand said he provided the Trump campaign with information affirming his U.S. citizenship earlier this year. “They know I’m a U.S. citizen,” he told the Center for Public Integrity.

Apparently, the Trump campaign does not.

On Monday, Trump’s campaign told the Federal Election Commission that it had returned the donations from Zaleski, Gelfand and a third donor, Marc Pierrot of Hong Kong, who could not immediately be reached for comment.

“If a contribution is received with a foreign address, the committee sends a request for a copy of a valid U.S. passport and rejects contributions from contributors whose status cannot be confirmed with a passport,” Trump campaign treasurer Timothy Jost wrote to the agency.

Jost’s letter came just hours after the Center for Public Integrity revealed how a foreign national — Shahriyar Nasir of Toronto — had illegally donated $225 to Trump’s campaign in April.

Neither the Trump campaign nor the FEC had spotted Nasir’s illegal donation, though Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks said Nasir’s money has now been returned.

But the FEC, last month, did flag the contributions from Zaleski, Gelfand and Pierrot as potentially impermissible.

Alerting candidates that they’ve received money from foreign addresses is routine for the agency, and it doesn’t itself mean the donations are prohibited.

Americans living outside the country may legally donate to politicians, but foreign nationals may not. Only foreigners with permanent resident status in the United States may make political donations.

It’s generally up to campaigns to verify whether someone is legally allowed to make political contributions.

Neither Jost nor Hicks of the Trump campaign responded to requests for comment for this story.

For his part, Gelfand, who is registered to vote in Ohio, said he backed President Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012. Now, however, he’s on the Trump train.

“I’m a guy that votes by candidate, not by party,” Gelfand said.

Meanwhile, Zaleski said the Trump campaign had contacted him this week to review his voter registration information — but not to request proof of his citizenship.

“I have a lot of patience for people who make mistakes due to inexperience,” Zaleski said. “But we sure wasted a lot of time for no reason.”

Zaleski added that he, earlier this week, had voluntarily mailed the Trump campaign a copy of his passport, a copy of his Florida voter registration card and a copy of his retired military ID card. He’s also (again) attempting to donate to Trump’s campaign — he enclosed a check along with the documentation.

“Mr. Obama thinks himself to be a king of sorts, and Hillary [Clinton] is not the answer to counter the Obama years,” Zaleski said. “Let's make America great again. I strongly believe we can with [Trump] at the helm.”

Brett Kappel, a campaign finance lawyer in the Washington, D.C., office of Akerman LLP, said tracking down donors who live abroad can be a time-intensive activity for campaigns.

Obtaining copies of U.S. passports, Kappel said, is “a task that would take a great deal of staff time per contribution, assuming the contributors are even willing to provide their passport to anyone in an age of rampant identity theft.”

When Washington state made one of the first major moves to place limits on opioid painkiller prescriptions, pharmaceutical companies fought back — using the Pain Care Forum, a national network of drug companies and opioid-friendly nonprofits, many of them funded by drugmakers.

Alarm bells rang at the forum in 2007 after Washington state’s agency medical directors — spurred by overdose deaths of patients in the worker’s compensation system — drafted guidelines that would require pain specialists to approve high doses of opioids.

Worried the guidelines would create a “domino effect” of other states adopting restrictive policies, the forum agreed to pay a public relations consultant $85,000 to prep speakers, draft patient testimonials and coordinate an educational initiative focused on elected officials and the state medical board, documents obtained by the Center for Public Integrity and The Associated Press reveal.

The core message of the campaign: Patients should have access to painkillers.

Purdue Pharma also wrote one of the Washington medical directors, calling the new proposed guidelines too tough. The company knew the role painkillers have played in America’s addiction crisis: Its executives pleaded guilty to misleading the public about their drug OxyContin’s risk of addiction that year.

The same internal memos show that advocates affiliated with the Pain Care Forum met with the Washington governor’s chief health adviser to discuss the "unintended consequences" of the guidelines. They also helped defeat a resolution from the state medical association, which represents doctors,  that would have supported the guidelines.

The state medical board, which oversees doctors, also agreed to do something the Pain Care Forum wanted: send doctors a book on opioid prescribing produced by the Federation of State Medical Boards, a group that has received some funding from pharmaceutical companies.

Drugmakers paid $825,000 to distribute the book in dozens of states, according to information the FSMB provided as part of a U.S. Senate investigation. FSMB guidelines, which some doctors said were too lax, were enshrined by medical boards in at least 35 states as of 2013.

Lisa Robin, FSMB’s chief advocacy officer, said those guidelines reflected the best practices at the time. The federation has since updated both those and the prescribing book, and no longer receives funding from pharmaceutical companies, she said.

The drug industry relied upon lobbyists and political contributions when the guidelines went before the Washington Legislature in 2010. Though Purdue spent next to nothing in prior years, state records show it laid out more than $62,500 that year on lobbying. It also gave $800 each to five state senators; four of them voted against the dosing limits.

Still, the guidelines passed.

“I think we kind of caught them with their pants down,” said Democratic Rep. Jim Moeller, the bill’s sponsor. “They didn’t expect this was going to have any legs.”

Purdue said that it does not oppose measures that “improve the way opioids are prescribed,” even when they could reduce opioid sales, but did not respond to questions about its activities in Washington.

After the guidelines became state law, the advocacy groups’ fight continued. The American Pain Foundation, a member of the Pain Care Forum that received most of its funding from the industry, asked at least one pharmaceutical company for money in 2011, warning that other states could soon follow Washington. A week later, the company sent a check for $75,000.

The state has seen a slower increase in overdose deaths than nearly all others since the policy was implemented. Some patients have had difficulty finding pain specialists in rural areas, however.

Overall, the episode didn’t lead to a total loss for opioid makers: Few other states have adopted Washington’s approach discouraging high doses of the drugs.

The Associated Press and the Center for Public Integrity teamed up to investigate the influence of pharmaceutical companies on state and federal policies regarding opioids, the powerful painkillers that have claimed the lives of 165,000 people in the U.S. since 2000.

The news agencies tracked proposed laws on the subject and analyzed data on how the companies and their allies deployed lobbyists and contributed to political campaigns.

Key findings from the reporting:

• Drug companies and allied advocates spent more than $880 million on lobbying and political contributions at the state and federal level over the past decade; by comparison, a handful of groups advocating for opioid limits spent $4 million. The money covered a range of political activities important to the drug industry, including legislation and regulations related to opioids.
   
• The opioid industry and its allies contributed to roughly 7,100 candidates for state-level offices.
   
• The drug companies and allied groups have an army of lobbyists averaging 1,350 per year, covering all 50 state capitals. 
   
• The opioid lobby's political spending adds up to more than eight times what the formidable gun lobby recorded for political activities during the same period.
   
• For over a decade, a group called the Pain Care Forum has met with some of the highest-ranking health officials in the federal government, while quietly working to influence proposed regulations on opioids and promote legislation and reports on the problem of untreated pain. The group is coordinated by the chief lobbyist for Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin. 
   
• Two of the drug industry's most active allies, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network and the Academy of Integrative Pain Management, have contacted legislators and other officials about opioid measures in at least 18 states, even in some cases when cancer patients were specifically exempted from drug restrictions. State lawmakers often don't know that these groups receive part of their funding from drugmakers.
   
• Five states have passed laws related to abuse-deterrent opioids and scores of bills have been introduced, with at least 21 using nearly identical language that some legislators said was supplied by pharmaceutical lobbyists. Pharmaceutical companies lobby for such laws, which typically require insurers and pharmacists to give preferential treatment to the patent-protected drugs, even though some experts say the deterrents are easily circumvented.  

Editor's note: This is the first installment of a two-day series. 

The makers of prescription painkillers have adopted a 50-state strategy that includes hundreds of lobbyists and millions in campaign contributions to help kill or weaken measures aimed at stemming the tide of prescription opioids, the drugs at the heart of a crisis that has cost 165,000 Americans their lives and pushed countless more to crippling addiction.

The drugmakers vow they’re combating the addiction epidemic, but The Associated Press and the Center for Public Integrity found that they often employ a statehouse playbook of delay and defend that includes funding advocacy groups that use the veneer of independence to fight limits on the drugs, such as OxyContin, Vicodin and fentanyl, the narcotic linked to Prince’s death.

The mother of Cameron Weiss was no match for the industry’s high-powered lobbyists when she plunged into the corridors of New Mexico’s Legislature, crusading for a measure she fervently believed would have saved her son’s life.

It was a heroin overdose that eventually killed Cameron, not long before he would have turned 19. But his slippery descent to death started a few years earlier, when a hospital sent him home with a bottle of Percocet after he broke his collarbone in wrestling practice.

Jennifer Weiss-Burke pushed for a bill limiting initial prescriptions of opioid painkillers for acute pain to seven days. The bill exempted people with chronic pain, but opponents still fought back, with lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry quietly mobilizing in increased numbers to quash the measure.

They didn’t speak up in legislative hearings. “They were going individually talking to senators and representatives one-on-one,” Weiss-Burke said.

Unknowingly, she had taken on a political powerhouse that spent more than $880 million nationwide on lobbying and campaign contributions from 2006 through 2015 — more than 200 times what those advocating for stricter policies spent and more than eight times what the formidable gun lobby recorded for similar activities during that same period.

The pharmaceutical companies and allied groups have a number of legislative interests in addition to opioids that account for a portion of their political activity, but their steady presence in state capitals means they’re poised to jump in quickly on any debate that affects them.

Collectively, the AP and the Center for Public Integrity found, the drugmakers and allied advocacy groups employed an annual average of 1,350 lobbyists in legislative hubs from 2006 through 2015, when opioids’ addictive nature came under increasing scrutiny.

“The opioid lobby has been doing everything it can to preserve the status quo of aggressive prescribing,” said Dr. Andrew Kolodny, founder of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing and an outspoken advocate for opioid reform. “They are reaping enormous profits from aggressive prescribing.”

The drug companies say they are committed to solving the problems linked to their painkillers. Major opioid-makers have launched initiatives to, among other things, encourage more cautious prescribing, allow states to share databases of prescriptions and help stop drug dealers from obtaining pills.   

And the industry and its allies have not been alone in fighting restrictions on opioids. Powerful doctors’ groups are part of the fight in several states, arguing that lawmakers should not tell them how to practice medicine.

While drug regulation is usually handled at the federal level — where the makers of painkillers also have pushed back against attempts to impose restrictions — ordinary citizens struggling with the opioid crisis in their neighborhoods have looked to their state capitals for solutions.

Hundreds of opioid-related bills have been introduced at the state level just in the last several years. The few groups pleading for tighter prescription restrictions are mostly fledgling mom-and-pop organizations formed by families of young people killed by opioids. Together, they spent about $4 million nationwide at the state and federal level on political contributions and lobbying from 2006 through 2015 and employed an average of eight state lobbyists each year.

Prescription opioids are the synthetic cousins of heroin and morphine, prescribed to relieve pain.  Sales of the drugs have boomed — quadrupling from 1999 to 2010 — and overdose deaths rose just as fast, totaling 165,000 this millennium. Last year, 227 million opioid prescriptions were doled out in the U.S., enough to hand a bottle of pills to nine out of every 10 American adults.

The drugmakers’ revenues are robust, too: Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin and one of the largest opioid producers by sales, pulled in an estimated $2.4 billion from opioids last year alone, according to estimates from health care information company IMS Health.

That’s even after executives pleaded guilty to misleading the public about OxyContin’s risk of addiction in 2007 and the company agreed to pay more than $600 million in fines.

Opioids can be dangerous even for people who follow doctors’ orders, though they also help millions of people manage pain associated with cancer, injuries, surgeries and end-of-life care.

The industry group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America issued a statement saying, “We and our members stand with patients, providers, law enforcement, policymakers and others in calling for and supporting national policies and action to address opioid abuse.”

And Purdue said: “Purdue does not oppose — either directly or indirectly — policies that improve the way opioids are prescribed, including when those policies may result in decreased opioid use.”

One of the chief solutions the drugmakers actively promote now are new formulations that make their products harder to crush or dissolve, thwarting abusers who want to snort or inject painkillers. But the new versions also extend the life of their profits with fresh patents, and some experts question their overall effectiveness.

A focus on pain treatment

An analysis of state records collected by the National Institute on Money in State Politics provides a snapshot of the drugmakers’ battles to limit opioids. For instance, they show that pharmaceutical companies and their allies ramped up their lobbying and campaign contributions in New Mexico in 2012 as lawmakers considered — and ultimately killed — the bill backed by Cameron Weiss’ mother.

But one of the drug companies’ most powerful engines of political might isn’t part of the public record — a largely unknown network of opioid-friendly nonprofits they help fund and meet with monthly known as the Pain Care Forum, formed more than a decade ago.

Combined, its participants contributed more than $24 million to 7,100 candidates for state-level offices from 2006 through 2015, with the largest amounts going to governors and the lawmakers who control legislative agendas, such as house speakers, senate presidents and health committee chairs.

They’ve gotten involved in nitty-gritty fights even beyond legislatures. After Washington state leaders drafted the nation’s first set of medical guidelines urging doctors not to prescribe high doses of opioids in 2007, the Pain Care Forum hired a public relations firm to convince the state medical board that the guidelines would hurt patients with chronic pain.

A sizable slice of the drugmakers’ battles are carried out by pharma-funded advocates spreading opioid-friendly narratives — with their links to drug companies going unmentioned — or by persuading pharma-friendly lawmakers to introduce legislation drafted by the industry.

Two years ago, it was a major patient organization receiving grants from the opioid industry, the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network, that led the fight against a measure in Tennessee aimed at reducing the number of babies born addicted to narcotics.

And in Maine last year, drugmakers persuaded a state representative to successfully push a bill — drafted by the industry — requiring insurers to cover so-called abuse-deterrent painkillers, the new forms of opioids that are harder to abuse.

Legislatures have begun considering limits on the length of first-time opioid prescriptions. But the new laws and proposals in states including Connecticut and Massachusetts carve out a common exception: They do not apply to chronic pain patients. Drugmaker-funded pain groups, which can mobilize patients to appear at legislative hearings, advocate for the exceptions.

Many patients vouch that opioids have given them a better quality of life.

“There’s such a hysteria going on” about those who have died from overdoses, said Barby Ingle, president of the International Pain Foundation, which receives pharmaceutical company funding. “There are millions who are living a better life who are on the medications long term.”

That’s contrary to what researchers are increasingly saying, however. Studies have shown weak or no evidence that opioids are effective ways to treat routine chronic pain. And one 2015 study from a hospital system in Pennsylvania found about 40 percent of chronic non-cancer pain patients receiving opioids had some signs of addiction and 4 percent had serious problems.

“You can create an awful lot of harm with seven days of opioid therapy,” said Dr. David Juurlink, a toxicology expert at the University of Toronto. “You can send people down the pathway to addiction … when they never would have been sent there otherwise.”

A surprising opponent

Letting advocacy groups do the talking can be an especially effective tactic in state legislatures, where many lawmakers serve only part time and juggle complicated issues.

Lawmakers in Massachusetts, for example, said they didn’t hear directly from pharmaceutical lobbyists when they took up opioid prescribing issues this year. But they did hear from a patient advocate with ongoing back pain who works with and volunteers for groups that receive some of their funding from pharmaceutical companies. She also brought in patients to meet with them.

“A lot of times those legislators, they don’t have the ability to really thoroughly look into who these organizations are and who’s funding them,” said Edward Walker of the University of California Los Angeles, who studies grassroots groups.

Nonprofit advocacy groups led the countercharge in Tennessee in 2014 when Republican state Rep. Ryan Williams began work to stanch the flow of prescription painkillers, alarmed by a rapidly rising number of drug-addicted babies, who suffer from withdrawal in their first weeks of life and complications long after they leave the hospital.

More than 900 babies had been born addicted in Tennessee the year before, many of them hooked on the prescription opioids their mothers had taken. That number had climbed steadily since 2001, when there were fewer than 100.

Whitney Moore and her husband adopted two girls born addicted to prescription opioids and other drugs in eastern Tennessee, and she still remembers her older daughter’s cries in the hospital, “the most high-pitched scream you’ve ever heard in your life”— a common symptom in babies in the throes of withdrawal.

Doctors gave Moore’s infant daughter morphine to ease her seizures, vomiting and diarrhea, and she stayed in a neonatal intensive care unit more than a month. Now 3 years old, she still suffers from gastrointestinal problems and remains sensitive to loud noises.

When Williams was mulling potential legislation, doctors told him that part of Tennessee’s problem was a 2001 law — similar to measures on the books in more than a dozen states — that made it difficult to discipline doctors for dispensing opioids and allowed clinicians to refuse to prescribe powerful narcotics only if they steered patients to an opioid-friendly doctor.

The result, according to the experts Williams worked with, was a rash of prescribing, even for pregnant women. In 2014, Tennessee ranked third in the country for per-capita opioid prescriptions, with roughly 1.3 prescriptions doled out for every person in the state, according to an analysis of prescription data from IMS Health.

Williams’ mission to repeal the law failed that year, and he was shocked by the group that came out in opposition — the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the advocacy arm of one of the country’s biggest and best-known charities.

Two Cancer Society lobbyists worked against the bill, even though prescribing painkillers for cancer patients is a widely accepted medical practice that would have remained legal.  

“We injected ourselves into the debate because we did not want cancer patients to not be able to have access to their medication,” said Theodore Morrison, a lobbyist working for the network that year.

The society’s annual ranks of about 200 lobbyists around the country have taken similar positions elsewhere, defending rules that some argue encourage extensive prescriptions and opposing opioid measures even if the proposed legislation specifically exempted cancer patients.

The Cancer Action Network listed four major opioid makers that provided funding of at least $100,000 in 2015, in addition to five that contributed at least $25,000. Companies that donate such sums get one-on-one meetings with the group’s leaders and other chances to discuss policy.

The network said only 6 percent of its funding last year came from drugmakers and that its ties to drug companies do not influence the positions it takes. “ACS CAN’s only constituents are cancer patients, survivors, and their loved ones nationwide,” spokesman Dave Woodmansee said.

The network said it advocates for certain measures despite exemptions for cancer because some patients continue to experience pain even after their cancer is gone.

ACS CAN teamed up with another group to defend the Tennessee painkiller law — the Academy of Integrative Pain Management, an association of doctors, chiropractors, acupuncturists and others who treat pain, until recently known as the American Academy of Pain Management. The group promotes access to pain drugs as well as non-pharmaceutical treatments such as acupuncture.

Seven of the academy’s nine corporate council members listed online are opioid makers. The other two are AstraZeneca, which has invested heavily in a drug to treat opioid-induced constipation, and Medtronic, which makes implantable devices that deliver pain medicine.

The academy’s executive director, Bob Twillman, said his organization receives 15 percent of its funding from pharmaceutical companies, not including revenue from advertisements in its publications. Its state advocacy project is 100 percent funded by drugmakers and their allies, but he said that does not mean it is beholden to pharmaceutical interests.

“We don’t always do the things they want us to do,” he said. “Most of the time we’re saying, ‘Gosh, yes, there should be some limits on opioid prescribing, reasonable limits,’ but I don’t think they would be in favor of that.”

Both the academy and the cancer group have been active across the country, making the case that lawmakers should balance efforts to address the opioid crisis with the needs of chronic pain patients. Between them, they have contacted legislators and other officials about opioid-related measures in at least 18 states.

In Massachusetts this year, they helped persuade lawmakers to soften strict proposals that would have limited first-time opioid prescriptions to three days’ worth. They also have weighed in on how often doctors should be required to check prescription-monitoring databases, which can help crack down on prescription-shopping with multiple doctors.

The academy reported on its website that, since 2013, its state advocacy network had provided “extensive comments” on clinician guidelines in New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Indiana and elsewhere; issued action alerts resulting in more than 300 emails and phone calls to more than 80 legislators in 2014 alone; and held teleconferences with more than 100 advocates.

Purdue, which gives to both the academy and the cancer network, said it contributes to a range of advocacy groups, including some with differing views on opioid policy. “It is imperative that we have legitimate policy debates without trying to silence those with whom we disagree. That’s the American political system at work,” the company said in a statement.

As for Williams, he tried again last year to repeal Tennessee’s intractable pain law — and won unanimous approval in both houses.  The extra year had given Williams and his co-sponsor time to help educate their fellow lawmakers, he said, even though the Cancer Society still opposed the repeal.

Lobbyists ‘were killing it’

The tried-and-true tactics of lobbying and campaign contributions remain a major plank of the pharmaceutical playbook. In 2014 alone, for instance, participants in the Pain Care Forum spent at least $14 million nationwide on state-level lobbying.

Two years earlier — facing the threat of limits on opioid-prescribing — forum members had upped their number of lobbyists in New Mexico, which is second only to West Virginia in per-capita deaths primarily due to prescription and illegal opioid drugs, according to the most recent federal data available.

The aim of the bill Jennifer Weiss-Burke backed was to limit initial prescriptions of opioids for acute pain to seven days to make addictions less likely and produce fewer leftover pills that could be peddled illegally.

After her son had left the hospital with his first bottle of Percocet in 2009 at the age of 16, the Albuquerque teen had suffered two more injuries and gotten two more prescriptions. He also took pills he found at his grandparents’ house. Less than a year later, he started smoking heroin, which costs less than black-market prescription drugs.

He repeatedly went into rehab, and just as repeatedly relapsed. In August 2011, his mother found him at home, dead.

Weiss-Burke said she didn’t realize how dangerous prescription pills could be until her son already had moved on to heroin, a tortuous progression mirrored by the downward spirals of tens of thousands of other people across the country.

Heeding concerns from the state medical society, the bill’s sponsors amended it to allow the boards overseeing doctors and other prescribers to set their own limits. Still, the bill died in the House Judiciary Committee.

“The lobbyists behind the scenes were killing it,” said Bernadette Sanchez, the Democratic state senator who sponsored the measure.

Lobbyists for three Pain Care Forum members declined to comment, saying they were not authorized to speak about their clients’ work.

Forum participants had 15 lobbyists registered in New Mexico that year, up from nine the previous year. One was reported to be working out of the office of a high-ranking lawmaker; another was a former lawmaker himself.

Pfizer said that its two lobbyists in Santa Fe — up from one — reflected a change in firms, not an addition, and that the company did not lobby on opioid restrictions.

Still, the majority of the judiciary committee received drug industry contributions in 2012. Overall that year, drug companies and their employees contributed nearly $40,000 to New Mexico campaigns — roughly 70 percent more than in previous years with no governor’s race on the ballot.

In New Mexico alone, opioid makers spent $32,000 lobbying in 2012 — more than double their outlay the year before.

Restrictions like the ones considered in New Mexico did not become law anywhere until this year, after the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention called for even tighter restrictions. In 2016, they have been adopted in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New York and Rhode Island, all with exceptions for patients with chronic pain.

The next frontier

Now, pharmaceutical companies are directing their lobbying efforts to their new legislative frontier in the states — medicines known as abuse-deterrent formulations. These drugs ultimately are more lucrative, since they’re protected by patent and do not yet have generic competitors. They cost insurers more than generic opioids without the tamper-resistant technology.

Skeptics warn that they carry the same risks of addiction as other opioid versions, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration noted that they don’t prevent the most common form of abuse — swallowing pills whole.

“This is a way that the pharmaceutical industry can evade responsibility, get new patents and continue to pump pills into the system,” said Dr. Anna Lembke, chief of addiction medicine at the Stanford University School of Medicine and author of a book on the opioid epidemic.

Opioid-makers have especially courted attorneys general, who have helped spread tamper-resistant opioid talking points.

Since 2006, Pain Care Forum participants have given more than $600,000 in campaign contributions to attorneys general candidates, and another $1.6 million to the Republican and Democratic attorneys general associations. Purdue, with $100,000 in 2015 alone, tied with four other entities for top contributor to the Democratic Attorneys General Association; it was among the top 10 donors to the Republican group, giving more than $200,000.

In 2013, Alabama’s Republican attorney general, Luther Strange, helped spearhead a letter to the FDA recommending the agency not approve new generic versions of opioids without tamper-resistant technology, which effectively would give the market to brand-name drug companies such as Purdue and Pfizer for several years. In all, 48 attorneys general, including Strange, signed the letter.

Strange has received $50,000 in campaign contributions from Pain Care Forum members, more than any other attorney general from 2006 through 2015, with more than $20,000 of that coming from Pfizer.

“As Attorney General, I will not apologize for my efforts to protect Alabamians from a drug abuse epidemic that is claiming more lives than automobile accidents in my state,” Strange said.

More than 100 bills related to abuse-deterrent opioids have been introduced in various states thus far, at least 81 of them since January 2015, according to the legislative tracking service Quorum. At least 21 of the recent bills featured nearly identical language, and several of their sponsors said they received the wording from pharmaceutical lobbyists.

In Maine last year, a measure that required insurers to cover abuse-deterrent opioids at more favorable rates was introduced at the request of a lobbyist and sailed through the Legislature, after overdose deaths in the state hit a record peak.

Insurance lobbyists argued in vain against the measure, saying it would allow drug companies to raise prices and push up insurance premiums.

The bill’s sponsor, Democratic Rep. Barry Hobbins, has a family member struggling with opioid addiction and said he was asked to introduce the bill by a longtime acquaintance who also lobbies for Pfizer.

“Everyone was trying to figure out a way to do anything they could to address this major health crisis,” Hobbins said. “I was asked to sponsor that bill because of my personal family issues.”

Pushing for the legislation was a team effort: Pfizer’s director of U.S. policy testified in favor of the bill, citing a study that showed it would help curb abuse. But he neglected to say the study was co-authored by employees of Purdue, which also sent a lobbyist to push for the bill.

The drugmakers tried similar tactics in New Mexico earlier this year, with less success.

Randy Marshall, director of the New Mexico Medical Society, which represents doctors, said he turned down a request from a Purdue lobbyist that he introduce a measure calling for tamper-resistant drugs to be covered by insurers. He said he was told that if he testified, the company would lobby behind the scenes.

But the New Mexico Osteopathic Medical Association did help at the request of a Pfizer lobbyist, said the group’s executive director, Ralph McClish.

In response to a question about its role in that legislation, Pfizer issued a statement that it “works with many different stakeholders on areas of mutual interest.”

A Purdue statement acknowledged that the abuse-deterrent pills won’t stop all misuse, but added, “They are an important part of the comprehensive approach needed to address this public health issue.”

The New Mexico measure failed, and McClish said that the perceived self-interest of the drug companies was key to its defeat.

“People were sitting there going, ‘Pharma is going to make a lot of money off of these drugs,’” he said.

Associated Press health reporter Matthew Perrone contributed to this article.

Editor's note: This is the second installment of a two-day series. The first day covers the state political efforts surrounding opioids.

For more than a decade, members of a little-known group called the Pain Care Forum have blanketed Washington with messages touting prescription painkillers’ vital role in the lives of millions of Americans, creating an echo chamber that has quietly derailed efforts to curb U.S. consumption of the drugs, which accounts for two-thirds of the world’s usage. 

In 2012, drugmakers and their affiliates in the forum sent a letter to U.S. senators promoting a hearing about an influential report on a “crisis of epidemic proportions”: pain in America. Few knew the report stemmed from legislation drafted and pushed by forum members and that their experts had helped author it. The report estimated more than 100 million Americans — roughly 40 percent of adults — suffered from chronic pain, an eye-popping statistic that some researchers call deeply problematic.

The letter made no reference to another health issue that had been declared an epidemic by federal authorities: drug overdoses tied to prescription painkillers. Deaths linked to addictive drugs like OxyContin, Vicodin and Percocet had increased more than fourfold since 1999, accounting for more fatal overdoses in 2012 than heroin and cocaine combined.

An investigation by the Center for Public Integrity and The Associated Press reveals that similar feedback loops of information and influence play out regularly in the nation’s capital, fueled by money and talking points from the Pain Care Forum, a loose coalition of drugmakers, trade groups and dozens of nonprofits supported by industry funding that has flown under the radar until now.

Hundreds of internal documents shed new light on how drugmakers and their allies shaped the national response to the ongoing wave of prescription opioid abuse, which has claimed the lives of roughly 165,000 Americans since 2000, according to federal estimates.

Painkillers are among the most widely prescribed medications in the U.S., but pharmaceutical companies and allied groups have a multitude of legislative interests beyond those drugs. From 2006 through 2015, participants in the Pain Care Forum spent over $740 million lobbying in the nation’s capital and in all 50 statehouses on an array of issues, including opioid-related measures, according to an analysis of lobbying filings by the Center for Public Integrity and AP.

The same organizations reinforced their influence with more than $140 million doled out to political campaigns, including more than $75 million alone to federal candidates, political action committees and parties.

That combined spending on lobbying and campaigns amounts to more than 200 times the $4 million spent during the same period by the handful of groups that work for restrictions on painkillers. Meanwhile, opioid sales reached $9.6 billion last year, according to IMS Health, a health information company.

“You can go a long, long way in getting what you want when you have a lot of money,” said Professor Keith Humphreys of Stanford University, a former adviser on drug policy under President Barack Obama. “And it’s only when things get so disastrous that finally there’s enough popular will aroused to push back.”

Obama gave his first speech on the opioid epidemic last fall. In July, Congress passed its first legislation targeting the crisis, an election-year package intended to expand access to addiction treatment. But the law includes little new funding and no restrictions on painkillers, such as mandatory training for prescribers, a step favored by federal advisory panels.

Obama administration officials say they have tried to strike a balance between controlling the harms of opioids and keeping them available for patients.

“We did not want to deny people access to appropriate pain care,” said Michael Botticelli, Obama’s drug czar. “We were all trying to figure out what the balance was, and that’s still the case going forward.”

Painkillers are modern versions of ancient medicines derived from the opium poppy, also the source of heroin. Prescription opioids were long reserved for the most severe forms of pain associated with surgery, injury or terminal diseases like cancer.

That changed in the 1990s with a surge in prescribing for more common ailments like back pain, arthritis and headaches. A combination of factors fueled the trend, including new medical guidelines, insurance policies and pharmaceutical marketing for long-acting drugs like OxyContin.

The drug’s manufacturer, Purdue Pharma, pleaded guilty and agreed to pay more than $600 million in fines in 2007 for misleading the public about the risks of OxyContin. But the drug continued to rack up blockbuster sales, generating more than $22 billion over the last decade.

Despite having no physical address or online presence, the Pain Care Forum hosts high-ranking officials from the White House, Food and Drug Administration and other agencies at its monthly gatherings.

Purdue’s Washington lobbyist, Burt Rosen, co-founded the forum more than a decade ago and coordinates the group’s meetings, which include dozens of lobbyists and executives.

Purdue declined to make Rosen available for interviews and did not answer specific questions about its lobbying activities or financial support for forum participants. Purdue said it supports a range of advocacy groups, including some with differing views on opioids.

“In practice and governance, the Pain Care Forum is like any of the hundreds of policy coalitions in Washington and throughout the nation,” the company said in a statement, adding: “Purdue complies with all applicable lobbying disclosure laws and requirements.”

While Purdue, Endo Pharmaceuticals and other members have maintained the forum does not take policy positions, the AP and Center for Public Integrity's reporting shows the group’s participants have worked together to push and draft federal legislation, blunt regulations and influence decisions around opioids.

Opioid drugmakers say they are striving to improve the safety of their products and how they are used. They point to new harder-to-crush pills and initiatives that, among other things, allow states to share databases designed to spot “doctor shopping” by patients.

Elsewhere, experts are reevaluating the effectiveness of opioids for most forms of chronic pain, noting little long-term research.

“The biggest myth out there is that there’s a conflict between reducing our dependence on opioids and improving care for patients in pain,” said Dr. Caleb Alexander, co-director of Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness. “It’s an artificial conflict, but there are lots of vested interests behind it.”

‘The epidemic of pain’

By spring 2014, the figure that 100 million Americans suffered from chronic pain was getting new attention: as a talking point for the nation’s top drug regulator.

The head of the FDA used the statistic to illustrate the importance of keeping painkillers accessible, despite the escalating toll of opioid addiction and abuse in American communities.

In an online essay, then-Commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg said reducing the toll was a “highest priority,” but that her agency had to “balance it with another major public health priority: managing the pain that affects an estimated 100 million Americans.”

That line populated her speeches and interviews for months.

But Michael Von Korff of the Group Health Research Institute, whose research contributed to the statistic, said the number has no connection to opioids. Instead, he said, it mostly represents “people with run-of-the-mill pain problems who are already managing them pretty well.”

Von Korff’s work is funded by federal, foundation and health insurance sources. He also is an officer with Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing, a group pushing for restrictions on the drugs.

Pain Care Forum participants spent nearly $19 million on lobbying efforts that included the legislation requiring federal research on pain and the Institute of Medicine report that first highlighted the figure.

Concerns about the use of the statistic in connection with opioids and ties between some of the report authors and the pharmaceutical industry were covered by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinelin 2014.

Nearly half the experts assembled by the Institute of Medicine to write the 364-page report had served as leaders in Pain Care Forum-affiliated groups, such as the American Pain Foundation, the American Pain Society and the American Academy of Pain Medicine — all supported by industry funding.

Hamburg said in an email that the report was “another piece of scientific literature that helped inform the broader field,” which her agency had no role in producing.

The Pain Care Forum discussed the legislation that led to the report at its first meeting in February 2005, according to notes by one of the group’s principal members, The American Pain Foundation. Memos from the now-defunct foundation are among hundreds of documents obtained through public information requests by the AP and the Center for Public Integrity from the city of Chicago, which accused six drugmakers of misleading the public about opioid risks in an ongoing lawsuit.

In June 2006, the forum organized a Capitol Hill briefing headlined “The Epidemic of Pain in America.” Briefing materials included statements like: “Appropriate use of opioid medications like oxycodone is safe and effective and unlikely to cause addiction in people who are under the care of a doctor and who have no history of substance abuse.”

Attendees were asked to support a bill from then-Congressman Mike Rogers, which would later be rewritten by the forum and reintroduced in 2007 and 2009, according to the memos. It called for the Institute of Medicine — now a part of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine — to develop a comprehensive report on pain in America. Parts of the legislation eventually passed with Obama’s sweeping health care overhaul of 2010.

Rogers, a Republican from Michigan, received at least $310,000 in contributions from forum groups from 2006 to 2015, which went to his campaign and to a leadership account that he could use to donate to his peers.

Rogers, who left office last year, rejected the idea that he was influenced by the contributions, and said he began working on pain issues as a state senator after helping his brother through a series of back surgeries.

“I think they said, ‘This guy is a champion, he’s doing something we believe in and we want to support guys like that,’” he said. 

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and former Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., who together introduced the Senate version of the bill, received more than $360,000 and $190,000 respectively from forum participants.

Staffers for Hatch did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Dodd, who left office in 2011, said in a statement: “Sen. Hatch and I worked together to increase awareness and understanding of this serious medical condition in the hopes of providing relief to the millions of Americans who suffer from chronic pain.”

Phil Saigh, the executive director of the American Academy of Pain Medicine, said he informed the Pain Care Forum years ago that his group did not consider itself a member of the coalition. Yet the academy has continuously appeared in directories of forum participants since 2006, including as late as 2013, the most recent documents available.

The academy and the American Pain Society say some of the funding they receive from drugmakers is in the form of grants used for expenses tied to educational meetings and events. Both organizations also operate separate “corporate councils,” in which companies are granted meetings with physicians in exchange for annual payments up to the $20,000 range.

Jennifer Walsh, a spokeswoman for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, said, “We stand by our report, the committee, and the process that produced it.”

Experts who could personally profit from reports are prohibited from serving on its committees, she added. But the academies, which advise the federal government on scientific and medical topics, declined to release financial disclosure forms completed by panelists.

Those on opposite sides of the opioids debate agree that the report raised important points about pain treatment, including warnings about the addictiveness of painkillers.

After the report’s release in June 2011, the American Pain Foundation received $150,000 from Purdue to promote its findings through the Pain Care Forum. The foundation planned “congressional briefings and hearings” and “meetings with the leadership of various federal agencies,” according to a November 2011 letter.

The foundation closed the next year. Senate investigators had asked about the nonprofit receiving nearly 90 percent of its funding from industry.

Meanwhile, a handful of lawmakers tried to draw attention to rising rates of painkiller abuse.

In 2010, then-Rep. Mary Bono, R-Calif., co-founded the Congressional Caucus on Prescription Drug Abuse, which focused on educating lawmakers about drug abuse. She clipped newspaper stories from her colleagues’ home states, but recalled, “They’d just say ‘Yeah, yeah, yeah,’ and move on to more pressing matters.”

Bono, whose family had dealt with opioid addiction, drafted legislation in 2010 designed to curb opioid prescribing by requiring the FDA to limit the labeling for OxyContin and related drugs to “severe pain.” OxyContin had long been marketed for a broader indication listed on the label as “moderate-to-severe pain.”

According to Bono, a Purdue lobbyist visited her and threatened to pull back on its state-level funding for drug abuse initiatives.

“They were just letting it be known that if I didn’t play nicer with them, they could cause some things to happen that I wouldn’t like,” she said.

Purdue said in a statement that it met with Bono to support “her efforts to stop prescription drug abuse.” The company says it does not oppose measures that “improve the way opioids are prescribed,” even when they could reduce sales. Former Rep. Bill Brewster, D-Oklahoma, a contract lobbyist for Purdue at the time, said in an email that he recalled the conversation as “cordial and constructive.”

Purdue spent nearly $800,000 on lobbying efforts that included Bono’s bill and subsequent versions of it. Pain Care Forum participants gave her campaigns more than $60,000 from 2006 through 2012.

Bono’s bill, the Stop Oxy Abuse Act, never received a congressional vote or hearing, even after Republicans regained control of the House in the November 2010 elections. She lost her congressional seat in 2012.

‘What’s a regulator to do?’

In June 2012, a senior FDA official gave a presentation to the Pain Care Forum titled: “FDA and Opioids: What’s a regulator to do?”

For several years, the FDA had been developing risk-management plans to reduce misuse of long-acting opioids like OxyContin. With oversight of drugmakers and their marketing efforts, the agency seemed perfectly positioned to tackle the problem.

But the plans that the FDA laid out lacked the major reforms suggested by the agency itself in 2009, when it announced the initiative. Instead of mandatory certification training for doctors and electronic registries to track opioid prescriptions to patients, the FDA official outlined much milder steps: Drugmakers would fund optional classes for prescribers and supply pharmacy brochures to patients about opioid risks.

Over several years, the FDA seemed to have backed away from any significant restrictions.

“It was my observation that the staff at FDA had really bought into the idea that pain was greatly undertreated in the United States,” said Dr. Elinore McCance-Katz, former chief medical officer with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration, a federal health agency.

As early as December 2008, the Pain Care Forum was developing a strategy to “inform the process” at the FDA, according to meeting minutes from the American Pain Foundation.

When the FDA sought public comment on how to proceed, the forum helped generate more than 2,000 comments opposing new barriers to opioids, according to a 2010 foundation memo. Additionally, the forum produced a 4,000-signature petition opposing electronic registries for opioid prescriptions, which advocacy groups said would stigmatize patients.

Finally, in July 2010, the FDA assembled a panel of outside advisers — primarily physicians — to review its plans to manage opioid risks, including voluntary doctor training.

During a comment period, several members of the public warned it was a mistake. Dr. Nathaniel Katz, a former FDA adviser turned pharmaceutical consultant, traveled from Boston to implore the panel to support tougher requirements.

“The days of prescribers not being trained how to safely prescribe the number one medication in the United States have to be brought to an end by you today,” said Katz, who had previously chaired the FDA panel, according to a meeting transcript.

Ultimately, the panel voted 25-10 against the measures developed by the FDA, saying they would have little effect on opioid abuse. But the FDA put them in place anyway, one month after the agency briefed the Pain Care Forum on the plans. The FDA is not required to follow the recommendations of its advisory panels.

Agency officials said they decided that requiring certification for opioid prescribers would have been overly burdensome and disrupted care for patients.

“You can’t imagine the bitter screeds we hear from the prescribing community about the paperwork involved,” said Dr. Janet Woodcock, head of the FDA’s drug center. She added that the opioid crisis fundamentally stems from individual prescribing decisions, saying, “We don’t regulate medical practice.”

In the last two years, the FDA has placed several limitations on opioids, including adding new bolded warnings to immediate-release opioids such as Vicodin and Percocet. But prescriber training remains optional, even after a second FDA advisory panel again recommended the step earlier this year. Woodcock says the agency is still weighing that recommendation.

Currently, states such as Massachusetts are imposing their own physician-training requirements, a development that Katz attributes to a lack of federal action.

“The FDA failed to make a decision that could have averted many of the thousands of deaths we’re seeing per year,” Katz said. “So when people continue to die and communities continue to be devastated, then others will arise to do the policing.”

Charting a ‘safer course’

It was a federal agency hundreds of miles from Washington that finally sidestepped the influence of the pain care lobbyists.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, located in Atlanta, overcame threats of congressional investigation and legal action to publish the first federal guidelines intended to reduce opioid prescribing earlier this year.

Essentially, the agency said the risks of painkillers greatly outweigh the benefits for the vast majority of patients with routine chronic pain. Instead, the guidelines said, doctors should consider alternatives like non-opioid pain relievers and physical therapy.

For more than 15 years, CDC officials have tracked the precipitous rise in painkiller overdoses, which has been followed by a similar surge in heroin deaths. The CDC called the painkiller trend an epidemic in 2011, pushing Washington officials to do the same. The agency’s director, Dr. Tom Frieden, labeled opioids “dangerous medications” that “should be reserved for situations like severe cancer pain.”

When the CDC drafted its opioid guidelines, it moved quickly and quietly, initially giving outside groups just 48 hours to comment on draft guidelines distributed last September.

Opioid proponents said the guidelines were not based on solid evidence and criticized the CDC for not disclosing outside experts who had advised the effort, alleging that they included physicians who were biased against painkillers.

One pharma-aligned group, the Washington Legal Foundation, said the lack of disclosure constituted a “clear violation” of federal law. And a longtime Pain Care Forum participant — now known as the Academy of Integrative Pain Management— asked congressional leaders to investigate how the CDC had developed the guidelines. A House committee asked the CDC to turn over documents about its advisers, but staffers said the probe did not uncover any violations.

Some of the most vigorous pushback came from Pain Care Forum affiliates embedded in the federal system. Under the 2010 pain legislation backed by the forum, the NIH had created a 19-member panel to coordinate pain research made up of federal officials, civilian physicians and pain advocates.

At the group’s December meeting, panelists with connections to the Pain Care Forum called the CDC’s approach “horrible” and “shocking.”

Dr. Richard Payne, a former board member of the American Pain Foundation, questioned whether the experts advising the CDC had “conflicts of interests in terms of biases, intellectual conflicts that needed to be disclosed.”

Payne himself had received more than $16,240 in speaking fees, meals, travel and other payments from drugmakers, including Purdue, between 2013 and 2015, according to federal records.

Myra Christopher, a long-time Pain Care Forum participant, said the panel should inform the CDC that it could not support the opioid guidelines and that their release should be delayed.

Christopher holds a chair at the nonprofit Center for Practical Bioethics, which receives funding from opioid drugmakers, and her position was established through a $1.5 million gift from Purdue. Both she and Payne also served on the Institute of Medicine panel on pain in America.

Christopher and Payne said they were thoroughly vetted before serving on the panel and disclosed their past work and activities. Federal officials who oversee the panel responded that all members met federal requirements to serve, including completing financial disclosure forms, though the NIH said those cannot be publicly released.

One week after the NIH panel’s critique, the CDC said it would delay finalizing its guidelines to allow more public comment and released a list of advisers. One of 17 “core experts” advising the agency reported serving as a paid consultant to Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, the law firm suing multiple opioid drugmakers on behalf of the city of Chicago.

In March, the final guidelines appeared.

The first recommendation for U.S. doctors: “Opioids are not first-line therapy” for chronic pain. It was a statement considered common practice by many doctors as recently as the early-1990s, a decade before the Pain Care Forum formed in Washington.

"We're trying to chart a safer and more effective course for dealing with chronic pain," Frieden said. "We don’t expect any magic. We don’t expect things to be better in 15 months when it’s taken 15 years to get this much worse.”

Center for Public Integrity reporter Liz Essley Whyte and Associated Press reporter Geoff Mulvihill contributed to this article.

The Obama administration won praise for promising in 2012 to curtail the use of bomb-grade uranium in the production of medical diagnostic tools. But now the U.S. Energy Department is getting brickbats for proposing to send such materials to several European nations, including Belgium, where a shaky nuclear program has in recent years been plagued by sabotage, radicalization and terrorist surveillance.

It’s not the first time that the administration has been accused of failing to fulfill one of its nuclear weapons-related commitments. In this case, in 2012, the United States, Belgium, France and the Netherlands declared at a summit meeting in South Korea that they would begin phasing out the use of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) for making medical isotopes, with the understanding that by a 2015 deadline, the material would be replaced with less concentrated uranium that could not be used by terrorists to construct a nuclear weapon.

That proposed phase-out didn't occur. In fact, a Center for Public Integrity analysis of Nuclear Regulatory Commission export licensing records shows that since making the 2012 promise, the United States government has quietly sold foreign countries 81.7 kg of highly-enriched uranium for use in making medical isotopes – more than enough to build three new nuclear bombs.

This latest request — which was open for public comment until Sept. 14 — has drawn particular objections from nuclear nonproliferation experts. In a letter sent this month to Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, former officials from each of the past six presidential administrations said they objected to a National Nuclear Security Administration request that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission authorize the sale and shipment of 7.2 kg of highly-enriched uranium – almost 16 pounds, or more than one-fourth of what's typically considered needed to build a nuclear bomb.

The experts complained that the HEU was going to porously-guarded civilian reactors, in a shipment that will undermine the broader objective of reducing access to highly-enriched uranium throughout Europe. The shipment would wrongly "continue business as usual," their letter complained.

“This is a violation of a commitment by not just any country, but the country that convened and initiated the whole Nuclear Security Summit process,” said Alan Kuperman, a University of Texas public policy professor who closely monitors efforts to draw down the world's supply of bomb-grade uranium. “It really risks calling into question whether other countries will feel compelled or committed to abide by their pledges.”

A final NRC decision may be weeks away, because before the NRC approves export requests, its commissioners seek presidential guidance. The White House press office did not respond to requests for comment.

Medical uses

Radioisotopes are byproducts of irradiated uranium that can be injected or used externally to produce imaging that can detect cancer and heart disease and enable bone and organ scans. The most commonly used isotopes for medical diagnoses are molybdenum-99 and technetium-99m.

Health institutions in the U.S. buy about half of the world’s medical isotopes annually. The 2012 commitment to stop using HEU in their production emerged from a Nuclear Security Summit that year, one of four that grew out of President Obama’s 2009 speech in Prague calling for movement towards a world free of nuclear weapons. In that speech, which helped him win a Nobel Prize, Obama called nuclear terrorism “the most immediate and extreme threat to global security.”

The United States agreed at the summit to continue supplying highly-enriched uranium to its partner nations during the search for an alternative. But that work has been impeded by technical challenges, regulatory hurdles in Europe, and economic forces that have left isotope producers reluctant to fully embrace the transition. Among the largest conversion obstacles, according to a new report released by The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, is "the continued availability" of highly-enriched uranium from America.

It’s more expensive to produce isotopes using low-enriched uranium, the report explained, and producers often aren’t willing to pass along those costs to their customers when a few outliers refuse to make the transition and keep selling lower-cost radioistopes.The report said that scientists on the panel recommended "that the U.S. government and others take additional actions to promote the wider utilization of Mo-99/Tc-99m produced without the use of HEU targets.”

The NNSA's latest export request, submitted to the NRC in July, would provide 7.2 kg of highly-enriched uranium — a year’s supply — to the Institute for Radioelements in Belgium for conversion to medical isotopes. The Institute plans to have the material irradiated in France and the Netherlands, and then extract molybdenum-99 and other useful isotopes at Belgian Reactor 2 at the Belgian Nuclear Research Centre in Mol, an hour’s drive north of Brussels.

For many nonproliferation and security experts, that’s a troubling prospect. In November 2015, Belgian police investigating the terrorist siege that month in Paris discovered secret video of a senior nuclear researcher at the Mol plant that had been recorded by two brothers with ties to the Islamic State; the pair later carried out suicide bombings in Brussels this spring. That’s just the latest in a string of worries at Belgian nuclear sites. Since 2014, a Belgian reactor was damaged and shut down for months by sabotage and an inspector with broad access inside a nuclear plant was killed in Syria fighting alongside ISIS.

Because of the mounting worry about Belgium’s nuclear sites, the government for the first time deployed armed military guards to protect them. Before that, unarmed contractors were responsible for guarding the plants. But the armed guard deployment is temporary, and will be withdrawn when the government has established a suitable response force that can react to emergencies – including terrorist attacks – at nuclear facilities, Nele Scheerlinck, spokeswoman for the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control, the NRC’s counterpart in Belgium, wrote in an email.

The Obama administration has acknowledged that it has gathered intelligence suggesting terrorists want to acquire nuclear materials, and smuggling attempts foiled in Europe demonstrate there’s a black-market for bomb-grade ingredients.

Loopholes in the promise 

Nevertheless, the NNSA defended its plans to sell more highly-enriched uranium to Belgium.

In an email, NNSA spokeswoman Francie Israeli noted that a joint statement issued at the 2016 Nuclear Security Summit by the nations that were party to the 2012 commitment leaves the door open for continued exports of bomb-grade material from the U.S. to European countries. While renewing the initial committment, it said it should be pursued "where technically and economically feasible." It also asserted that "in some facilities, HEU is still indispensable during the transition period to conduct peaceful scientific research or to produce medical radioisotopes used for radiopharmaceutical products.”

Israeli said that all of the countries behind the 2012 pledge “remain fully committed to meeting their Summit commitment” of a wholesale switch from highly-enriched uranium “as soon as possible.” The State Department’s Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation also supports the NNSA’s export application, the bureau’s spokeswoman Margaret MacLeod said in a telephone interview.

The NRC isn’t legally bound by the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit commitment, but it cannot ignore a federal law passed in 2012 that requires the Energy Department to demonstrate it is making progress on the conversion to low-enriched uranium. “They don’t seem to be doing that as fast as they can,” said Miles Pomper, a senior fellow at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey’s James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies.

The NNSA has considerable leverage in the process, which critics say it has failed to use. It pays private sector firms and some of the same contractors that develop its nuclear weapons to improve the underlying technology for using low-enriched uranium technology in medical applications. But it also brokers deals for its contractors to sell the bomb-grade materials abroad.

Analysts say that because the U.S. use of radioisotopes is declining, the current supply is adequate. But they also forecast a shortage after a  Canadian reactor shuts down in October. “I do think [NNSA] has a strong obligation to avoid any more [medical isotope] shortages, and this may influence it to give countries like Belgium the benefit of the doubt and not play hardball,” Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Global Security Program, wrote in an email. “But in the past, highly-enriched uranium-based suppliers have taken advantage of their near-total control over the market to drag their feet on conversion.”

Kuperman said that “the U.S. … has all the leverage, because we provide the highly-enriched uranium. The U.S. should use that leverage to compel Europe to convert to low-enriched uranium as soon as possible. That’s how the 2012 agreement came to be.  Current DOE officials apparently have forgotten ‘The Art of the Deal.’  They’re acting like lobbyists for the Europeans, instead of phasing out highly-enriched uranium exports as quickly as possible.”

“It just may be,” he said, “that this Nuclear Security Summit process was a mirage that just might vanish.” 

This article was co-published with NBC News.

The Republican convention host committee took in roughly $65.8 million to pay for Donald Trump’s nominating party in Cleveland this summer, despite reports that donors were reluctant to contribute.

The haul surpasses the $64 million in combined cash and in-kind contributions that was the committee’s goal.

“The Cleveland Host Committee raised more money than either of the previous two RNC host committees, and we have raised enough money to cover all expenses,” said Emily Lauer, a spokeswoman for the committee.

The committee released details about its contributions and spending for the first time in a filing with the Federal Election Commission today. It is allowed to keep the information secret until 60 days after the close of the convention. The host committee for the Democrats is required to file its disclosure next week.

In addition to the contributions detailed by the host committee, a nonprofit, the Republican and Democratic parties have raised millions of dollars more in special convention accounts. Those donors are disclosed monthly.

Corporations and unions have also found other, quieter ways to support the conventions, such as sponsoring delegations and hosting private events.

The committee’s largest contributor, according to the new disclosure, is Jobs Ohio, which gave $10 million. Jobs Ohio is a private economic development nonprofit that draws its revenue from state liquor sales.

Corporations giving seven figures include Ohio companies whose executives helped lead the host committee, including law firm Jones Day, which also represents Trump and gave $1.5 million; KeyCorp., the Cleveland-based parent company of Key Bank, which gave roughly $1.4 million; Eaton Corp., which gave $950,000; and Sherwin-Williams Co., which gave $500,000.

Other big corporate contributors include AT&T, Microsoft, Cisco, Ohio-based Marathon Petroleum, and the American Petroleum Institute.

Nevada casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, a GOP megadonor, contributed $1.5 million after the convention ended in August, according to the filing. His contribution, which appears to be the largest from an individual, came after organizers wrote to him with a desperate plea for cash in July, asking for $6 million to pay for the convention and saying other donors had backed out of pledges because they were reluctant to support Trump.

After Politico reported on the committee’s letter to Adelson and his wife, Miriam, the head of the host committee apologized and said the letter contained inaccurate information.

Asked about the Adelson contribution, Lauer said the committee appreciated his support “and we were pleased to welcome him to Cleveland for the Convention.”

Elizabeth Uihlein, another big Republican donor, gave $500,000 in August. And before the convention, the host committee took in $500,000 from the Mercer Family Foundation. Hedge fund investor Robert Mercer and his daughter, Rebekah, oversee a super PAC that is supporting Trump.

Notably, many prominent GOP donors — including the Koch brothers — aren’t on the list.

The host committee received roughly $1.5 million from two limited liability companies created within the past year: Convention Services 2016, LLC, of Tennessee and Friends of the House 2016, LLC, of Virginia.

Agents for the two companies could not immediately be reached for comment.

Hillary Clinton painted August green, according to newly released campaign finance disclosures.

The Democratic presidential candidate raised more money than Republican Donald Trump.

Clinton’s campaign spent more money than the Trump campaign, too.

And Clinton enjoyed an $18 million cash-on-hand advantage over her opponent at August’s end — not including an even larger disparity when big-money super PACs are taken into account.

Now, as the general election enters its final phase, here are 27 key facts, figures and curiosities from the Center for Public Integrity that help explain the 2016 White House race to date:

Approximate number of donors to Democrat Hillary Clinton’s campaign during August: 700,000

Portion of contributions from women: 60 percent

Estimated portion of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s donors this election who are men: 73 percent

Amount Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer donated to Clinton’s campaign in August: $2,700

Amount casino magnate Sheldon Adelson donated to Trump’s campaign last month: $2,700

Amount that megadonor Robert Mercer-backed pro-Trump super PAC Make America Number 1 paid last month to Cambridge Analytica, a firm in which Mercer has reportedly invested: $412,000

Number of donors’ personal email addresses — information rarely released publicly — that pro-Trump super PAC Great America PAC included in its August report: 336

Amount that Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz and his wife, Cari Tuna, gave to the pro-Clinton League of Conservation Voters’ super PAC in August: $5 million

Amount the couple pledged to spend to boost Democrats this election: $20 million

Amount billionaire investor George Soros* has donated to pro-Clinton super PAC Priorities USA Action so far this election: $9.5 million

Minimum portion of living current or former U.S. presidents expected to vote for Clinton in November: 4/5

Rank of Orlando, Florida, and Tampa, Florida, respectively, among media markets seeing most TV ads during the past month: 1, 2

Portion of TV ads in Orlando and Tampa during that period sponsored by Clinton and her allies: 2/3

Number of Electoral College votes awarded by Florida: 29

Number awarded by Maine’s 2nd Congressional District: 1

Approximate amount spent in Maine last month by a super PAC touting Libertarian Gary Johnson: $93,000

Minimum level of support Johnson needed in polls to qualify for the first presidential debate: 15 percent

Amount the Commission on Presidential Debates calculated he had: 8.4 percent

Amount of campaign cash Johnson raised in August: $5 million

Amount former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders had in the bank entering September: $5 million

What Sanders’ campaign collectively still owes almost two-dozen police departments, fire departments, sheriff offices and local governments for event security fees: $445,000

Date on which Republican Scott Walker dropped out of the 2016 presidential race: Sept. 21, 2015

Amount Walker’s campaign is still in debt: $457,000

Amount Walker earned renting out his campaign’s list of supporters in August 2016: $70,000

Amount Republican Ben Carson’s failed presidential campaign transferred last month to My Faith Votes— a “nonpartisan movement of the church in America that will motivate believers to act on their faith by casting an informed vote based on a biblical worldview”: $500,000

Amount that the political action committee of Twitter, where much of the nation’s online political conversations take place, contributed to politicians in August: $0

Portion of members of Congress who have Twitter accounts: 100 percent

Chris Zubak-Skees contributed to this report

* The Center for Public Integrity receives funding from the Open Society Foundations, which Soros funds. A complete list of Center for Public Integrity funders is found here.

New revelations published today by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung and news organizations from Europe, South America, Asia and Africa reveal fresh information about offshore companies in the Bahamas.

Alongside detailed reporting, ICIJ, Süddeutsche Zeitung and other media partners are making details from the Bahamas corporate registry available to the public. This creates, for the first time, a free, online and publicly-searchable registry of offshore companies set up in the island nation that has sometimes been called “The Switzerland of the West.”

“We see it as a service to the public to make this basic kind of information openly available,” said Gerard Ryle, the director of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.

“There is much evidence to suggest that where you have secrecy in the offshore world you have the potential for wrong doing. So let's eliminate the secrecy.”

The cache of documents from the island nation’s corporate registry provides names of directors and some owners of more than 175,000 Bahamian companies, trusts and foundations registered between 1990 and early 2016.

The leaked Bahamian files reveal details of the offshore activities of prime ministers, ministers, princes and convicted felons.

This information has been combined with data from the Panama Papers and other leaked offshore documents to add additional heft to one of the largest public databases of offshore entities in history. The Offshore Leaks Database now contains information on close to 500,000 entities linked to 200 countries and territories. The full dataset is searchable and embeddable via ICIJ's online application – visit the dedicated Offshore Leaks database website for more information about the data, tips on how to search and instructions for downloading a raw copy of the database.

In the Bahamas, company documents can be consulted in person. While the online registry is designed to serve a similar purpose, the electronic registry information maintained by the Bahamian government is often incomplete. In addition, retrieving one company’s documents will cost at least $10, in conflict with the recommendation of the international association of company registries, which discourages search fees.

Jason Sharman, who co-authored a survey of information from 40 corporate registers around the world said the names of offshore company directors is basic information that should be easily accessible to the public.

This information has been combined with data from the Panama Papers and other leaked offshore documents to add additional heft to one of the largest public databases of offshore entities in history.

A controversial pro-Donald Trumpsuper PAC mistakenly released the personal email addresses and cell phone numbers of hundreds of Trump-loving donors — and some of them are livid.

The email and phone number disclosure came as part a routine campaign finance filing Great America PAC made Tuesday night to the Federal Election Commission.

A Center for Public Integrity review of the document identified 336 people who were affected by what Great America PAC’s treasurer says was an “error” that occurred while electronically sending donor information to the FEC.

Trump’s campaign formally disavowed Great America PAC in April in a letter to the FEC, but last week, Trump’s son, Eric Trump, appeared at a fundraiser for the group. Such a switch underscores Trump’s tortured relationship with big-money politics and allied political groups he can’t, by law, directly control.

Dan Backer, attorney and treasurer for Great America PAC, vowed to fix the mess.

“We will of course be contacting all affected contributors tomorrow to apologize for the error, and uploading an amended report,” Backer said.

CMDI, the company that Great America PAC pays for donation accounting services, explained that “the client had data entry errors” and “we're working with them to fix it.”

In the meantime, several people who anonymously replied by phone to a Center for Public Integrity email informing them of Great America PAC’s mistake launched into expletive- and threat-filled tirades.

None of them were aware that anyone could view their email and phone information. They sometimes directed their angst at the Center for Public Integrity for informing them of the problem, and sometimes at Great America PAC for its information disclosure snafu.

One woman, who identified herself as a 78-year-old Trump supporter from Georgia, told a Center for Public Integrity reporter she would “make sure you never live to see the day” that “you slander Mr. Trump with your lies, you little s--- a-- liberal Hillary lover.”

Reactions of more than a dozen other Great America PAC contributors, who offered more measured responses to the outing of their personal information, ranged from seeking legal relief to begrudging resignation. 

“I have forwarded your email to the district attorney’s office, consumer protection unit,” said Terry Raineri of San Jose, California.

“Not happy as the Clinton Mob may use it against me for harassment purposes or worse,” wrote Barbara Troendle of Pensacola, Florida, who has donated $250 to Great America PAC.

“Yes, I am concerned,” said donor Don Paris of Lynchburg, Virginia. “However, there is not much I can do about what is already public. I will make no more online contributions.”

Mitch Hanna of Grass Valley, California, who gave Great America PAC $250 last month, wasn’t bothered that his email and part of his phone number are a matter of public record. “I am fine with it,” said Hanna, the CEO of Sutter Auburn Faith Hospital in Auburn, California.

Most of Great America PAC’s donors make modest contributions, sometimes as small as a few dollars. Many identify themselves in federal disclosures as “retired.”

Political campaigns and committees are required by federal law to publicly release the names, addresses, employers and occupations of donors contributing more than $200 during an election, something Great America PAC notes on its website’s privacy policy.

While political groups, including Great America PAC, often collect supporters’ phone numbers and email information, they almost never make such personal information public.

Great America PAC — one of several notable pro-Trump and anti-Hillary Clinton super PACs operating this year — formed in early February and originally called itself “TrumPAC.”

Later in February, the group changed its name to Great America PAC after federal regulators warned the super PAC about incorporating the name of an active political candidate into its own moniker.

Great America PAC is technically a “hybrid” super PAC, meaning it may raise unlimited amounts of money to independently promote or attack political candidates, and separately, raise smaller amounts of money to directly donate to candidates.

It is backed in part by Bill Doddridge, founder of diamond retailer The Jewelry Exchange. And it is led by Ed Rollins, Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign manager in 1984.

This year through August, Great America PAC has raised nearly $11.2 million, largely thanks to its aggressive online and telephone fundraising efforts.

Several million of its more than $9.2 million in expenditures this year have funded activities that ostensibly provide Trump’s campaign a direct promotional boost: TV and radio spots, online ads, bumper stickers and the like.

But the group has also spent several million dollars on line items that don’t directly benefit Trump’s presidential campaign — but are certainly good for political professionals. 

They include handsome compensation for Rollins (more than $16,000 in August alone), various consulting services, fundraising efforts, payment processing fees and the renting of lists that contain personal information of prospective supporters and donors.

Longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone in May accused the group of being a “scam.”

But Rollins of Great America PAC later that month described the super PAC’s mission as “establishing the largest group of Trump supporters so we can spread Donald's message and ensure he becomes our nation's next president.”

A version of this story appears in TIME. 

A coalition of family and civil-rights groups launched a national campaign Wednesday to “end the regular presence” of police, armed security and truancy officers posted inside schools.

The Dignity in Schools coalition took its “Counselors Not Cops” campaign to Washington, D.C. on Wednesday, and held briefings at the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives.  

The harsh disciplinary actions of police assigned to schools, detailed in a series of Center for Public Integrity reports, have become increasingly controversial in recent years, creating worries that criminalization of minor indiscretions has created a counter-productive “school-to-prison pipeline.”

“We decided to take this position as a campaign for full removal of police in schools (because of) the day-to-day experiences of criminalization that have become routine in many schools across the country, and the high-profile incidents that have brought more attention to this issue,” said Dignity in Schools national coordinator Natalie Chap.”

Federal officials have expressed concerns as well, but have stopped short of calling for removal of cops entirely. This month, the U.S. Department of Education and the Department of Justice released a set of “tools” for school districts to “responsibly incorporate” officers into the learning environment.

In 2014, the departments released a volume of recommended discipline practices to help schools move away from suspensions that were robbing large numbers of kids of class time. Officials have urged schools to limit the use of school police because of the negative impact on students who are handcuffed and sent into courts for common adolescent—or even prepubescent—behaviors that might better be handled by teachers, counselors and parents.   

“I am concerned about the potential for violations of students’ civil rights and unnecessary and harmful introduction of children and young adults into a school-to-prison pipeline,” U.S. Department of Education Secretary John B. King also wrote in a letter this month to school districts about the issue. 

Since 2012, investigations by the Center for Public Integrity have shown that arrests, ticketing and rough physical contact fall most heavily on student with disabilities and students of color. National data from 2011-2012 pointed to Virginia’s rates for police-student contact as the highest in the country; local police data showed that thousands of black children, many in middle school, were arrested for disorderly conduct in disproportionate numbers. An autistic 11-year-old sixth grader, for example, was charged with disorderly conduct for kicking a trash can and felony assault for trying to wiggle free from an officer.

In California, juvenile court judges have objected to Los Angeles school police sending thousands of middle-school children—almost all Latino or black—into courts with citations for disturbing the peace. First graders were cited for fighting, 10-year-olds for trespassing; students arriving minutes late were caught in police sweeps that charged them with daytime curfew violations in low-income neighborhoods. In San Bernardino, California, a student with Down syndrome was hogtied and arrested and a boy who hugged his girlfriend was sprayed with pepper spray and charged with assaulting a school officer. The charges were later dismissed against the student, who dropped out of high school.

At the U.S. Senate briefing on Wednesday, Tanya Clay House, a deputy assistant secretary for the U.S.  Department of Education, addressed Dignity in Schools affiliates. “Secretary King and the Department of Education hear you,” House said, “and we really respect the work you’re doing.”

Dignity in Schools, which operates in 27 states, has more than 100 city and state member groups, among them the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.    

House agreed with Dignity in Schools affiliates that schools are sorely lacking counselors and other adult support at schools to help them with problems and tension at school.

“We know, right now, that 1.6 million schoolchildren have a school resource officer, but no counselor,” House said.

In response to concerns about crime or school shootings, many school districts nationwide have added school resource officers, and a number of large districts have developed their own school police forces.

“We understand there are may be rare occasions when it might be appropriate for law enforcement to enter a school building,” Chap said. “But we want to make sure there are agreements in place with police departments that limit the cases where law enforcement can be called in.”

If police go into schools, Chap said, officers and educators should have clear agreements in place that restrict the role of police, protect students’ due process rights and ensure that officers aren’t getting involved in disciplinary matters. Chap said her members can provide examples of reforms in their schools proving that conditions in schools can get better with the use of counselors and trained behavior intervention staff to support students.

“We want to create safe schools,” she said, “with positive safety and discipline measures.”