Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., made a five-figure contribution to a prominent super PAC ahead of a push to court conservative support of his contentious immigration reform proposal, according to a Center for Public Integrity review of documents filed today with the Federal Election Commission.

Rubio’s donation of $30,000 on March 28 came from his leadership PAC and went to Senate Conservatives Action. That’s a super PAC connected with former Republican Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Rubio’s one-time mentor who has clashed with the potential 2016 GOP presidential hopeful over the immigration bill.

Senate Conservatives Action was established last July as a super PAC. It seeks to elect “true conservative leaders to the U.S. Senate” by running “hard-hitting advertisements,” according to its website.

It is also linked to the Senate Conservatives Fund, which functioned as DeMint’s leadership PAC until he announced plans to resign from the U.S. Senate and become the president of the conservative Heritage Foundation last December.

In May, DeMint’s former campaign committee also donated nearly $84,000 to Senate Conservatives Action, records indicate.

DeMint, a favorite of tea party activists, was one of Rubio’s most vocal supporters during his initial U.S. Senate bid in 2010. At the time, Rubio was challenging then-Gov. Charlie Crist in a GOP primary. Crist ultimately ran as an independent, but he still lost to Rubio. Crist is now a Democrat who is reportedly eyeing another gubernatorial bid.

More recently, Rubio’s support of a comprehensive immigration reform bill that includes a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants has earned DeMint’s ire.

In May, DeMint warned that the nation “should not repeat past mistakes by providing an amnesty bill."

The fiscal effects of Rubio’s bill are disputed. A report from DeMint’s Heritage Foundation calculated that Rubio’s legislation would cost taxpayers $6.3 trillion. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that the bill, if enacted, would significantly reduce the federal deficit over the next two decades.

The Senate Conservatives Fund still retains its status as a traditional political action committee, meaning it cannot receive contributions exceeding $5,000 per year. As a super PAC, Senate Conservatives Action has no limits on the size of donations it can receive.

Other major donors to Senate Conservatives Action this year include the late Houston homebuilder Bob Perry, who contributed $1 million in February; businessman Richard E. Uihlein, who gave $100,000 in March; and Arkansas-based Mountaire Corporation, which donated $100,000 in June.

This marks the third straight election cycle that Mountaire has been a corporate super PAC donor. Ahead of the 2012 election, the company — which makes animal feeds and chicken products — also contributed $100,000 to Senate Conservatives Action, and in 2010, it donated $25,000 to the super PAC of the conservative Club for Growth.

Scores of New Yorkers and Californians — but relatively few folks in Middle America — are already backing a super PAC designed to boost Democrat Hillary Clinton should she run for president in 2016.

Residents of New York, which Clinton represented in the U.S. Senate, and California have combined to give more than $500,000 to the Ready for Hillary super PAC over the first six months of the year, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of Federal Election Commission reports filed today.

That’s more than 40 percent of the $1.25 million Ready for Hillary reported raising since it was launched in January.

Both states are frequently targeted for campaign cash by politicians on both sides of the aisle.

While super PACs are legally allowed to collect donations of any size, Ready for Hillary has voluntarily capped its contributions at $25,000. Ready for Hillary collected two-dozen contributions at this level, and they account for nearly half of the funds that the Democratic group received during the first six months of 2013.

Of these two-dozen “maximum” contributions, seven come from Californians and five from New Yorkers.

They include:

• Jack Bendheim, president and chairman of the board of Phibro Animal Health Corp., a leading manufacturer and marketer of animal health pharmaceuticals, who raised more than $100,000 for Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign
   
• Scott Bessent, the chief investment officer at the Soros Fund Management, the family investment vehicle of liberal billionaire George Soros*
   
• Art historian Agnes Gund, who was nominated by President Barack Obama in 2010 to serve on the board of trustees of the National Council on the Arts
   
• James Hormel, chairman of the financial company Equidex, Inc., who served as U.S. ambassador to Luxembourg under President Bill Clinton
   
• Irwin Jacobs, co-founder and former chairman of telecommunications company Qualcomm, as well as his wife Joan, who together raised more than $500,000 for Obama’s 2012 re-election efforts
   
• Philanthropist Ann Tenenbaum, a longtime Clinton ally who has hosted the Clintons at her home in the Hamptons
   
• Susie Tompkins Buell, co-founder of the Esprit clothing company who raised at least $100,000 for Clinton’s 2008 campaign and now is a founding member of Ready for Hillary’s National Finance Council

Millionaire developer Alonzo Cantu of Texas likewise donated $25,000. So did former chairwoman of the Tennessee Public Service Commission Jane Eskind — who sat on Clinton's 2008 Tennessee Steering Committee — and Cynthia Shapira, who serves as a senior policy advisory to Allegheny County Executive Rich Fitzgerald in Pennsylvania.

Another notable $25,000 donor is former Kentucky Democratic Party Chairman Jerry Lundergan, who bundled more than $100,000 for Clinton’s 2008 presidential run. Lundergan is the father of Alison Lundergan Grimes, herself a Democrat who is challenging Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., in the 2014 midterm election.

Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia and Tennessee round out the top five list of places whose residents are already supporting a potential Clinton presidential bid.

Meanwhile, Ready for Hillary reported raising roughly $500 from one resident of Iowa, which conducts the nation’s first presidential nomination caucuses, and $250 from a single resident of New Hampshire, which conducts the first presidential primary elections.

Federal law requires information about donors who give more than $200 to political committees to be publicly reported, including donors’ address, employer and occupation. Individuals who give less than $200 are not required to be disclosed, and Ready for Hillary has accepted roughly $200,000 in such contributions so far this year.

Ready for Hillary reported itemized donations from individuals in 35 states, the District of Columbia and the territory of Puerto Rico, according to the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis, though super PAC spokesman Seth Bringman noted that the group has received financial support from more than 10,000 donors in “all 50 states,” as well as “American military bases throughout the world.”

"We are changing the game of what a successful super PAC can be," Bringman added. "We’re not about seven-figure checks, TV ads or just two states."

Erin Quinn contributed to this report.

*The Center for Public Integrity has received financial support from Soros’s Open Society Foundation. See the Center’s list of donors here.

Kentuckians for Strong Leadership, a super PAC that supports Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., today reported receiving a $100,000 contribution from Texas homebuilder Bob Perry on June 3.

At first glance, this came as no surprise. Perry has long been a major financial contributor to the Republican Party and other conservative causes.

Just one problem — Perry died on April 13.

Calls by the Center for Public Integrity to Kentuckians for Strong Leadership and a former Perry spokesman went unreturned.

But several hours later, Kentuckians for Strong Leadership filed an amendment indicating Perry had not donated from beyond the grave, instead given the money on April 12, the day before he died.

Just weeks before his death, Perry also contributed $2 million to Texans for a Conservative Majority and $1 million to Senate Conservatives Action, a super PAC with ties to former Sen. Jim DeMint, new Federal  Election Commission filings show.

In limited instances, people who’ve died may still make political contributions, according to federal law.

A person may, for example, establish a trust and direct that certain amounts of money be used for political purposes following his or her death. 

Mid-year campaign finance reports publicly posted by the Federal Election Commission on Wednesday revealed hundreds of political groups’ 2013 finances.

But there’s a glaring gap in the picture.

The Internal Revenue Service failed to release hundreds of mandatory filings by so-called 527 political organizations it — not the FEC — regulates.

Such groups had until Wednesday to submit disclosure reports covering the period from Jan. 1 to June 30. The information is typically made public immediately.

Contacted numerous times by the Center for Public Integrity during the past several weeks, including several times Wednesday, tax agency officials refused to say when the filing data would be available.

Officials likewise did not respond to requests for obtaining the information in other formats from its Washington, D.C., headquarters.

Earlier this month, the already scandal-plauged IRS removed all online data for 527 political organizations after California-based nonprofit group Public.Resource.Org found that the federal agency had inadvertently included tens of thousands of Social Security numbers.

The 527 groups, so named for the section of the federal tax code that gives them tax-exempt status, adhere to a similar filing schedule as groups that file to the FEC.

These groups include the two political organizations that are typically among the largest spenders nationally on gubernatorial elections: the Republican Governors Association, which reported taking in more than $29 million in the same period last year and more than $22 million in 2011; and the Democratic Governors Association, which reported more than $16 million in donations in the first six months of 2012 and more than $11 million in 2011.

While only two gubernatorial seats are up for grabs in 2013, 36 states will conduct gubernatorial elections in 2014.

Democrats have become the kings of super PACs.

With Congress fighting over gun legislation and immigration, and 2014 midterm races already simmering, many left-leaning donors are eagerly bankrolling these free-spending groups that the party faithful have often criticized for unleashing unlimited money into political races.

Liberal-aligned super PACs combined to raise more than $40 million during the first half of 2013, according to a Center for Public Integrity review of filings submitted to the Federal Election Commission.

Their conservative counterparts, meanwhile, collectively raised about $20 million.

That’s a stark contrast with 2011 and 2012, when Republicans rapidly deployed the nascent organizations following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling that led to their creation.

During the first six months of 2011, for example, conservative super PACs outraised their liberal rivals more than 4-to-1, according to a Center for Public Integrity review of FEC data.

And during the same period last year, when Republicans, unlike Democrats, engaged in a heated presidential primary battle, GOP-aligned super PACs outraised liberal ones nearly 7-to-1.

But with President Barack Obama last year offering his tacit approval of big-dollar political giving, Democrats have quickly closed the fundraising gap by embracing super PACs, which may raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to promote or attack politicians.

“Despite ideological opposition to super PAC spending, I don’t see Democrats wanting to play on an uneven playing field,” said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in California. “This is the political reality.”

Twenty super PACs raised more than $2 million during the first half of 2013, federal records show, and 13 of them are generally aligned with Democrats. In fact, the top six are all liberal groups.

Leading the way was the Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC, a group launched by former Democratic Rep. Gabby Giffords of Arizona and her husband, Mark Kelly, to support stricter gun control laws. Her super PAC brought in more than $6.6 million between January 1 and the end of June.

Billionaire Marc Benioff, the founder and chief executive officer of Salesforce.com, ranked as Giffords’ super PAC’s top donor, giving $500,000. Ahead of the 2012 election, Benioff bundled more than $500,000 for Obama’s re-election efforts, and this spring, he visited the White House three times, records show.

Additionally, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an independent, and the Texas-based law firm of Democratic mega-donors Steve and Amber Mostyn, each donated $250,000 to Americans for Responsible Solutions. Steve Mostyn serves as the group’s treasurer.

Unions, Texas trial lawyers spread funds to Democrats

The next six super PACs with the largest fundraising hauls so far in 2013 include a super PAC affiliated with the Democratic Governors Association, three groups focused on expanding the ranks of Democratic lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate and a union-funded operation.

DGA Action, which supports Democratic gubernatorial candidates, raised $4.2 million through the end of June. The bulk of that funding — $3.6 million — came from the DGA itself. Another $150,000 came from the National Education Association.

Ranking third in receipts so far this year is the union-funded Workers’ Voice super PAC, which raised $3.8 million from January through June. That includes $1.8 million from the AFL-CIO; $1 million from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); and $500,000 from UNITE HERE, which primarily represents workers in the hotel, gaming, food service, manufacturing, laundry and airport industries.

This year, those three unions also touted a pathway for citizenship for undocumented immigrants — a theme that the super PAC also advanced.

“American workers deserve a commonsense immigration process that includes a road map to citizenship,” Michael Podhorzer, political director at the AFL-CIO, wrote in an e-mail on behalf of the Workers’ Voice super PAC earlier this year.

“Eleven million citizens in waiting will remember who stood up for them, and who gave in to fear,” he continued. “And soon, they’ll take that memory with them to ballot boxes across the country.”

Meanwhile, Democrat-backing House Majority PAC collected roughly $3.4 million; sister organization Senate Majority PAC collected $3 million; and American Bridge 21st Century, which specializes in opposition research to aid Democrats, collected $2.9 million.

One union alone accounted for nearly one-quarter of the Senate Majority PAC’s 2013 receipts. That was the Massachusetts Teachers Association, which provided $700,000 to the super PAC that was extremely active in the June 25 special election to fill former Democratic Sen. John Kerry’s seat. (It spent $1.4 million on advertisements opposing Republican Gabriel Gomez who ultimately lost to Democrat Ed Markey by 10 percentage points.)

Senate Majority PAC also received $250,000 a piece from AFSCME, the union-aligned group Working for Working Americans, California developer George Marcus and Priorities USA Action, the super PAC started in 2012 by former White House aides to support Obama’s re-election — which itself is still sitting on $3.4 million.

Notably, Marcus also donated $250,000 to House Majority PAC, ranking him among the top donors to that group, and the Mostyns’ law firm gave it $100,000.

But hedge fund manager Donald Sussman — founder and chairman of Paloma Partners and the husband of Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine — earned the distinction of being that super PAC’s No. 1 donor, giving $350,000 during the first half of the year.

Anne Getty Earhart, granddaughter of industrialist J. Paul Getty, ranked as American Bridge’s top super PAC, giving $400,000.

Another top donor to the group was former Hillary Clinton bundler Susie Tompkins Buell, co-founder of the Esprit clothing company, who gave $150,000.

Buell is also a founding member of the Ready for Hillary’s national finance council, along with trial lawyers Steve and Amber Mostyn. The super PAC promoting a potential Clinton 2016 presidential bid has raised nearly $1.3 million so far this year.

Currently, Democrats hold a narrow edge over Republicans in the U.S. Senate, but defending that advantage will bring many tough campaigns in 2014 — from Alaska to North Carolina.

GOP groups expect enthusiastic donors

With several major conservative bankrollers still showing an appetite for giving big money to super PACs, many GOP leaders remain hopeful about their fortunes in the 2014 midterm elections.

So far this year, Republican donors filled the coffers of groups that have supported both establishment favorites and candidates who regularly push the party further to the right on many issues.

For instance, both the super PAC of the Club for Growth and Senate Conservatives Action — which has ties to former GOP Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, who now heads the Heritage Foundation — raised sizable sums during the first half of 2013.

Senate Conservatives Action raised $1.3 million, while Club for Growth Action raised $950,000. And the Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund collected nearly $2.1 million — with more than 80 percent of that sum coming from individual donors giving $200 or less.

Launched in January, the Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund is “dedicated to supporting those candidates who will sincerely work to rein in out-of-control government,” according to its website. An online straw poll currently touts GOP politicians including Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky.; Ted Cruz, R-Texas; and Marco Rubio, R-Fla., as potential 2016 presidential prospects.

All the while, the late GOP mega-donor Bob Perry— the Houston homebuilder who died in April — continued to fuel conservative super PACs at the dawn of 2013.

Records indicate that Perry contributed $3.1 million split among three groups: Texans for a Conservative Majority ($2 million); Senate Conservatives Action ($1 million) and Kentuckians for Strong Leadership ($100,000), which amended its FEC filing late Wednesday to clarify that Perry did not give from beyond the grave.

For its part, Texans for a Conservative Majority — which raised $2.2 million overall — was registered earlier this year by Texas lobbyist Randy Cubriel, who did not respond to a message seeking comment about his group’s 2014 plans. And Kentuckians for Strong Leadership — which raised $1.2 million — is supporting the re-election of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

Likewise, American Crossroads, the behemoth co-founded in 2010 by GOP strategists Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie, raised $1.9 million during the first half of 2013, with large corporate contributions coming from Texas billionaire Harold Simmons’ Contran Corp. (at $1 million) and Oklahoma-based Rooney Holdings ($150,000).

Jonathan Collegio, the spokesman of American Crossroads, predicted that “enthusiasm about the opportunity to win control of the Senate as well as the paramount need to defend our House majority” would fuel additional donations during the 2014 election cycle.

“We have yet to make any hard fundraising requests this year,” he added. “We expect our activity in 2014 will be similar to past cycles.”

Ben Wieder and Dave Levinthal contributed to this report.

Health and Human Services Inspector General Daniel Levinson didn’t mince words in May of 2011 when he sharply criticized nursing homes for misusing potentially dangerous drugs to sedate troublesome patients.

Levinson said the public should be “outraged” to hear that government warnings to avoid using the anti-psychotic drugs in people with dementia often went unheeded. He went on to accuse manufacturers of “putting profits before safety” by aggressively marketing these drugs for just such uses.

“Government, taxpayers, nursing home residents, as well as their families and caregivers should be outraged — and seek solutions,” he said in a statement released along with a highly critical audit.

But Levinson’s investigative unit, citing major budget and staffing cuts, is scrapping a planned new audit to identify the problem nursing homes and the medicines being misused, an ongoing practice that violates federal rules requiring that patients “be free from unnecessary drugs.”  

That scheduled audit is among several high-profile investigations the OIG is postponing or canceling, including a review of the state insurance exchanges that are set to open later this year as a key provision of the Affordable Care Act. The Center for Public Integrity first reported on the scrapped projects last week.  

News of the cutbacks brought a quick retort from advocates who have fought for years to focus attention on the over-prescribing of drugs in nursing homes. Five such groups wrote to Levinson earlier this week calling the decision “disappointing and alarming” and asking that it be reconsidered.

The groups behind the letter were California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, San Francisco; Center for Medicare Advocacy, Washington; Legal Aid Justice Center, Charlottesville, Va; Long Term Care Community Coalition, New York, and the National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care, Washington.

“Nursing homes are understaffed and they give people drugs to sedate them,” said Janet Wells, a Washington consultant and patient advocate who signed the letter.

The organizations urged the OIG to help protect residents from reckless prescribing of medications that “sedate and restrain them and put them at risk of serious illnesses and death. The human and financial costs of failure to hold nursing homes accountable are extreme. ”

The letter pointed out that Levinson had spoken out for reforms in announcing findings from the previous audit in May 2011. That audit found that almost 305,000 of 2.1 million elderly persons who lived in nursing homes in the first six months of 2007 had a prescription for at least one atypical antipsychotic drug. These drugs are intended to treat psychiatric conditions.

The OIG report said that 88 percent of these prescriptions were written “off-label,” meaning the drugs were being used for purposes that had not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. In some cases, pills were prescribed despite warnings from the FDA that using them for treating dementia patients could be dangerous. In all, unapproved uses and improperly documented claims for these drugs cost Medicare $116 million in one six-month period, the report found.

The advocates who wrote to Levinson noted that the Inspector General’s aggressive stance had spurred discussion among federal officials and some proposals that have since reduced the use of these drugs. But they said more needs to be done.

For instance, the OIG reported in 2012 that almost all nursing home residents receiving atypical antipsychotic drugs did not have proper assessments and care plans that met federal requirements.

“Without teeth in the enforcement process, we don't believe individuals will ever be adequately protected from over-drugging for the convenience of nursing home staff,” said Wells. She added: “We feel they are dropping the ball at a crucial time.”

The American Health Care Association, which represents about 9,000 nursing homes nationwide, concedes a problem exists, but said its members are making progress in curbing drug misuse.

“This issue will not diminish. Now, more than ever before, skilled nursing care centers are focused on safely reducing the off-label use of antipsychotics in residents living with dementia,” Greg Crist, the trade group’s senior vice president of public affairs, said in a prepared statement. Crist added that the industry has set a goal to reduce use of these medications by 15% before the end of 2013, and “we are encouraged by our progress.”

Matthew Bennett, Senior Vice President of the Pharmaceutical Research Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the drug industry’s lobbying arm, said in a prepared statement that drug companies “are committed to providing truthful and non-misleading information about their medicines” and “ensuring that promotional materials provided to health care professionals are accurate and not misleading.”

The HHS inspector general’s office, in a statement released Wednesday, said that it had no quarrel with advocates over the need for closer scrutiny of nursing homes. The office said that it was “continuing to do new work to identify if there are concerns involving atypical antipsychotics with children and adverse events in nursing homes.” The statement added: “We always have to make tough decisions about how we utilize our resources. The more limited the resources, the more difficult our decisions become.”

The HHS Inspector General, the largest such unit in the federal government, expects to lose a total of 400 staffers — or about 20 percent of the workforce — from its peak strength of 1,800 last year. About 200 of those staffers will have departed by the end of this year, and the other 200 are slated to depart by the end of 2015. The HHS office is responsible for oversight of 24 cents out of every tax dollar spent by the federal government.

As a result of the cuts, the OIG has said it “will not be able to keep pace” with the rapid growth of taxpayer-subsidized health care anticipated under the Affordable Care Act, the signature health reform effort of the Obama administration, and will have to trim other efforts to combat health care fraud and abuse and other waste.

An OIG document states that agency officials made the decision to cut projects based on “relative risks to federal dollars and program beneficiaries, known or suspected vulnerabilities and opportunity for impact—as well as the costs associated with each review.”

Yet some of the canceled audits might have exposed policy failures and returned money to the federal treasury. The planned audit into computer security at state marketplaces — known as exchanges — that will sell individual health insurance policies under the Obama health care law, for instance, was intended in part to review whether billions of dollars in federal grants were properly spent.

Another scrapped audit was to seek repayment of $3 billion or more that Medicare paid to drug companies for drugs not approved for safety and effectiveness from 2006 through 2010.  

The inspector general’s office also is delaying an unspecified number of investigations into poor quality care in hospitals as a result of its “significantly reduced” travel budgets and the high cost of paying experts to review medical files.

This policy decision may result in a “potentially high-risk hospital not being reviewed” and “potentially erroneous claims not being reviewed,” according to agency documents.

Activists on both sides of the firearm debate have drastically ratcheted up their political spending in the aftermath of the deadly mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., as Congress fought over gun control proposals.

Together, newly formed super PACs launched by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg brought in about $8.6 million during the first half of the year, a Center for Public Integrity review of federal records shows.

While gun rights advocates have long been a robust and deep-pocketed political machine, this big money explosion is an unprecedented phenomenon on the gun control side. In any of the last three federal election cycles, gun control interest group spending did not top $70,000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The National Rifle Association has also had a big year, raising more than three times the money this year compared to the same time frame in 2011, the Center’s analysis indicates.

So, too, has the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a firearm industry trade association based in Newtown — where 20 children and six adults were shot and killed in December — has raised nearly $188,000 through its PAC this year, nearly six times its receipts at the same point in the 2012 cycle.

Americans for Responsible Solutions, a super PAC formed by Giffords following the Newtown elementary school shooting, raised more than $6.6 million from the beginning of January through the end of June, according to new Federal Election Commission filings. That was more than any other super PAC raised during that period.

Additionally, Bloomberg has provided his group, Independence USA PAC, with more than $2 million during the same period. He is the group’s only funder.

Meanwhile, the NRA’s political action committee amassed nearly $7.1 million in contributions so far this year — an upsurge from $4.8 million this time last year and $2.4 in 2011 — according to the group’s most recent FEC filing.

As super PACs, Americans for Responsible Solutions and Independence USA PAC may raise and spend unlimited amounts of money, but since the NRA’s primary political arm is a traditional PAC, the size the donations it may accept is limited.

But the PAC may donate directly to politicians — and does frequently. The NRA’s PAC has contributed $178,000 though the first six months of the year to candidates who support gun rights.

Following the Newton massacre, Giffords’ group launched ad campaigns to pressure members of Congress to expand background checks, but the measure failed in the Senate. Giffords has been pushing for stricter regulations on firearms ever since she was shot at a town hall in Arizona back in January 2011.

The group, which also has a 501(c)(4) nonprofit arm, still has $4.8 million left in the bank through June 30. About half of the money the super PAC has received so far came from individual donations of less than $200.

But Americans for Responsible Solutions was also buoyed by a handful of six-figure contributions. The group’s largest donor this period was CEO Salesforce.com Marc Benioff, a bundler for President Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign, who gave $500,000.

The law firm of Steve Mostyn, a major Democratic donor and American for Responsible Solutions’ treasurer, contributed $250,000 to the group, as did Napster co-founder Sean Parker.

Giffords’ super PAC also received $250,000 from Bloomberg, who has been a leading figure in the gun control debate.

Bloomberg’s super PAC has been most active this year in Illinois’ 2nd congressional district special election, spending more than $2.2 million supporting Democrat Robin Kelly, who won the seat, or advocating against her opponents.

While the NRA enjoyed a fundraising blitz this year, a handful of lesser-known gun rights advocates have seen minimal changes in their fundraising hauls.

Gun Owners of America raised nearly $22,000 from Jan. 1 through June 30 — about $6,000 less than what the committee had raised this time last year.

The PAC arm of Safari International Club, a nonprofit that supports hunters’ rights and wildlife conservation, raised $324,000 this year —$86,000 of which it contributed to Hunter’s Defense Fund, the club’s super PAC arm formed in February.

National Association for Gun Rights collected a measly $80 this year through its political action committee, while bulk of its $23,000 in disbursements was given to the campaigns of pro-gun candidates.

But the Virginia-based group’s lobbying arm spent more than $3 million this past quarter to advocate against dozens of gun control bills, as the Center for Public Integrity previously reported.

Nine Republican senators have now steered a combined $125,000 to a big-spending conservative nonprofit that defended one of their colleagues following a contentious gun vote earlier this year, a Center for Public Integrity review of Federal Election Commission filings has found.

Recently filed campaign finance reports show $20,000 in previously unknown contributions flowed to the Iowa-based American Future Fund, which ran $1.3 million worth of television advertisements defending Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., after she faced backlash for voting in April against enhanced background checks for firearms purchases.

The Center for Public Integrity had previously reported that at least six leadership PACs controlled by GOP senators donated $105,000 to the American Future Fund earlier this year — a highly atypical move.

New records show that the leadership PAC of Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., gave the American Future Fund $10,000 in May, while the political action committees of Sens. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., and Rob Portman, R-Ohio, each chippedin $5,000.

Of the nine identified donors, the leadership PACs of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, provided the largestcontributions to the American Future Fund, each giving $30,000.

The contributions from the Republican leadership PACs came shortly before or after the launch of the American Future Fund’s pro-Ayotte ad campaign.

These contributions provide a small window into the funding of the American Future Fund, which as a 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organization is not required to publicly disclose its donors.

Representatives of the American Future Fund, which spent more than $29 million on political ads during the 2012 elections, could not immediately be reached for comment.

It’s tomorrow. And most of the Stephen Colbert-inspired political action committees formed in the mold of the comedian’s satirical super PAC “Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow” have fallen by the wayside.

During the past year, most of Colbert’s super PAC spawn have followed Colbert’s lead and terminated their PACs, some of which the comedian featured on his Comedy Central show “The Colbert Report.”

Of the 20 super PACs filed with the Federal Election Commission with names relating to Colbert or his former Super PAC, 10 have now terminated, five have failed to file proper FEC documents and another five are still hanging on.

One of the survivors is the “We Just Want Stephen Colbert to Come to Our College SuperPAC,” created by Susan Grogan, a professor of political science at St. Mary’s College. Grogan started the super PAC as a tool to educate her students on campaign finance.

The primary goal of the super PAC “is to advocate for the voter, to promote responsible voter behavior, and to enhance student engagement in voting and encouraging others to vote,” Grogan said in a press release when she formed the super PAC in June 2012.

She created a website where her students blogged about topics including the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, gerrymandering and the history of voter suppression during and after the 2012 election.

Grogan said the major activity accomplished by the super PAC was an outreach program by St. Mary’s College students to help register voters in Southern Maryland. The group also organized shuttle busses to take voters to and from campus on Election Day.

“We Just Want Stephen Colbert to Come to Our College SuperPAC” spent $283 during the first half of this year and has over $900 cash on hand remaining, according to its mid-year filing report with the FEC.

Given that super PACs have no fundraising limitations, that’s not much money. But Grogan said the most rewarding part of creating her Colbert-inspired super PAC has been “watching students get engaged in the political process and showing that politics can be fun.” She plans to keep the Super PAC going and “can’t wait” for the 2014 election cycle.

Another Colbert-inspired super PAC still in operation is “Americans for the Win Tomorrow,” founded by Matthew Lind, a recent Luther College graduate with degrees in political science and international studies.

Lind decided to start the super PAC after watching Colbert go through the super PAC formation process on his show.

“I wanted to learn a little bit more about how the American campaign finance system works,” Lind said. “It was incredibly easy, maybe too easy, to start it.”  Americans for the Win Tomorrow has $100 cash on hand for this year, according to the PAC’s FEC mid-year filing.

Although Lind admits that the paperwork can sometimes be a hassle, he said he plans on keeping the PAC alive, although he does not have many big plans for the future.

Remy Maisel was a sophomore in college when she started “Penn Staters for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow.” Although her terminated super PAC has no plans for the future, she said going through the process has actually changed her plans for the future.

So positive, in fact, that it inspired her to change her college major from animal science  to media studies following her run as the treasurer of “Penn Staters for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow”. Maisel credits Colbert for helping her find her “true interest.”Colbert, whose publicist did not return requests for comment, created his super PAC in 2011 as a cheeky protest against campaign finance laws on his Comedy Central show “The Colbert Report.”

The segment focused on the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, which led to the legalization of super PACs. Such political committees may raise and spend unlimited money to overtly campaign for or against political candidates.

“Stephen Colbert's coverage of the Colbert Super PAC performed an enormous service to the country, educating it on what super PACs are and how the Supreme Court's assumptions that they are non-corrupting and independent additions to our democracy are open to challenge,” said Trevor Potter, a former Federal Election Committee chairman who served as  Colbert’s super PAC lawyer and helped the comedian file his official FEC paperwork.

The segment won “The Colbert Report” a 2011 Peabody Award for excellence in journalism and inspired dozens of fans to create federally registered super PACs that included “Cats for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow”, “San Diegans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow” and even “Raising Awareness Of Dihydrogen-Monoxide For A Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow.”

Colbert terminated “Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow” on Nov. 11, citing the death of the PAC’s fictional financial adviser, Ham Rove — quite literally, a bespectacled canned ham bearing certain resemblance to Republican political operative Karl Rove.

The show then started “The Ham Rove Memorial Fund,” giving the $773,704.83 raised by the committee to charities and pro-transparency organizations that focus on campaign finance.

The Center for Public Integrity launched its Gift Economy project to shine a light on how the flow of money from defense contractors to key lawmakers has tainted—and in some cases corrupted—decision-making on key national security and defense budgeting issues.

We’ve been examining Federal Election Commission campaign finance data and congressional lobbying data from the Senate Office of Public Records. We have focused on all contributions and lobbying by the top 100 defense contractors since 2003, and on current and former members of the six committees that must approve all military spending (Armed Services, Appropriations and Energy, in both the House and Senate). We have seen how these defense companies are intervening in critical congressional deliberations.

Our first analysis from these data produced an investigation into how one contractor, General Dynamics, lobbied Congress and doled out contributions to key members while they considered the fate of the M1 Abrams tank. The Pentagon says it has enough Abrams tanks – and has even mothballed some in the California desert. The Pentagon wants to halt the program to save $3 billion.

But armed with the data, we showed how General Dynamics’ lobbying and campaign contributions spiked at the moment of key hearings and votes (the company’s contributions went up from average of $7,000 a week to nearly $50,000 at strategic junctures). As a result, General Dynamics and the congressional delegation from Ohio, where the tanks are assembled, prevented a freeze on M1 refurbishment from 2014 to 2017, even at a time when public opinion is galvanized against wasteful federal spending.

Our story about General Dynamics’ actions was heavily used by other media organizations, such as the McClatchy newspaper chain, NBC News, The Huffington Post, and Mother Jones. CNN ran a news segment about the story that quoted one of the authors of the investigation, which in turn inspired a Daily Show segment for which we supplied key information.

As the trade publication DODBUZZ tweeted: “Ever wanted to see how the military-industrial-congressional complex works? Read this excellent story.” Another tweet by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists read: “Excellent. The Gift Economy at CPI…Series on top defense contractors who finance election campaigns of lawmakers.”

In addition to our own website, this report percolated through multiple media channels, making clear that there is a strong audience for journalism about the problematic ways in which Washington decides to spend its money.

And last month, we published another story in our Gift Economy series, The Drone that Could Not Be Grounded, depicting how Northrop Grumman was able to defeat an Air Force effort to save $2.5 billion by halting production of the troubled Global Hawk drone. Top Air Force officials knew last year they needed to halt spending on some large and expensive programs. So they looked for a candidate that was underperforming, had busted its budget, and wasn’t vital to immediate combat needs, coming up with the Global Hawk drone program.

But as we explained, Northrop strategically invested a half-million dollars in a single crucial committee, which voted to keep the drone in production and extend its operation, and then prevailed as budget legislation moved through both houses of Congress. Again, we highlighted the link between spikes in the company’s donations and key votes or hearings, including a seven-day period last May in which Northrop gave members of a single committee $55,000.

The Atlantic led its website with our story, bringing in thousands of readers for the article in just the first few hours. The story then rolled out in major McClatchy and Digital First  newspapers spread across the nation from Miami to Los Angeles and San Jose. Its conclusions were described in Time Magazine’s Battleland Blog and in many other publications.

Both of these stories had huge resonance with citizens and critics of excessive defense spending. Many passionate reader comments were written to denounce the pay-to-play character of congressional policymaking, even at a time of shrinking federal budgets.

There are many more such Gift Economy stories in the works this year, thanks to our National Security team of reporters and editors, led by R. Jeffrey Smith, a Pulitzer Prize-winning former Washington Post reporter. In the future, we will publish an interactive online database to allow journalists and citizens to search and analyze defense contractor influence-buying related to individual weapons systems and major sectors of the industry.

Until next week,
Bill 

The federal agency charged with investigating chemical accidents is weighed down by a backlog of unfinished investigations, hindering its ability to provide information and advice that could prevent future disasters, a report released this week by the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Inspector General concluded.

A recent Center for Public Integrity story examined the causes of this backlog at the agency, the Chemical Safety Board, and the dissatisfaction with its performance among some in Congress, current and former board members and families affected by unfinished accident investigations.

The inspector general’s report found that the disparity between the number of investigations the agency, known as the CSB, planned to complete and the number it actually finished has widened steadily in recent years. In 2007, the IG found, the agency completed 10 investigations, its goal that year. In 2012, it completed just two of the eight investigations it hoped to finish.

Six current investigations have been underway for more than three years, and the CSB doesn’t have adequate written plans to close them out, the report said. These include a release of highly toxic hydrofluoric acid at the Citgo oil refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas, in 2009, and a 2008 explosion that killed a worker at the BP refinery in Texas City, Texas — the site of a 2005 blast that killed 15 workers and injured at least 180 more. In its response to the inspector general, the agency said these two cases, along with others, have been proposed for termination.

Also unfinished is the report on the 2010 explosion that killed seven workers at the Tesoro Corp. refinery in Anacortes, Wash. This delay has prompted criticism from members of Congress and family members of those who died.

“I’m encouraged by the Inspector General’s recommendations, but this report doesn’t change the fact that after more than three years, the Chemical Safety Board has still failed to complete its investigation of the tragic Tesoro refinery accident in Washington state," Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said in a statement to the Center. "Until the CSB finishes their open reports and demonstrates they can remain accountable as an independent agency, I will continue to follow their actions, and not just their words.”

A turnover rate of 15 percent among investigators over the past five fiscal years and a lack of formal policies to track investigations’ progress and set goals for completion may be contributing to the delay, the report found.

“[T]his report points out weaknesses that I believe can and should be improved upon,” current board member Mark Griffon wrote the inspector general. “I am very concerned about the significant turnover of senior investigative staff.”

The CSB declined an interview request from the Center. It did provide a statement, and its responses to the inspector general are included with the report.

“The CSB agrees with the OIG that it is desirable to complete reports more quickly — and we even agree with the majority of their recommendations (most of which we already had underway as CSB initiatives),” the statement said. “But this report has largely missed the mark in its analysis, overlooking the significant impact of resource constraints and demands from Congress and other stakeholders for large-scale investigations … ”

The agency acknowledged producing fewer reports in recent years but highlighted its involvement in complex investigations of high-profile accidents, such as the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill and the explosion at the Chevron refinery in Richmond, Calif., last year. It also disputed the inspector general’s calculation of its turnover rate, saying it should include only those who voluntarily left the agency, which it said would place the rate at 9 percent. No investigators had left in the past nine months, the agency said.

The inspector general cited a survey of CSB employees that found that 59 percent said they were dissatisfied with senior leadership — a figure the report said was worse than the government average. A former board member previously told the Center the agency was “grossly mismanaged.” This week, the CSB did not answer Center questions about the survey.

Like massive pop-up stores that disappear once Halloween is over, several presidential contender-specific super PACs that played crucial roles through Election Day 2012 have all but vanished from national politics.

With President Barack Obama re-elected and Republican challenger Mitt Romney vanquished, groups such as conservative Restore Our Future and liberal Priorities USA Action could have easily enshrined themselves in the political firmament by supporting 2014 midterm hopefuls or pressing issues such as guns or immigration.

Instead, today they appear to have neither candidate nor cause, to be remembered only as one-hit wonders that — in stark contrast to party committees and candidate campaign machines — blink out of existence just as quickly as they once bolted to the forefront of post-Citizens United electioneering.

None have much money left. Their once mighty war chests, filled with hundreds of millions of dollars by the mega-donor likes of Republican casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and Democratic media mogul Fred Eychaner, have in some cases dwindled into the four- and five-figure range, according to financial documents filed Wednesday with the Federal Election Commission.

And the little income these and other presidential-focused super PACs realized in 2013 isn’t coming from flesh-and-blood donors, but instead as a result of credits or transfers from associated committees.

What money they’re spending this year isn’t going toward advertising buys or online ad campaigns,  but paying for the most perfunctory of expenses, such as legal and consulting fees.

Restore Our Future, which raised $153.7 million during the 2012 election cycle — the most among super PACs — had little more than $1 million cash on hand through June 30, its disclosures indicate.

The parade of wealthy conservatives so eager just months ago to bankroll the super PAC don’t account for the super PAC’s $700,000 in receipts between Jan. 1 and June 30 come. Rather, the money is derived from media buy refunds off purchases made with a consulting firm in Towson, Md.

Restore Our Future’s co-founder, Charlie Spies, has lately been focusing his efforts on other super PACs with which he’s involved.

Priorities USA Action, meanwhile, ended June with about $3.4 million in reserve after raising $79 million during the 2012 cycle — third-most among super PACs.

A media buy refund from last year also accounted for most of its $356,000 in 2013 income. The rest came in the form of a cash transfer from a joint fundraising committee with which it worked.

Rather than spending its remaining money on political candidates, Priorities USA Action gave much of it away this year: $250,000 to Democrat-focused super PAC Senate Majority PAC and $100,000 to help fund state-level efforts of EMILY’s List.

Officials at both Restore Our Future and Priorities USA Action did not respond to messages seeking comment.

That’s not necessarily a surprise for Priorities USA Action, as several of its top staffers — co-founder Bill Burton, spokeswoman Marcy Stech and Compliance and Operations Director Megan Brengarth included — have left the organization in recent months for other  jobs.

Its website hasn’t been updated in months. “We are at the forefront of efforts to draw clear contrasts between progressive policies and those of the far right,” reads a statement posted there.

Restore Our Future’s website isn’t any better, offering few details of its future and cryptically stating: “The fight to protect America from the growing debt, higher taxes and attacks on our job creators is not over.”

The super PACs could yet bounce back. Since they may accept unlimited donations, it only takes a single millionaire or billionaire to regain relevance.

But many prominent donors have taken their cash elsewhere in 2013, filling the accounts of super PACs that tout specific policy goals or broader electoral agendas, such as helping Democrats or Republicans win the U.S. House or U.S. Senate. Or they’re bankrolling new candidate-specific super PACs that are backing the likes of Democrat Hillary Clinton and U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

Like Priorities USA Action and Restore Our Future, the formerly pro-Newt Gingrich super PAC Winning Our Future has become peripheral despite its briefattempts to reinvent itself.

Through June, Winning Our Future reported just $4,486 in available cash, federal records show. During the 2012 election cycle, it had raised almost $24 million.

The formerly pro-Rick Santorum Red White and Blue Fund super PAC hasn’t raised a cent during 2013 after collecting millions of dollars from GOP benefactor Foster Friess and others.

It sat atop $95,200 as of June 30, according to federal filings, its meager spending this year going toward consulting fees, database services and a couple of plane tickets.

Endorse Liberty, which supported Republican Ron Paul and was funded primarily by PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel,  only had $13,637 left to its name through June.

After compiling $4 million ahead of the 2012 election, it has failed to raise any money this year despite predictions it would emerge as a force supporting congressional candidates who “uphold the principles of liberty.”

While Endorse Liberty, too, appears destined for the super PAC scrap heap, its latest treasurer says no.

“The PAC has been quietly laying the groundwork to kick off a significant effort in the second half of this year,” said Dan Backer, an Alexandria, Va.-based election lawyer who didn’t detail what the effort would entail.

A new super PAC appears to have its sights set on Arkansas, a state where incumbent Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., is expected to face a contentious re-election challenge from GOP Rep. Tom Cotton, who plans to kick off his Senate campaign on Tuesday.

Paperwork submitted recently to the Federal Election Commission says a new group called “Arkansas Horizon” intends to “raise funds in unlimited amounts” to produce political advertisements independently of any federal candidates.

Nothing in the FEC documents identify which candidates the super PAC plans to attack or endorse, and treasurer David Satterfield did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Satterfield’s past, however, suggests that Arkansas Horizon will tilt Republican.

As a member of the government relations team at Washington, D.C.-based law firm Arent Fox, Satterfield has helped numerous conservative groups comply with federal campaign finance rules, including the super PAC of the Republican Jewish Coalition.

Among the other super PACs for whom Satterfield is also currently listed as treasurer:

• Patriot Prosperity PAC, which, in 2012, spent more than $1.4 million on advertisements supporting two unsuccessful Republican candidates in New Jersey — U.S. House candidate Shmuley Boteach and U.S. Senate candidate Joe Kyrillos.
   
• National Horizon, which spent more than $1.2 million ahead of the 2012 election on ads backing GOP candidates such as Reps. David Schweikert and Matt Salmon of Arizona. It also supported Wendy Long of New York, who unsuccessfully challenged incumbent Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand.
   
• Concerned Taxpayers of America, which, in 2010, spent nearly $800,000 on ads aimed at defeating Reps. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., and Frank Kratovil, D-Md. DeFazio weathered the storm, but Kratovil lost to Republican challenger Andy Harris.

Billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Miriam, were major bankrollers of both the Republican Jewish Coalition’s super PAC and Patriot Prosperity PAC.

Meanwhile, National Horizon’s largest donors last year were billionaires Ronald Lauder, a businessman who served as U.S. ambassador to Austria under President Ronald Reagan, and hedge fund manager Robert Mercer— one of two major funders behind the Concerned Taxpayers of America super PAC in 2010.

When contacted by the Center for Public Integrity, officials at the both the Arkansas Democratic Party and Arkansas Republican Party expressed ignorance about the new Arkansas Horizon super PAC but predicted that the U.S. Senate race would see a flood of spending by big-money groups.

“There’s going to be a lot of money spent on both sides,” said David Ray, communications director of the Arkansas Republican Party, adding that Pryor has the “unenviable title of most vulnerable senator in America.”

Candace Martin, executive director of the Arkansas Democratic Party, argued that super PACs contribute to a “perpetual campaign cycle” while generating a “level of mistrust” among voters.

“A lot of out-of-state interest groups do not have an understanding of the state and misrepresent the state,” she said.

Representatives for Cotton and Pryor did responded to requests for comment.

Already, super PACs from beyond Arkansas’ state lines have spent more than $500,000 in the state, records show.

Most of that has come in the form of advertisements slamming Pryor from Senate Conservatives Action and Club for Growth Action, both of which are conservative groups based in the Washington, D.C., metro area.

Cotton has also been targeted in a modest buy from the Democratic-aligned, D.C.-based Senate Majority PAC.

For its part, Arkansas Horizon lists its address on FEC filings as Satterfield’s office in Washington, D.C.

For decades, the American Medical Association and other health care special interests have pretty much had their way with Congress when it comes to Medicare. Even though the program is run by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, members of Congress frequently exert their influence over that agency to protect or enhance the fiscal well being of physicians, drug makers and others who help finance their campaigns.  

It is because of this meddling by members of Congress that Medicare pays for procedures, medications and medical devices that have not been proven to be cost-effective and in some cases could actually do more harm than good.

This is not a secret. Health policy experts have long contended that one of the key reasons the Medicare program will eventually run out of money is because of the outsized influence lobbyists for health special interests have in Washington.

As the Center for Public Integrity’s Joe Eaton pointed out in an excellent piece last week, one of the reasons CMS has failed to implement cost-cutting measures over the years is the frequent interference from Capitol Hill.  

Eaton contrasted what is not happening in Washington, D.C. to improve the solvency of the Medicare program with what is happening in Washington State to reduce unnecessary public spending on health care.

Seven years ago, Washington state lawmakers created a Health Technology Assessment program to evaluate medical procedures and devices paid for by taxpayers to cover state workers, Medicaid recipients and the people receiving benefits through the state’s workers’ compensation program.

Since then, the committee running the program — composed of doctors, nurses and other health professionals — has cut coverage for 21 medical procedures and devices, many of which are still covered by Medicare, and established conditions for covering others. The procedures cut or limited include arthroscopic knee surgery, back pain injections, CT heart scans and lumbar fusion. State officials estimate that the committee has saved taxpayers more than $40 million a year. If Medicare took the same actions, the savings would be in the billions.

What Washington state is doing resembles what many private insurance companies do, including Cigna, where I used to work. Insurers have their own departments that make decisions on whether a new medication, procedure or device is safe and cost-effective. Insurers, for example, do not immediately begin covering a newly FDA-approved drug. They often wait at least a year after FDA approval, during which time they evaluate the drug’s performance.

During the health care reform debate, some members of Congress, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va, in particular, felt something comparable to what Washington state and private insurers have put in place should be established for Medicare. They succeeded in inserting in the Affordable Care Act a provision establishing the Independent Payment Advisory Board. Ever since, other members of Congress — encouraged by the AMA and other special interests — have done their best to try to get rid of the board, which, like in Washington State, would be composed of health care professionals. Lobbyists and members of Congress would not have a seat on the board.

Although the provision establishing IPAB clearly prohibits it from rationing care in any way, that is exactly what opponents have said it would do. It would not, but that is simply an inconvenient truth that those who want to get rid of the board not only ignore but, frankly, lie about.

Consider this. In a Wall Street Journalop-ed last week, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, also a former doctor, wrote that the IPAB “is essentially a health-care rationing board.” Not true, wrote former Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag in his own Bloomberg op-ed the next day. Orszag pointed out that the Affordable Care Act “specifically states that the board is not allowed to make any recommendations that would ration care.”

Other critics have even gone so far as to call the IPAB “a death panel,” as did lawyers Elizabeth Foley and David Rivkin Jr., who worked in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, in a June op-ed in The Wall Street Journal.

Another frequent talking point for critics is that the board would be composed of “unelected and unaccountable government bureaucrats.” As if members of Congress, beholden as they are to lobbyists and the special interests they work for, are somehow more likely to make decisions in the best interests of patients and taxpayers. Yet another talking point is that the board “puts the government right in between you and the decisions made very personally by you and your caregiver,” as Sen. Tom Coburn, R-OK, told reporters last year. It would not do that, either, but it makes for a compelling sound bite.

Despite Dean’s op-ed, support for legislation to kill IPAB seems to be languishing in the Senate, where no Democrats have so far joined the 31 Republican co-sponsors. While a few Democrats have signed on to the House version, it’s not likely to ever make it to President Obama’s desk. Let’s hope it doesn’t. The IPAB is the best hope we have of Washington D.C. following the good lead of Washington state.

The campaign of Rep. Steve Pearce, R-N.M., provided two-thirds of the first $15,000 raised by a super PAC that employs his brother and a former congressional aide, according to a Center for Public Integrity review of federal records.

GOAL WestPAC, which lists Philip Pearce as its treasurer, received $10,000 from Rep. Pearce’s campaign committee in January, federal records show.

The congressman's campaign also donated $10,000 in January to GOAL Advocacy, a related 501(c)(4) “social welfare” nonprofit, which, like the super PAC, is led by Jason Heffley, Pearce’s former deputy chief of staff and campaign manager.

The new super PAC, which registered with the Federal Election Commission in January, also reported receiving $5,000 from New Mexico-based ME-TEX Oil & Gas, Inc., whose president, Mark Vetero, is on the board of GOAL Advocacy.

The two contributions account for the group’s total receipts through the end of June.

Heffley told the Center for Public Integrity that the super PAC did not plan to focus on Pearce’s 2014 re-election contest. Instead, it would back candidates who support the group’s conservative principles.

Pearce spokesman Eric Layer referred questions to officials with Pearce’s campaign, who did not immediately respond to comment.

For its part, GOAL Advocacy seeks to “educate Americans on the positive impacts the oil, gas and agricultural industries have on our economy,” according to its website.

The nonprofit group’s website also accuses “radical environmental groups” of using “propaganda to scare the public” and pushing “misinformation” about fracking.

This year, it has been airing radio advertisements urging people to contact Congress to oppose listing the lesser prairie-chicken as an endangered species.

In addition to Vetero, several other oil and gas industry executives sit on GOAL Advocacy’s board of directors.

The oil and gas industry ranks as Pearce’s top campaign contributor, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, with people and political action committees associated with it providing at least 10 percent of the $14 million he has raised over his career.

State Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Ft. Worth, was back in Washington, D.C., today less than two weeks after she swung through the nation’s capital for a heavy fundraising push — and confirmed she may run for Texas governor.

This time around, Davis, who rose to political stardom in late June following her 11th-hour filibuster against a Texas anti-abortion bill, spoke this afternoon about her political prospects in front of more than 100 people at a National Press Club luncheon.

If Davis opts to run for governor, she will have a tall task ahead of her in a deeply red state where leading Republican politicians are flush with cash.

But in her speech today, she noted she’s won elections in areas that are not thought of as traditional liberal mainstays.

“The district I represent wasn’t drawn for a Democrat, but the people I represent are a lot more interested in seeing problems solved than they are in partisan labels,” Davis said.

National Democrats are, however, are lining up behind her, lending extra wattage to her already-rising star.

On July 25 trip to Washington, D.C., for example, Davis’ state senate campaign conducted two fundraisers, which attracted major national Democratic figures.

Headlining Davis’ first event: Sens. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.; Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.; Al Franken, D-Minn.; Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.; Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii; Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.; Patty Murray, D-Wash.; and Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H. The cost to attend was $500.

Ticket prices for her second fundraiser that day ranged between $25 and $250.

Davis also reportedly said she met with officials from EMILY’s List, a group that help recruits Democratic women to run for office, during her July D.C. trip.

The meeting apparently bore fruit, as on Sunday, EMILY’s List published a blog item entitled “Beyond the Filibuster: 10 Things You Should Know About Wendy Davis,” which argues why Davis was a “rising star” long before this year.

Davis raised more than $933,000 in the final two weeks of June, a recent Texas Ethics Commission report shows.

About one-third of that money came from outside the state, according to the Texas Tribune. 

Her total haul, while impressive for a state senator, stills pales in comparison to her likely GOP opponent’s should she choose to run for governor.

Current Texas Lt. Gov. Greg Abbot — the favorite to take over for Gov. Rick Perry, who is not seeking re-election — brought in nearly $4.8 million during the same period and had nearly $21 million on hand at the end of June.

Davis and Abbott were only able to raise campaign money this year from June 17 to June30 because state law prohibits officeholders from fundraising during a regular legislative session and the 20 days immediately following one.  

Davis is best known for her stance on Texas’ abortion bill, which Perry ultimately signed into law, but she spent the majority of her speech addressing issues such as poverty and education, attempting to paint herself as above partisanship.

“For all the rhetoric about big government or small government, I think the majority of Texans just want to see good government,” Davis said.

Davis ruled out a bid for lieutenant governor, but said she will either run for re-election in her state senate district or for governor in 2014.

Matt Angle, a senior strategist for the Davis campaign, said he expects Davis to make a decision on her political future by Labor Day. 

Angle said Davis did not have any fundraisers or other events planned today, as she had to fly back to Texas immediately after the luncheon.

Before he died in April, Bob Perry donated to the re-election campaign of Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, a man the wealthy Houston home builder spent a small fortune opposing last year.

Cruz assumed office in 2012 after defeating Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst in a bruising GOP primary fight— during which Perry contributed $600,000 to a pro-Dewhurst super PAC and contributed the legal maximum to Dewhurst’s campaign.

Perry and his wife, Doylene, each donated $2,600 to Cruz’s campaign on March 22, according to a Center for Public Integrity review of federal campaign finance records maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Last year, Cruz, a tea party favorite, forced Dewhurst into a run-off election, after no one earned more than 50 percent of the vote during the May 29 primary. A pro-Dewhurst super PAC called the Texas Conservatives Fund spent nearly $6 million on advertising during the two races, and Perry was the second-largest donor to the group behind fellow Texan Harold Simmons.

Ahead of the 2004 presidential election, both Perry and Simmons gained notoriety for funding the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group whose ads helped sink Democrat John Kerry’s run against President George W. Bush.

Pro-Cruz groups also spent millions on the Senate primary race, in which he ultimately bested Dewhurst by about 14 percentage points.

Representatives of Perry and Cruz could not immediately be reached for comment, although Cruz said Perry "never wanted anything in return, other than principled, effective leaders in government" in a statement marking Perry's death in April.

Data from the Center for Responsive Politics also show that prior to his death, Perry donated to the campaigns of Reps. Paul Ryan, R-Wis.; Randy Weber, R-Texas; and Bill Flores, R-Texas., as well as Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

Meanwhile, records filed with the Texas Secretary of State’s office indicate that Perry gave more than $75,000 in 2013, including $25,000 to the Texans for Lawsuit Reform PAC and $25,000 to the political action committee of lobbying firm HillCo Partners. And Virginia campaign finance records indicate that Perry gave $1 million to the Republican Governors Association in April.

Perry donated $3.1 million in 2013 to Republican super PACs, including $2 million to Texans for a Conservative Majority, $1 million to Senate Conservatives Action and $100,000 to Kentuckians for Strong Leadership, which is supporting the re-election of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., as the Center for Public Integrity previously noted.

Debate over the consequences of booting kids from school for misbehavior and the “school-to-prison pipeline” puts some educators on the defensive.

Some angrily demand to know exactly what those who criticize student suspensions and expulsions would do if they were teachers, principals or boards of education. How do you deal with disruptive or disrespectful students, all the while being held accountable for your students’ scores on standardized tests?

A civil rights initiative called The Advancement Project took on these sensitivities in July at an unprecedented national conference in Washington, D.C. called “We Can Do Better.” Parts were videotaped, and are now available online. The discussions offer insight that could prove useful for parents, educators and lawmakers concerned about both dropouts and incarceration rates in some communities.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, was at the conference. She said her union is “moving away” from zero-tolerance discipline policies that result in removal of kids, and pushing for widespread training in proven alternatives that can resolve core problems while keeping students in school.

“Children are not going to be engaged in learning if they are not in classrooms,” Weingarten told journalists before the conference started.

Weingarten participated in a taped “town hall” session led by Judith Browne Dianis, co-director of the Advancement Project.

During that session, Chief Judge Chandlee Johnson Kuhn of the Delaware Family Court talked about courts being inappropriately clogged with kids accused of "disorderly conduct," for relatively minor offenses, including muttering profanities at school staff or other students. It makes no sense, she said, to pull kids out of school and send them to court to answer to allegations that mostly lead to counseling and other diversion programs.

Mo Canady, executive director of the National Association of School Resource Officers, was on the same panel, offering his views on the proper role of school police.

As the Center for Public Integrity documented, students as young as six in low-income, ethnic minority neighborhoods have been ticketed by school police summoned to deal with students who have engaged in pushing matches. Police have been called into schools to respond to five-year-olds’ tantrums, and officers have ended up handcuffing children.

Emotional complaints about “racial profiling” of black students, especially, flowed throughout the Advancement Project conference. The event took place as jurors deliberated over a verdict in the murder trial of George Zimmerman, who shot African-American Florida teen Trayvon Martin to death in 2012. Zimmerman was acquitted.

Zimmerman — who frequently called police — dialed 911 that night to report that a “suspicious” teen was walking through his housing complex, and looked like he was “up to no good.” Using profanities, he told police, “they always get away,” as he pursued the youth.

Judith Browne Dianis told the Center that racial profiling remains a problems in many schools, but that some are grappling with cultural differences and how to set mutual expectations — and avoid treating black and Latino students with “suspicion.”

“We no longer treat them as innocent,” she said. “The black girl who rolled her neck must be insubordinate. So ‘get out of here.’”

If teachers build relationships with students, she said, it helps them discover what might be at the root of behavior problems. “If you don’t do it in the schools, it can set them up for life,” she said.

She said ethnic minority educators — and police officers — can sometimes judge students of color harshly, too; the problem is not confined to white educators or police.

University of California, Los Angeles, psychologist Phillip Attiba Goff, who advises police departments, gave a presentation at the conference on “implicit bias,” and how brains can become wired to judge children.

He explained research documenting how black kids on the edge of puberty, compared to white children, are often perceived as older than they really are, and less “innocent.”

The conference’s overriding message: Society damages itself when students are suspended for days as a result of behavior that in years past might have only required a trip to the principal’s office. Kids often fall further behind, and can end up dropping out, which drives up the risk of their getting involved in crime. Then society picks up the costs for incarceration.

But are there are alternatives to removing kids that don’t cost a lot to implement?

The Advancement Project’s website highlights changes in policies in Denver, Los Angeles and other locations. Ramiro Rubalcaba, an official from the L.A. Unified School District, spoke at the conference about how one of the toughest inner-city high schools changed its discipline policies.

Here’s a question-and-answer posted online that sums up how Los Angeles’ Garfield High School placed a moratorium on suspensions of students.

A conservative group that was formed last year by special forces veterans to oppose the re-election of President Barack Obama has turned its sights on Republican House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.

Special Operations Speaks PAC — which launched last summer as a hybrid super PAC— today announced plans to increase pressure on Boehner to more vigorously investigate the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi, Libya, during which four Americans were killed, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.

With Congress at home for the annual August recess, the group is purchasing ad space on three billboards in Boehner’s district that suggest if four members of Congress had been killed, there would have been a more robust investigation into their deaths.

The billboards also encourage people to call Boehner’s office and demand the creation of a select committee, which could seek answers about what happened during the 2012 attack by Islamic militants and whether the Obama administration engaged in a cover-up.

For his part, Boehner has said that the five standing committees currently investigating the attack are “getting the job done” without the creation a special select committee.

Larry Ward, political director of Special Operations Speaks PAC, told the Center for Public Integrity that Boehner needs to be held “responsible and accountable for obstructing the path toward a select committee investigation.”

In January, Rep. Frank Wolfe, R-Va., introduced legislation that would create a select committee to investigate the attack. His bill currently has 163 co-sponsors. Boehner is not one of them, which frustrates the Special Operations Speaks PAC, as well as several members of Congress.

Last month, Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, endorsed a procedural move called a discharge petition that could force a floor vote on Wolfe’s bill if it garners support of a majority of the House's 435 members.

Hybrid super PACs such as the Special Operations Speaks PAC operate with two bank accounts — one that can accept unlimited contributions to be used for advertisements and one that can only receive capped contributions, which can be used to directly donate to politicians.

So far this year, Special Operations Speaks PAC has raised about $100,000, according to a report filed last week with the Federal Election Commission. Ahead of the 2012 election, the group raised about $370,000 and spent roughly $20,000 on anti-Obama advertisements, records show. Its sole campaign donation last year was $2,500 that it gave to former Florida Republican congressman Allen West, an Army veteran and tea party favorite who lost his re-election bid.

A Center for Public Integrity examination of a rare kidney disease that has afflicted laborers and vexed researchers across continents was honored this week with a reporting prize from the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Mystery in the Fields, a 3-part series published in September, won 2^nd Place in the SEJ’s Kevin Carmody Award for Outstanding In-depth Reporting, Small Market. Honored were writer Sasha Chavkin, multi-media journalist Anna-Barry Jester and editor Ronnie Greene.

The Center’s series was among 21 winners chosen from 234 entries in seven categories of environmental journalism, the SEJ said in announcing the winners Wednesday.

“Reporters for the Center for Public Integrity found a mystery which for the moment remains a mystery. In a detailed piece of work spanning continents they highlight the similarity of kidney disease afflicting primarily male farm workers in India, Sri Lanka, and Central America,” judges wrote. “This work is also notable for doing an excellent job with more than a one medium. Words, photos, video, and graphics were used very well and to good effect.”