Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin may have justlosthergig— and enviable paycheck— as a Fox News contributor.

But Sarah PAC, the political action committee Palin runs, remains flush with cash, with a little more than $1.15 million in cash on hand through December, new reports filed today with the Federal Election Commission indicate.

That figure is slightly smaller than the number Palin reported in early December, as the PAC's expenses ($67,807) exceeded its income ($20,790) late in 2012, according to the report.

Consulting and speechwriting fees account for much of Sarah PAC's spending from late November through the end of December.

Few PACs, be they traditional or super in nature, maintain a cash balance in the seven-figure range, meaning Sarah PAC remains a force in politics, even if its namesake's public persona has absorbed a setback.

During calendar year 2012, Sarah PAC took in nearly $2.6 million in contributions, its reporting shows.

A conservative 501(c)(4) nonprofit called the American Future Fund had a bumper year in 2012, spending more than $29 million on political advertisements, according to a new Center for Public Integrity analysis of state and federal records:

That amount included more than $19 million on efforts designed to oust President Barack Obama, as well as millions more to oppose Democratic candidates for Congress and even two state attorneys general. 

That's a lot of activity from an organization that says influencing elections is not its primary purpose.

Who funded the advertising spree? It's unclear. 

What little is known on the American Future Fund's donors simply leads to another 501(c)(4) nonprofit that has no website and lists its address as a post office box in Phoenix. 

The Arizona-based Center to Protect Patient Rights "contributed more than $14 million to the American Future Fund between 2009 and 2011, or 51 percent of funds the group raised over the three-year period," the Center's investigation found.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee wants people to “say thank you” to Hillary Clinton for her service as secretary of state. Just “add your name” to an online card because it’s “the least we can do.”

Vice President Joe Biden, meanwhile, emailed Friday asking recipients to say, “Yes, I support President Obama’s plan” to reduce gun violence. Do it by registering your name and ZIP code with the Obama for America campaign committee.

Former Obama Campaign Manager Jim Messina followed up with another email directing people to submit their names and ZIP codes though a separate online form and “let us know if your members of Congress support the president's plan to reduce gun violence.”

What do these digital come-ons have in common? Fine print that explains how the committees are granting themselves the right to liberally use personal information in just about any way they see fit.

Obama’s campaign committee, for example, notes in its online privacy policy that it might share your information with “candidates, organizations, groups or causes that we believe have similar political viewpoints, principles or objectives.”

Add “vendors, consultants and other service providers or volunteers who are engaged by or working with us and who need access to such information to carry out their work for us” to the list of entities who might know more about who you are than you think.

Similarly, the DCCC writes in its privacy policy that “from time to time” it “may share personal information with organizations whose issues or goals are similar to our own, and which we believe would interest you.”

The personal information you volunteer for a seemingly specific purpose, such as supporting gun control, might also be paired with other data Democrats and the Obama team keep on you in a massive, digital dossier that's helped them build a majordataadvantage over Republicans.

Still want to wish Hillary Clinton well? The State Department’s snail mail address is found here.

"Jeopardy!" viewers in Denver will get a dose of politics during this evening’s program, Federal Communications Commission records indicate.

A recently formed group called Americans for a Strong Defense has purchased advertising time during "Jeopardy!," "Wheel of Fortune," "Meet the Press" and several other programs in Colorado’s largest media market ahead of this week’s potentially contentious confirmation hearing of former Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., who has been nominated by President Barack Obama to be the next defense secretary.

The group has purchased more than 90 TV spots for roughly $73,000 in the Denver media market, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of FCC records posted online.

Last week, Americans for a Strong Defense announced a multi-state advertising spree urging viewers to call their senators to vote against Hagel’s nomination.

The group’s ads are targeting Colorado’s two Democratic senators — Mark Udall and Michael Bennet — as well as Sens. Mark Begich, D-Alaska; Mark Pryor, D-Ark.; Mary Landrieu, D-La.; and Kay Hagan, D-N.C. With the exception of Bennet, each senator is likely to face a competitive re-election in 2014.

The Washington Postpreviously reported that Americans for a Strong Defense has invested at least $271,000 in the anti-Hagel ad buy. And other groups have also leveled criticisms against Hagel, including the American Future Fund, a conservative nonprofit that spent $14,000 to air a single anti-Hagel ad in the Washington, D.C., media market on "Fox News Sunday."

On Sunday, the New York Times further reported that GOP super donor Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire owner of the Las Vegas Sands Corp., has been directly reaching out to Republican senators "to urge them to hold the line" against Hagel's confirmation.

Lawmakers in North Dakota have introduced a package of ethics reform bills that would revamp the state’s oversight of its politicians. Dubbed the Sunshine Act, the measures  would create an ethics commission to investigate state officials and would tighten campaign finance reporting rules, among other changes.

Rep. Corey Mock, a Democrat, has been pushing for ethics reform unsuccessfully since entering office in 2009. But last year, Mock seized on the state’s poor showing in the State Integrity Investigation, which gave North Dakota an overall grade of F, and announced he would introduce several bills once the legislature reconvened, saying that he hoped the report would improve the chances of passing such initiatives.  "The CPI study was an eye-opener," Mock told The Huffington Post in August.

In March, North Dakota received an F in eight of 14 categories from the State Integrity Investigation, which ranked state governments on transparency and accountability. The report, a collaboration of  the Center for Public Integrity, Global Integrity and Public Radio International, placed North Dakota 43^rd out of 50 states. The lack of an ethics commission and lax campaign finance laws—each of which would be changed by Mock’s legislation—were chief among the reasons for the state’s poor showing.

Some lawmakers and independent observers in the state said the ranking missed the fact that a state with fewer than 700,000 people does not require the same level of complex and robust accountability laws as bigger states, such as Illinois.

“They don’t really realize sometimes that these small population states like ours, we’re really like a small town in a sense,” Jack McDonald, a media attorney and lobbyist, told the State Integrity Investigation last year. “So, in state government, everybody knows what everybody is doing … it would be very difficult to get away with anything in North Dakota.”

While the state has not been rocked by major ethics scandals, the Forum of Fargo-Moorhead, a North Dakota newspaper that first reported the bills, said the Sunshine Act has bipartisan support.

Cain Connections PAC, a super PAC led by former Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain and administered by his cigarette-smoking right hand man Mark Block, finds itself struggling to stay solvent. And relevant.

For one, the super PAC took in just $640 in contributions between Nov. 27 and Dec. 31, new federal filings show.

That's a pittance compared to the more than $1.24 million it collected from people and political committees during the rest of 2012.

Most of the money Cain Connections PAC generated in late 2012 — $19,294 — came from renting lists of information on its supporters to a pair of Virginia-based political fundraising firms, its latest federal disclosure indicates.

Meanwhile, the super PAC's minimal expenditures aren't going toward political advocacy at all but to bankroll its own internal operations.

Legal services and credit card and bank fees rank among its late-year spending, which stands in stark contrast to the tens of thousands of dollars it invested earlier in 2012 on attacking President Barack Obama through various advertisements.

Cain Connections PAC ended the year with about $37,000 in reserve against more than $13,500 in debt, records show. That means it's just back in the black after spending chunks of 2012 carrying more debt on its balance sheet than available cash.

Following his failed presidential bid, Cain stitched together a network of political and business entities, led in part by the Cain Connections PAC. But the super PAC of late has been all but a nonentity on the political scene.

Cain on Friday told the Daily Caller he's not interested in running for Georgia's open U.S. Senate seat in 2014 because he wants to focus on a radio program he hosts.

Too early to think about the 2014 midterm elections?

Not for a quartet of first-term Democratic senators who face potentially contentious — and expensive — re-election campaigns ahead of an Election Day that's more than 21 months away.

Sens. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H.; Kay Hagan, D-N.C.; Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.; and Mark Udall, D-Colo.; have teamed up to form Senate Victory 2014, a federal joint fundraising committee, new paperwork filed with the Federal Election Commission indicates.

Such a committee raises cash on behalf of each participant, then distributes funds among them. The setup makes it easier for big-dollar donors to write a single check to the joint committee instead of sending money to multiple candidates.

Judy Zamore of Capitol Compliance Associates will serve as the committee's treasurer.

With Election 2012 behind us, and Elections 2014 and 2016 still a long way off, you may be wondering what is left to say about money in politics. Consider the Source reporters Dave Levinthal and Michael Beckel will answer that, and any other campaign finance-related questions you may have in a live chat February 4, at 1:00pm ET. In the meantime, please feel free to leave your question in the comments section below, and visit Dave and Michael's new money-in-politics blog, Primary Source.

One might reasonably assume a casino company run by Sheldon Adelson, the most generous super PAC donor of the 2012 election cycle, would sponsor a rather substantial political action committee.

Think again.

The Las Vegas Sands Corp. Political Action Committee has nearly run its account dry with less than $11,000 to its name as of Dec. 31, a new document filed with the Federal Election Commission indicates.

Unlike super PACs, which may accept unlimited contributions to attack or promote political candidates, the casino's PAC is of the traditional variety, legally empowered to accept only limited donations for the primary purpose of donating directly to political candidates. Individuals may donate no more than $5,000 per year to a traditional PAC.

Nevertheless, Sands PAC's spending during the 2012 election season is tiny compared to the more than $93 million Adelson and his family directed to various conservative super PACs ahead of November's election. It's also notably less than the spending by many other corporate PACs of similarly sized corporations, which routinely ranged deep into six- and seven-figure territory last year.

For the 2012 election cycle, Sands PAC raised more than $95,000 and spent less than $126,000, federal records show. Most of its expenditures came in the form of modest contributions to a couple dozen congressional candidates, the American Gaming Association Political Action Committee and the National Shooting Sports Foundation PAC.

It's not abnormal for Sands PAC to deplete its cash at the end of an election cycle, Las Vegas Sands spokesman Ron Reese told the Center for Public Integrity, and last year, the PAC board decided to do its heaviest spending immediately before Election Day.

While Sands PAC finances are perhaps more modest than those of comparable corporate PACs, the PAC's directors intend to replenish its coffers in 2013 ahead of "looking to support candidates that see eye to eye with us," he said.

Adelson is a member of the PAC and supports its operations, Reese said, although the PAC's fundraising decisions are "separate from anything personal" the casino mogul spends. Federal records indicate that Adelson and his wife, Miriam, togetherdonated $18,400 to Sands PAC during the 2012 cycle.

Why is 2013 an important year for campaign finance? Dave Levinthal and Michael Beckel will answer that, and many other questions about the money-in-politics world in a live chat next Monday, Feb. 4, at 1:00 pm ET. 

Urban Outfitters oozes hipness and irreverence, its fashion line a galaxy removed from, say, wingtips and power suits.

Just don't expect its newest associates to don "I Heart Stiffler's Mom" T-shirts or "Bitch Please" gloves anytime soon. 

The teen- and twentysomething-focused clothier has hired Abraham & Roetzel LLC, the lobbying firm of former Sen. Spencer Abraham, R-Mich., to represent it, according to a new U.S. Senate lobbying registration filing.

"Retail" and "federal policy involving economic development and urban development" are the issues on which Abraham & Roetzel will lobby for Urban Outfitters, the filing states. 

Federal records further indicate that this is the first time Urban Outfitters has hired federal-level lobbying representation. Come April, the company will be required to disclose how much it paid for the help.

In the meantime, the government affairs shop is allocating three lobbyists to assist Urban Outfitters, including its president, Bob Carey, the former director of the Department of Defense’s Federal Voting Assistance Program and a one-time Senate aide to both Abraham and ex-Sen. George Allen, R-Va.

A representative at Abraham & Roetzel directed questions to Carey, who couldn't immediately be reached for comment. Urban Outfitters did not reply to inquiries. 

Why is 2013 an important year for campaign finance? Dave Levinthal and Michael Beckel will answer that, and many other questions about the money-in-politics world in a live chat on Monday, Feb. 4, at 1 p.m. ET. 

House Majority PAC released a video today that features Democratic members of Congress praising the super PAC for “fighting back” against conservative groups — and helping them get elected in 2012.

“I wouldn’t be here today if it weren’t for the tremendous help of the House Majority PAC,” says Rep. Elizabeth Etsy, D-Conn., one of the 40 House Majority PAC-backed candidates who won on Election Day.

House Majority PAC’s four-and-a-half-minute video showcases infomercial-style testimonials from seven new members of Congress. A disclaimer at the bottom of the screen reads that each politician is “not asking for funds or donations.”

The ad, titled "We Make The Difference," also chronicles and contrasts the past two election cycles. In the 2010 midterm election, an avalanche of spending by outside groups helped Republicans reclaim the U.S. House of Representatives. In 2012, Democratic-aligned groups jumped headlong into the super PAC game.

“As long as Karl Rove, the Koch brothers and Crossroads exist, it’s important that progressives fight back,” Andy Stone, the organization’s spokesperson, told the Center for Public Integrity, referencing the former Bush adviser who helped launch super PAC American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, its politically active nonprofit sister group.

Campaign finance law prohibits federal politicians from soliciting more than $5,000 per election for super PACs, although the groups may accept donations of unlimited amounts.

Ultimately, House Majority PAC spent nearly $31 million during the 2012 election. Its biggest donors were Chicago media mogul Fred Eychaner, who gave $4.25 million to the group, and former hedge fund manager James H. Simons who contributed $1.5 million to the super PAC.

The video— and its assortment of cameos by public officials — presents a clear appeal to deep-pocketed donors, said Paul S. Ryan, senior counsel to the Campaign Legal Center.

“A donor to House Majority PAC would have every reason to believe that a huge contribution to the super PAC would give them just as much favor with the officeholder as cutting a huge check directly to the officeholder would,” Ryan said.

House Majority PAC intends to use the online video to promote the group’s success in 2012, Stone said. 

The ad’s targeted audience?

“Interested parties.”

Legislation to make it unlawful for state officials to leave their jobs and immediately go to work for industries they regulated – the so-called “revolving door” – is one of several ethics bills expected to be debated in the Maine legislature this session.

Rep. Adam Goode, D-Bangor, has sponsored legislation requiring executive employees “in a major policy-influencing position” to wait one year before accepting a job with “a business activity that is regulated by the state or quasi-state agency by which the former executive employee was employed.”

Goode said he decided to sponsor the legislation after reading the State Integrity Investigation last spring, which gave Maine an “F” for its weak anti-corruption measures. Among the problems described in the report: Maine had no laws regulating revolving door employment for executive branch officials.

The project’s Maine story cited a case in 2007-2008, when the state’s chief utilities regulator, Kurt Adams, negotiated for and ultimately accepted a job offer and “equity units,” or shares, from a prominent wind power developer while still head of his agency – and when the developer had business before the agency.

Adams left his job as the head of the state’s Public Utilities Commission in May, 2008 to work for First Wind. Later, Adams and company officials said that despite statements First Wind had made in federal filings about when it had granted him the shares, the company had made a mistake and had granted the securities only after Adams had left the PUC in mid-May.

A subsequent investigation by the state’s attorney general found that Adams had violated no state laws.

The prospects are fading for comprehensive ethics legislation during the first half of the two-year legislative session — a promise held out by leading lawmakers after publication of the ethics report.

“The budget’s going to take a lot of the air out of the room,” said Michael Cianchette, Gov. Paul LePage’s legal counsel. “I think obviously there’s a lot of challenges facing the state right now and while this is certainly important, the nature of the fiscal reality of the state has taken most people’s attention. It’s much more of a crisis.”

The State Integrity Investigation, was based on research into 14 categories, from procurement to campaign disclosure to lobbying. No state got an A, leading the report’s sponsors to conclude that “statehouses remain ripe for self dealing and corruption.”

Maine got an F in nine of the 14 categories, including executive accountability, public access to information, civil service management, pension fund management,  insurance commission operations, legislative accountability, lobbying disclosure, ethics enforcement and redistricting.

Goode said stories about the report led him to introduce his bill.

“I’m not a big person for putting in a lot of bills,” said Goode. “But I felt reading that story, I wouldn’t want the legislature to project that image.”

In response to the report, both LePage and then-Rep. Emily Cain, D-Orono, vowed to pursue omnibus ethics reform.

Now, said Cain, who was elected to the Senate last November, “I think it would be a mistake to try to do everything at once, because I believe we would end up settling for less and have a less in-depth conversation.”

Cain wants, instead, to focus during this part of the session on legislative and executive branch financial disclosure, conflicts of interest and “transparency” —public access to the workings of government.

“To me, the best approach is to pick a handful of very clear opportunities to make improvements,” said Cain. “Over the next year, I hope to raise the level of conversation … so that we’re not just having a conversation about fixing a problem, but how can we do this better?”

LePage has scaled back his reform ambitions to “something manageable,” according to Cianchette.

The focus will be on expanding financial disclosure for legislators and executive branch employees so that ownership interests are disclosed as well as specific ranges of income.

Rep. Goode’s bill also expands requirements for reporting of legislators’ and executive branch employees’ finances.

The purpose of that kind of expanded disclosure, said Cianchette, is to allow citizens to scrutinize the finances of officials and “make informed decisions about the way their personal holdings influence political votes.”

Cianchette said that the limited approach makes sense because, despite the “F” in the national survey, Maine’s not plagued by corruption.

“For the most part, Maine’s still Maine and people know what’s going on and there haven’t been massive scandals like in other states when it comes to this type of disclosure,” said Cianchette.

The groups that sponsored the study explained why states like Maine, not known for corruption, got bad grades.

The study “does not rely on a simple tally of scandals. Rather, it measures the strength of laws and practices that encourage openness and deter corruption… States with well-known scandals often have the tough laws and enforcement that bring them to light. ‘Quiet’ states may be at a higher risk, with few means to surface corrupt practices.”

Goode said, “We either don’t have strong laws because we don’t have problems to merit them, or we don’t know what the problems are because we don’t have strong enough laws,” he said.

LePage’s legislation will also change filing procedures for executive branch and legislative financial disclosure.

"Our bill will require electronic filing of disclosure statements,” said Cianchette. “Not a chicken scratch.”

Electronic filing would allow the public to digitally search the forms.

Both Cianchette and Cain said they wanted to work together to ensure bipartisan support for the ethics reform bills.  Cianchette said he expected that Cain would sponsor the governor’s bill.

The American League of Lobbyists has terminated its lobbying contract with Marlowe & Company, the firm run by Howard Marlowe, the league's former president, new documents filed with the U.S. Senate indicate.

The parting is mutual and amicable, officials at both the League and Marlowe & Company tell the Center for Public Integrity. The contract termination was effective Dec. 31, the filing indicates.

In addition to Marlowe, Marlowe & Company staffers Michael Willis, a former senior legislative assistant to Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., and Joel Porter, a former aide to ex-Rep. Dennis Moore, D-Kansas, will also step away from representing the League.

"Howard's termination is just part of his not being president of ALL anymore," said Danielle Staudt, the League's executive director. "He's still the immediate past president and a member."

Staudt added that it plans to hire the firm run by its new president, Monte Ward, to represent the League.

So why does a group of lobbyists need lobbyists anyway?

In 2012, Marlowe's firm alobbied on "lobbying reform," "lobbying disclosure," "campaign finance laws and regulations" and "gift rules" among other issues and bills, according to its congressional disclosures. Both houses of Congress, as well as the White House and Vice President Joe Biden's office, were targets of its efforts.

Most of Marlowe & Company's clients are municipal governments and other public entities.

As one of the leading advocates for new gun safety measures in the wake of the December mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., Mayors Against Illegal Guns will be pitted against the deep-pocketed National Rifle Association.

That doesn't faze Mark Glaze, director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a nonprofit launched in 2007 by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino.

"Money is not all that matters," Glaze, who is also a principal at the D.C.-based lobbying firm The Raben Group, told the Center for Public Integrity. "Intensity matters a lot."

Glaze said that Mayors Against Illegal Guns has seen more than 500,000 new supporters since the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School that left 28 dead, including 20 children. 

"There are a lot of people who are more interested in the issue than there were before," Glaze said.

Nevertheless, the NRA has dominated Mayors Against Illegal Guns when it comes to recent influence spending.

Congressional records indicate that Mayors Against Illegal Guns has spent $730,000 on lobbying since President Barack Obama took office in 2009.

That total includes $200,000 spent in 2012 when Glaze and two other Raben Group principals — Katharine Huffman and Karen Marangi— were registered as lobbyists for the group. The organization advocated for requiring background checks for all firearms purchases, including those at gun shows.

By contrast, the NRA has spent $10.7 million on lobbying since Obama took office, congressional records show. Last year alone, the NRA invested nearly $3 million, hiring 15 in-house lobbyists and 20 external lobbyists to speak up for its causes.

Glaze said that gun control advocates do not need to “match the NRA dollar-for-dollar.” He also welcomed the development of super PACs focused on gun safety to serve as a “counterweight” to the gun lobby, which reported spending roughly $25 million on political advertisements during the 2012 election cycle.

Earlier this month, former Rep. Gabby Giffords, D-Ariz., who survived an assassination attempt in January 2011, and her husband, former astronaut Mark Kelly, launched a super PAC called "Americans for Responsible Solutions." Earlier today, Giffords and Kelly testified at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence, as did NRA executive vice president and CEO Wayne LaPierre.

So, too, has Bloomberg created a super PAC, which is called "Independence USA PAC."

Bloomberg’s group, which was formed last October, spent more than $8 million on ads during the 2012 election cycle, and it continues to gear up for more action.

On Tuesday, Independence USA PAC announced its involvement in the Democratic primary in Illinois’ 2nd Congressional District, where a special election is being conducted to replace Democratic Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., who resigned in November.

Why is 2013 an important year for campaign finance? Dave Levinthal and Michael Beckel will answer that, and many other questions about the money-in-politics world in a live chat on Monday, Feb. 4, at 1 p.m. ET. 

Last year, the Center for Public Integrity’s investigative work was cited nearly 15,000 times by other media organizations. I expect that number will grow this year. That’s in part because of a new Center project launched this week called Primary Source.

Primary Source will publish daily original reports on all things influence-related: examinations and analyses of primary source documents pertaining to political contributions, spending, lobbying and other forms of special interest influence.  Primary Source is part of the Center for Public Integrity's larger Consider the Source project that focuses on developments in the post-Citizens United world of money and politics.

The 2012 campaign may be over, but the money and influence game continues apace. We want to show where the money comes from. For example, Primary Source reported that a brand new conservative group, American for a Strong Defense, just popped up two weeks ago and started buying hundreds of thousands of dollars in ads against the Senate confirmation of former Senator Chuck Hagel as Defense Secretary.

Meanwhile, Sara Palin’s super PAC (Sara PAC) still has $1.15 million in the bank and remains a political force, even if its namesake has dropped her Fox TV contract. And there is a new super PAC for Hillary Clinton, a group called "Ready for Hillary" registered Friday with the Federal Election Commission.

These and other influence updates will find their way to Primary Source with an eye on naming those who seek to manipulate public opinion and elected officials for political gain. Please bookmark Primary Source here, subscribe to its RSS feed here, follow daily updates on Twitter at @PublicI and "like" us on Facebook. Also be sure to send in your tips, hints and suggestions to tips@publicintegrity.org.

In the 10 months since The Center launched the State Integrity Investigation in collaboration with Global Integrity and PRI/Public Radio International, more than 12 states have proposed new legislation or started a reform campaign. Four more states have passed new measures. The latest actions come from Maine and North Dakota. In Maine, legislation to make it unlawful for state officials to leave their jobs andimmediately go to work for industries they regulated – the so-called “revolving door” – is one of several ethics bills expected to be debated this session. And lawmakers in North Dakota have introduced a package of ethics reform bills that would revamp the state’s oversight of its politicians. Dubbed the Sunshine Act, the measures would create an ethics commission to investigate state officials and would tighten campaign finance reporting rules, among other changes.

What grade did your state earn?

The written policy statements made by a Cabinet-level nominee on the eve of a congressional confirmation hearing are routinely purged of news, with anything remotely provocative excised by the executive branch’s best political handlers to ensure a smooth path to a positive vote. So deriving useful clues from the answers provided this week by the nominee for secretary of defense, Chuck Hagel, to questions posed by members of the Senate Armed Services committee requires a bit of reading between the lines.

The clues are not in what Hagel states, in fact. They’re in what he does not state.

Often, when asked to affirm his support for the policy or programs embraced by one or both of his two predecessors under Obama, Hagel enthusiastically added his endorsements -- to the drawdown of troops in Afghanistan and the avoidance of a direct U.S. military role in Syria, for example. But on a few critical topics, he demurred, invoking the need for further personal study. Or he promised only to ensure that the programs at issue are well-managed, skipping the opportunity to embrace a goal or timetable that defense officials have depicted as vital.

He left himself room, in short, to diverge from the paths taken in Obama’s first term. (He also did this in the Jan. 31 confirmation hearing, as explained below).

Take the volatile issue of the Pentagon’s overall budget level, for example. Under Leon Panetta, the department refashioned its military strategy to accommodate a sizable reduction in planned spending increases; since then, Panetta and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have tried to draw the line against further reductions, warning repeatedly that they could lead to a hollow force.

Hagel was invited to concur.

Instead, he said the department has a good strategy and that he dislikes the idea of “sequestration” – a forced percentage cut across all major Pentagon proposals that now hangs in Washington’s air. But Hagel also made clear the strategy now is not set in concrete: “I will,” Hagel said, “further assesss the strategy according to changes in the security environment and continued fiscal pressure.”

Do you agree with the chiefs, he was asked, that Washington is on the brink of creating a “hollow force” due to budget cuts? “I am concerned by the Joint Chiefs’ assessment,” Hagel responded guardedly, promising to work to understand their complaint better.

On the F-35 jet fighter program – the costliest weapon system in U.S. history – Hagel was asked if the administration’s extensive work to restructure the plane’s procurement and solve its technical problems so far have been adequate.

He declined to make that endorsement. “I will,” he said, “make it a high priority to examine the health of this program to determine if it is on a sound footing and ensure the aircraft are delivered with the capability we need and a cost we can afford.”

Asked if he embraced the Navy’s current, costly ambition to float a 313-ship fleet, Hagel said he was aware of the “stated requirement,” but promised only to “work with the Navy and Congress to ensure naval forces are appropriately structured to meet our national defense needs.” During the committee's hearing on Jan. 31, Hagel similarly sidestepped requests by lawmakers to endorse the production of 12 new nuclear-carrying submarines and ten new attack submarines.

On the former, "I would want to talk to" the Chief of Naval Operations to get a better understanding of "our budget obligations," Hagel said; on the latter, he promised only to support "what we need."

Asked in writing if he supports a highly specific promise made by the administration – on the eve of securing Senate approval for a new arms reduction treaty in 2010 – to fund a suite of costly improvements to the U.S. nuclear weapons production complex, Hagel avoided a direct answer.

Instead, he promised to support a “safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent,” and said vaguely that “I will work to ensure appropriate funding levels and cost-effective management for these efforts.” Asked further whether he is concerned that the Pentagon may not be able to afford the costs of modernizing its nuclear forces, Hagel said “I am not able to make a judgment on this at this time.”

At the hearing, Hagel also refused to be drawn into questions about keeping land-based missiles and tactical weapons as part of the nuclear arsenal. He did reaffirm, however, the concern he expressed in a report last summer about the current U.S. policy of keeping nuclear weapons on a hair-trigger alert, ready for launch on short notice. "You don't," Hagel said, "get a lot of second chances" if nuclear weapons are launched by mistake.

The times, they are about to be changin.’

Fix the Debt Coalition, the political arm of the bipartisan and star-studded Campaign to Fix the Debt, has hired a trio of professional lobbyists to press its fiscal reform agenda with federal government, according to a new document filed this evening with the U.S. Senate.

This marks the first time Fix the Debt Coalition has formally registered lobbyists, the group's Senior Finance and Operations Adviser Simone Frank confirmed to the Center for Public Integrity. 

The group's lobbying efforts wouldn't focus on any one governmental branch or agency but would rather hit "across the board," Frank said.  

"Fixing U.S. long-term debt and deficits" and "educate on the need for a comprehensive plan to fix the U.S. long-term debt and deficits" are Fix the Debt Coalition's lobbying goals as stated in its lobbying registration documents.

Fix the Debt Coalition's lobbyists work directly for the group, not a hired lobbying firm.

The three lobbyists are Cynthia Brown, a former chief of staff to Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wis.; Nathaniel Hoopes, former legislative director for ex-Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass.; and Elizabeth Wroe, a former health policy director and counsel to the Senate Budget Committee, filings indicate.

The group has already launched a nationawide advertising campaign urging long-term fiscal restraint and is led, in part, by lobbyists, those close to the lobbying industry and corporate chiefs who lead some of the strongest lobbying forces on Capitol Hill.

Former Sen. Alan Simpson, R-Wyo., and Erskine Bowles, President Bill Clinton's chief of staff, are the co-founders and co-chairmen of Campaign to Fix the Debt. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an independent; former Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H.; and former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a Democrat, are additional co-chairman.

The group's steering committee includes political personalities ranging from Democratic Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to former Rep. Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, who also served as President George W. Bush's Office of Management and Budget director. 

Its "Fiscal Leadership Council," however, tilts decidedly Republican when it comes to political contributions: The Huffington Postreported that the 86 corporate chief executives populating the council together directed nearly 80 percent of their donations to GOP candidates and causes during the 2012 election cycle.

Why is 2013 an important year for campaign finance? Dave Levinthal and Michael Beckel will answer that, and many other questions about the money-in-politics world in a live chat on Monday, Feb. 4, at 1 p.m. ET. 

Four foundations run by billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch hold a combined $310 million in assets according to tax filings obtained by the Center for Public Integrity.

The documents also show that the brothers, principal owners of the second-largest privately held company in the United States, combined in 2011 to donate $24 million through those foundations with much of the money going to support free-market and libertarian think tanks and academic centers.

A $4.5 million grant to the George Mason University Foundation makes up nearly 15 percent of the university foundation’s revenue for 2011. The school is the largest recipient of Koch foundation money since 1985, and it houses several free-market and libertarian research centers including the Institute for Humane Studies, which received $3.7 million from the Koch foundations.

The D.C.-based American Legislative Exchange Council received $150,000 to help finance its activities, including meetings where corporate representatives draft model legislation with state legislators. The Koch brothers have decades-long connections with ALEC, which gave the brothers the Adam Smith Free Enterprise Award in 1994.

Two of the Koch-run foundations are among dozens of conservative endowments that give money to Donors Trust, a charitable vehicle that has passed $400 million in anonymous grants to “liberty-minded” think tanks in the last decade.

Other think tanks that received Koch foundation grants in 2011:

• The Bill of Rights Institute: $350,000
• The Federalist Society: $260,000
• The Jack Miller Center: $250,000
• American Enterprise Institute: $200,000
• Manhattan Institute: $200,000
• Pacific Research Institute: $100,000
• Ayn Rand Institute: $50,000
• Heartland Institute: $25,000

The above grants came from foundations run by Charles Koch. His brother David’s foundation focused all of its $10 million grant giving in 2011 to the renovation of a theater in New York City.

The Koch brothers' complete Internal Revenue Service Form 990 tax filings for 2011, which were not publicly available before now, may be viewed here:

• Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation
• Charles Koch Foundation
• Knowledge and Progress Fund
• David H. Koch Charitable Foundation

Why is 2013 an important year for campaign finance? Dave Levinthal and Michael Beckel will answer that, and many other questions about the money-in-politics world in a live chat on Monday, Feb. 4, at 1 p.m. ET.