An investigation for Time.com by defense budgeting expert Winslow Wheeler into “Pentagon pork” found that “the money being added for ‘Restoration & Modernization of Facilities’ was being added without any meaningful guidance, none whatsoever.” Funding for “Restoration & Modernization of Facilities,” which Wheeler characterizes as a having “the distinct odor of being a slush fund,” totals $594.7 million.

But the House Armed Services Committee members who passed the oversized defense budget draft may have other interests in mind. Four of the top-ten industry campaign donors to House Armed Services Committee members, as categorized by OpenSecrets.org, would appear to benefit from this “slush fund.” “Defense Aerospace,” “Real Estate,” “Misc Defense,” and “Building Trade Unions,” already contributed a total of $4.89 million to House Armed Services Committee members in the 2012 election cycle. The majority of that went to Republicans.

And House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA) and his leadership PAC are the top congressional recipients of defense industry campaign dollars. See the chart below to see how defense dollars stack up against his other campaign contributors:

Source: OpenSecrets.org

The apparent contradiction of House Armed Services Committee members passing an oversized defense budget which exceeds that requested by the military and defies the U.S. public’s preference for a reduction in defense spending makes more sense when viewed in the context of defense industry, and industries which benefit directly and indirectly from defense related appropriations, contributions to committee member’s campaign committees and leadership PACs. Indeed, the contributions offer a monetary incentive for committee members to advocate for additional budget items — such as an East Coast missile defense system which Gen. Demspsey said was unnecessary — and create “Pentagon pork.”

Rep. Jim Renacci (R-OH)

TNR explains:

Renacci’s biggest single source of support, however, has been Suarez Corporation Industries, a large direct-marketing company in North Canton that sells a motley mix of products (space heaters, collectible coins, jewelry, and more). Last year, The Toledo Blade noticed that many large contributions were being made to Renacci by Suarez’s non-executive employees. Seventeen employees, plus six spouses, had given to Renacci, Mandel, or both, with most giving at the maximum allowable level, for a total of $100,000 for each candidate. (Company founder Benjamin Suarez had himself given the maximum to both candidates.) This sort of pattern raises red flags: Federal law bars employers from reimbursing employees for giving to a certain candidate—a method employers could use to evade limits on their own giving.

While companies often encourage employees to “bundle” contributions to candidates who support their interests, it is illegal to coerce employees to donate or to reimburse them for their contributions. Many of the donors had no history of political giving and lived in modest homes. One of the Suarez employees, copywriter Michael Blubaugh, joined with his wife Donna to give $10,000 to Renacci and $10,000 to Mandel. She told TNR that she had been interviewed about the donations by the FBI and that the donations were all made freely, out of their savings. She did acknowledge that, though $10,000 of the money was donated in her name, her husband “made the decision,” not she.

The company has denied reimbursing employees and has refused to “respond to gossip, rumors, or innuendo concerning its operations.”

But if indeed it turns out these were improper contributions, the Mandel and Renacci campaigns may find themselves having to refund a combined $200,000.

Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) erupts at a constituent who asked about the bank lobby

Rather than campaigning on a typical pro-business platform, the Tea Party freshmen tapped into public resentment of big banks and bailouts. For example, then-candidate Sandy Adams (R-FL) said on her campaign website that she “opposes government bailouts” and “would have voted against TARP and the auto bailout.” Jeff Landry (R-LA) said bailouts of private businesses had “corrupted our free market system by rewarding the irresponsible and penalizing the responsible,” blasting “bank bailouts, which led to taxpayer money directly or indirectly going into multi-million dollar bonuses.”

But in Congress, the Tea Party has toed the line for big banks. Eleven of the 15 have become co-sponsors of H.R. 3461, a top priority for the ABA. According to Americans for Financial Reform, the legislation would “tilt the playing field further in the direction of excessive deference to industry interests and tie the hands of regulators attempting to protect the public interest.” The bill would make it harder for bank examiners to do their job, giving regulatory responsibilities to an industry that’s already shown it can’t police itself.

Here is what happened:

The lone Tea Party freshman member of the Financial Services Committee, Rep. Stephen Fincher (R-TN), has consistently voted with the industry and the Republican majority for weaker regulation of the sector.

And of the 15, all but McKinley and Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) voted for the GOP’s 2013 budget proposal, which included the repeal of a key component of the financial sector regulation.

Their rhetoric has also become extremely friendly to the financial industry. Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) famously yelled at a constituent: “Don’t blame banks, and don’t blame the marketplace for the mess we’re in right now! I am tired of hearing that crap! This pisses me off!” Rep. Diane Black (R-TN) bashed financial regulations as “part of a pattern of government interference in the private sector.” Rep. Blake Fahrenthold (R-TX) warned “excessive regulations will hurt our financial institutions.” Rep. David McKinley (R-WV) said that by regulating banking and financial institutions, “what they’re doing is getting into our lives. And many of us are trying to find a way to get them to pull back.” And several of the freshmen criticized Dodd-Frank’s regulations for limiting credit availability for small businesses.

Former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-NE)

Now a secret-money outside spending group tied to Karl Rove, the man perhaps most responsible for the Bush presidency, is running a new attack suggesting that Kerrey had somehow acted inappropriately because he expressed his opinion.

War hero Bob Kerrey, after retiring from the Senate in 2001, is running to reclaim his old seat this November. The “issue advocacy” ad, titled “Disturbing,” says:

Bob Kerrey supported the Wall Street bailout while serving on the board of a company that tried to exploit it. Kerrey’s company tried a bureaucratic ploy to get bailout funds, but the ploy failed. These schemes were called a “disturbing trend” by an independent watchdog, violating the spirit fo the law to jump on the gravy train. For Bailout Bob Kerrey, it’s Wall Street ways, not Nebraska values. Tell him, support balanced budgets, not bailouts.

Watch the spot:

Nearly everything in this ad is disingenuous. The ad strongly implies that Kerrey had had something to do with the enactment of TARP. He was not a senator at the time, nor a lobbyist. The ad’s only citation for the argument is the 2008 Politico article in which Kerrey spoke positively about the bailout after the fact.

The insurance company mentioned in the ad — Genworth — was one that Kerrey advised, but did not control. It allegedly tried to buy a struggling bank to qualify for bailout funds — a move that even the watchdog concedes was totally legal. The group cited in the ad — the Project On Government Oversight — wrote to Congress: “We do not accuse these companies of wrongdoing in acquiring other financial institutions.”

If the secret funders behind Crossroads GPS bothered to look at the record, when Kerrey left the Senate in 2000, the budget was indeed balanced. Kerrey was the deciding vote in the Senate in 1993 for President Clinton’s budget reconciliation act, which set the nation on the path of deficit reduction (his yes vote, combined with the vice president’s, allowed Democrats to pass the bill without a single Republican supporter). In fact, he left a roughly $236 billion dollar surplus.

It was “Bailout Bush” and “Bailout Rove” who turned that the budget surplus into a $1.2 trillion deficit. What is “disturbing” is that Crossroads GPS is using money from undisclosed donors to run ads aimed at misleading voters.

“I’ve been having discussions with Sen. [Sheldon] Whitehouse [D-R.I.] and a couple others on the issue,” the one-time campaign finance reform advocate said, noting talks have been ongoing for a couple of months and that he wants any legislation to be “balanced and address the issue of union contributions as well as other outside contributions.”

McCain, who famously co-authored the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 with then-Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), has been noticeably AWOL on these issues since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling.

In 2010, after the high court ruled, McCain declared campaign finance reform dead and essentially washed his hands of the cause, telling CBS’s Bob Schieffer, “I don’t think there’s much that can be done.”

Without McCain’s help, Democrats created the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act. The bill — which sought to ban campaign expenditures by foreign-owned corporations and to require disclosure of the true sources of the money behind independent expenditures and electioneering communications — passed the House in June of 2010. When the bill came to the Senate, McCain refused to back the measure. Decrying provisions in it as “a bailout for the unions,” McCain attacked the bill as tougher on corporations than unions.

McCain joined a filibuster and the bill failed to achieve cloture by a single vote. Rather than offering amendments to the bill or working behind the scenes with sponsors to reach an agreement, McCain was the deciding vote to kill the bill without even allowing an up-or-down vote.

Now, with an even more closely-divided Senate and Speaker John Boehner running the House, the climb for any disclosure legislation will be steep.

If McCain is serious about rejoining the campaign finance reform fight, it is welcome news. But thanks to his earlier obstruction, he may find his efforts to be too little, too late.

Last night, a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit rejected a stay of a district court ruling on March 30, 2012, which essentially required groups running so-called “electioneering communications” ads to begin disclosing the donors who funded the ads. The original ruling, by Judge Amy Berman Jackson, struck down a Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulation that permitted groups to all but eliminate the disclosure of donors behind “electioneering communications.” A briefing on the appeal of the ruling at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled to be completed by early August and the oral arguments are expected sometime in September.

Why is this case a win for disclosure?

Prior to the March 30th ruling, any group running an “electioneering communication,” or a broadcast advertisement that refers to a clearly identified federal candidate proximate to an election, generally did not have to disclose the funders of that advertisement, thanks to regulations promulgated by the FEC in violation of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). As a result, groups like Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS spent more than $1 million on broadcast advertisements during the last election cycle without revealing a single donor.

Recently, Crossroads GPS notified the FEC that it spent $500,000 on electioneering communications advertisements targeting President Obama in Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, and Missouri, again without disclosing a single donor. The Crossroads GPS ad blames President Obama for the Solyndra bankruptcy, among other things. According to their tax returns, Crossroads GPS received two $10 million donations between June 1, 2010 and the end of 2011, but the identity of these donors has remained a secret, even though their money has been funneled into campaign advertisements.

Thanks to last night’s ruling, groups like Crossroads GPS making electioneering communications 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election will now have to disclose their donors. These groups will either have to set up a separate bank account to fund their ads – and disclose all the donors of $1,000 or more to that account or alternatively disclose all the donors of $1,000 or more to their organization.

So if Crossroads GPS goes after the President again in September, we’ll know who’s really behind the ads. And that is a win for disclosure.

That is, of course, unless the court reverses the lower court when it convenes to give the case a full hearing later this year. Although a majority of the three judge panel that considered whether to grant the stay rejected this plea, Judge Karen Henderson dissented from this rulling. The D.C. Circuit is notoriously conservative, and has several judges who are at least as far to the right as Henderson, so it remains to be seen whether last night’s decision has staying power.

When I was 19, I ran to be Democratic Party co-chair of my ward in New Haven. In a lot of towns, that might have been an appointed post, but in New Haven it was a job you had to actually campaign for, and so for months, I made like Leslie Knope has for the past season of television, hitting up churches and senior centers and community meetings, and posing for some truly hilarious campaign literature. After shaking hands at the precinct for twelve straight hours on Election Day, I couldn’t bear to be in the room when the vote totals were read out, and so I waited outside in the cold. The sight of my running mate and campaign staff running screaming outside to tell me we’d won was one of the weirdest, most cinematic moments of my entire life. I was not nearly as good at politics as I trust that Leslie Knope will prove to be—there’s a reason I write—but I tell you this to explain that I feel a special kinship with this season, and with this character despite its flaws. I know how this feels, and this episode of Parks and Recreation captured this moment’s terrors and joys perfectly. And this season of Parks and Recreation pulled off an extremely tricky transition for this marvelous show beautifully.

The election itself is governed by Pawnee’s marvelously specific manifestation of the oddities that plague all local elections. “In the event of an exact tie, the seat is awarded to the male candidate and the female candidate is put in jail,” the registrar explains to the candidates and their campaign managers. “I don’t think it would hold up in court, but it is city law.” There are a lot of candidates for a relatively minor office—Leslie’s moment of despair that Brandi Maxxx might win was a perfect example of the possible spoiler, the thing every campaign can’t possibly predict or prepare for. And while the show didn’t spend time on the hilarities of checking off voter rolls (usually with all the campaigns monitoring ID checks and crossing off the names of voters who have made it alongside some doughty poll workers, it’s so fitting that Leslie’s epic contest against Bobby Newport came down to a recount. The only way it could have been more perfect is if Bobby’s support for Leslie—”Another awesome point by Leslie. It’s why I’m voting for you,” he tells a crew of reporters at a poll-opening press conference—made up for Jerry forgetting to vote in his enthusiasm to hand out Leslie’s flyers and ended up handing her the election.

Speaking of Jerry, I thought this was note-perfect, and a lovely continuation of the ways in which Leslie’s campaign have given the under-served characters on the show nice character moments. Jerry’s night in licking envelopes with Donna let us see him as someone who loves quantifiable, repetitive work, a characteristic that should be boring, but that ends up seeming rather charming instead. And similarly, while Donna found Jerry’s zen fascinatingly bizarre, this season’s found ways for her to be a hero, whether she’s sacrificing her baby to secure Leslie the vans she needs to get voters to the polls or saving April and Andy from April’s accidental erasure of all of the Parks and Recreation’s departments files. This is a vision of politics where everyone has something to give, and everyone’s contributions matter. Well, maybe except Jean-Ralphio, who shows up to declare himself ready to join city government: “Guess whose got two thumbs and was just cleared from insurance fraud.”

Things came together beautifully for Leslie’s core crew, too. Ron may be stoic, pronouncing the word care as if it’s foreign to him, but as he explains to Leslie when asking her to drive him back to her campaign party, “I’ve had eleven whiskies.” He’s as stressed as everyone else, even with a gorgeous, hand-made chair to relax him. And while I’d have been curious to see Ron and Leslie at odds if he took control of the city budget, I do think seeing them as allies, with Ron more free to be a thorn in her side should be fun. Ann may not have been the ideal campaign manager, but she’s a perfect friend, giving Leslie advice on how to deal with Ben’s job offer (“I realized this after speaking with my best friend and relationship advisor, Ann Perkins, of the department of health,” Leslie declares when she initially explains her thinking on the job to Ben), setting up a boxing lesson for her to blow off steam, and giving her an exciting, affirming, private moment of victory. But I do hope that if Ann and Tom are to continue, the show is to make him seem a more worthy partner for her.

And April and Andy’s lovely, scattershot journey towards adulthood continued on its way. Andy may have been trying to make April feel better about the possibility of being fired when he started brainstorming dream jobs, but she recognized the common threads in his jokey fantasies, pointing out “You know, almost everything you wrote on that board as a dream job was some kind of police officer.” Some critics have worried that April’s becoming too conventional a character, but I appreciate that the show’s found a way to treat her as smart instead of merely sullen, and to give us a collaborative, warm portrait of a surprising modern marriage.

Ben and Leslie’s next step in their relationship worked perfectly, too. Ben’s defenestration from city government and decision to take the mild scandal of his relationship with Leslie onto himself was a lovely act, but it did divert him from his dream of proving he’s legitimately talented enough to work in city government again. Jen’s offer of a job gave him a new path, and made a point the show’s been subtle and smart about all season: it takes more talent to make the political system work the way it ought to instead of the way it does, to make a smart, but poorly-financed, wonky candidate like Leslie Knope beat a rich, handsome, empty entrant like Bobby Newport. And even for a talented candidate like Leslie Knope, and a race for as small a prize as a Pawnee City Council seat—or as it turns out, a New Haven ward chairmanship—elections are exhausting, expensive endeavors that take everything from the candidates. There are not a lot of people with enough to give, and given our political climate, not all of them want to invest it in the miseries of the perpetual campaign cycle. Leslie Knope is a dedicated campaigner and Ben is a bright campaign manager, but even for them, this was a difficult, error-ridden process, and their glorious, marginal victory was by no means assured.

It’s also a smart way to handle the problem I laid out at the beginning of the season: this show was always going to be better if it didn’t lurch into stupid cliches about having it all. With Ben in Washington, Leslie can promise that the couple will “make out in the Lincoln bedroom, and the Jefferson memorial, and the Supreme Court balcony,” but staying together and keeping it good will take work. For their relationship to be truly equal, Leslie has to make the kind of sacrifice Ben made for her earlier this year, to recognize that “I was being selfish. You put your whole life on hold for me. I have to return the favor.” Plus, Ben’s departure sets up Leslie with someone who will have the experience to guide her to a higher stage. If, after defeating Richard Lugar in the Republican primary, Richard Mourdock makes it to the Senate, I have an idea for who might challenge him next time around. And my Knope 2012 button is starting to feel like an awfully valuable collectors item.

-I hope this showcase for women director results in some pickups. I’d really like to see these movies in theaters.

-Spencer Ackerman figures out why the military was reluctant to get in on The Avengers.

-And where The Avengers go next.

-Hollywood: less than thrilled with President Obama’s equal marriage rights waffling.

-Every move Political Animals makes has me more excited for the show.

Hoosiers for Jobs (formerly Hoosiers for Economic Growth & Jobs) has spent at least $175,000 on mailings and television ads in support of Lugar. Two spots by the group attack efforts by outside groups to “buy the election.” One ad, ironically called “Hypocrites,” attacks the Wall Street Club for Growth’s support of Mourdock as a “D.C. special interest bailout of his campaign.” The other, “Not for Sale,” says the Club is “trying to buy our Senate seat by spending millions of dollars of secret Wall Street money” attacking Lugar.

Watch “Hypocrites”:

Watch “Not for Sale”:

But, as the Center for Public Integrity notes, more than two-thirds of the donations reported to date by Hoosiers for Jobs come from outside of Indiana. The group’s filings reveal that through April 18, it received $170,000. Just $55,000 of that came from Hoosiers, whom the group claims to represent.

Who did fund the misnamed “Hoosiers for Jobs?” Former lobbyist Roy Pfautch of St. Louis, Missouri donated $50,000, Swift Boat funder Sam Fox of St. Louis gave $25,000, and the Dallas-based 7-Eleven Inc. kicked in $25,000.

Why is the convenience store franchise helping Lugar? He “understands our issues,” a spokesperson told the CPI. Lugar also supported the Slurpee-seller in a congressional battle against banks, and his daughter-in-law is a lobbyist for a trade association tied to the omnipresent retailer.

As Super PACs spend more and more on statewide and congressional races, voters should take their messages with a shaker of salt. After all, the TV ads calling out out-of-state funding and hypocrisy may well be paid for by out-of-state hypocrites.

“Barack Obama has already held more re-election fundraising events than every elected president since Richard Nixon combined,” the (UK) Daily Mail reported Sunday, based on Brendan J. Doherty’s new book The Rise of the President’s Permanent Campaign. The paper also observed that Ronald Reagan did not have a single fundraising event for his 1984 re-election.

Despite the GOP’s overt support for unlimited campaign fundraising, RNC spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski blasted Obama for fundraising for his re-election:

It’s no surprise that the Campaigner-In-Chief has taken raising money for his re-election to a whole new level. The worst part is the American taxpayer has been footing the bill.

Though many on the right have gleefully repeated that President Obama has had more fundraising events than his five predecessors, they ignore something very important: context. President Obama is stuck spending so much time raising money for his re-election campaign for two major reasons.

First, the nation’s public financing system for presidential candidates, which went into effect in 1976 and was used by Presidents Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush for their re-elections, has fallen apart. The maximum $91.2 million available for the major parties’ nominees is insufficient for the costs of a modern national campaign. Neither Obama nor Mitt Romney will participate in the system this year. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who lost his presidential bid after accepting the funds and associated limits, said that “no Republican in his or her right mind is going to agree to public financing. I mean, that’s dead. That is over.” Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), the 2004 loser, strongly discouraged his party’s 2008 nominee from accepting the grants, noting that it was insufficient to “adequately fund the campaigns.”

But this was not always true. The five previous presidents needed to raise money for only their primary campaign, as public financing would kick in for the general. Reagan, meanwhile, was able to avoid raising any money entirely because he faced no primary and thus automatically received the Republican nomination and the the public financing that came with it. (Bill Clinton and George W. Bush also escaped re-nomination contests, but opted to use some primary funds to boost their standing for the general.)

Second, President Obama is the first president to run for re-election in the post-Citizens United world. While other Presidents ran against opponents whose fundraising was limited by individual contribution limits, Obama has to keep pace with not just the Romney campaign, but also with outside groups that can raise and spend unlimited sums of money raised from wealthy donors and big corporations, which on balance support Republicans. Karl Rove’s American Crossroads Super PAC and Crossroads GPS 501(c)(4) alone may have $200 million or more to spend on television attack ads, and numerous other right-wing organizations are also getting into the act.

Also, unlike most of his predecessors and Mitt Romney, Obama has vowed to not accept PAC money, accept donations from lobbyists, or allow any registered lobbyists to “bundle” contributions for his campaign. That leaves fundraising from generous donors as the only way to afford a modern presidential campaign.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

The level of symbiosis between the two became especially evident in recent weeks.

The $13-billion Cayce, SC-based energy company has long wanted a permit to build two new nuclear reactors at its Jenkinsville, SC, facilities. Graham, one of the Senate’s strongest supporters of nuclear power, actively backed their efforts.

In February, the U.S. Nuclear Research Commission voted to approve the country’s first nuclear reactor construction permits in more than 30 years. Graham celebrated it as “a major step on the road to a nuclear renaissance,” adding, “I am hopeful SCANA and [its state-owned partner] Santee Cooper will be the next in line to receive permits for Jenkinsville.” He reiterated the message on Twitter the next day.

On March 31, much to Graham’s delight, SCANA received its Jenkinsville permits. The South Carolina Republican boasted:

We worked for years to see these reactors approved and I’m very pleased this long-sought goal has finally been achieved. The construction of two new reactors will be an over $10 billion dollar project and represents one of the largest investments in South Carolina history.

Two weeks later, when Graham’s “Team Graham” Senate campaign committee filed its quarterly lobbying disclosure form, just one name appeared. SCANA Corporation, the committee revealed, had given the Graham $54,575 in bundled campaign contributions between January 1 and March 31 — raising money for him as he worked to secure their $10 billion project.

The Center for Responsive Politics ranks SCANA as Graham’s second-biggest source of campaign donations, dating back to his 1994 House of Representatives camapign. According to their tabulations, he received at least $37,725 from SCANA’s political action committee and at least $67,380 from SCANA employees over that time. Their support for Graham was relatively cheap, compared to the $260,000 the company reported spending on federal lobbying in the first quarter of 2012 alone.

A Graham spokesman reiterated Graham’s longstanding support for the nuclear industry — noting that he’s been called “the #1 pro-nuclear member” of the Senate — but did not address the industry’s campaign contributions. “Senator Graham has long pushed for a renaissance in nuclear energy. We are ecstatic that the NRC go-ahead was finally secured,” Graham’s communications director told ThinkProgress. SCANA did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ties between these donations and the Senator’s efforts on the company’s behalf.

Graham claims that “the renaissance in American nuclear energy has begun.” Sadly, so has the renaissance of lobbyists bundling large amounts of campaign cash for those who back their interests.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)

On March 19, Rubio and the FEC agreed to a negotiated settlement in which his Senate campaign committee agreed to pay an $8,000 fine to settle charges that it accepted over $210,000 in “prohibited, excessive and other impermissible contributions.” This news was not made public until a POLITICO story this weekend. Perhaps most disturbing is that even after an internal campaign audit, the Marco Rubio for Senate committee failed to address more than $83,000 in improper or misreported donations.

Rubio, who has been frequently mentioned as a possible vice presidential pick for Mitt Romney, has been in several previous ethical controversies, including:

Use of a Florida GOP credit card for personal purposes, many of which were reportedly only reimbursed by Rubio after media inquiries. Rubio’s 2010 campaign dismissed these allegations, saying they were reimbursed at the time.

Double-billing of Florida taxpayers for plane travel also billed to the state Republican Party. Rubio’s 2010 campaign claimed these happened without Rubio’s knowledge and were reimbursed.

Failure to disclose a $135,000 home equity loan from a bank controlled by political supporters. Rubio, in 2008, said his failure to disclose the loan was “an oversight” and that there was “nothing unusual about the loan or the application.”

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington included Rubio among its “Crooked Candidates” of 2010. And Romney’s own press secretary Andrea Saul, then a staffer for a rival candidate, blasted Rubio in 2010 as “another typical politician who uses his public office for personal gain and only comes clean once caught.”

Rubio’s office has not yet responded to a ThinkProgress request for comment, nor, according to POLITICO, to their request.

Sheldon Adelson (AP Photo/Kin Cheung)

Ralston writes:

“I’m going to give one more small donation – you might not think it’s that small – to a SuperPAC and then if I give it will be to a c4,” a reference to 501c4 nonprofits, which are tax-exempt and also exempt from disclosures. I opined that surely meant Crossroads, which would allow him to indirectly help Mitt Romney and Sen. Dean Heller [R-NV], who is running against Rep. Shelley Berkley [D-NV]. Berkley used to work for Adelson, but they had a falling out in the mid-1990s and he surely would love to see her lose.

“Do you know how many c4s there are?” Adelson retorted, as if to try to indicate he had more choices than Crossroads. Indeed. But I can’t think of too many that will influence who controls the White House and the U.S. Senate. And did he telegraph where his money is going with the Rove comments? I think so.

Adelson also declined to tell Ralston which Super PAC he intended to support with that final “small donation.”

The casino mogul seemingly conceded that he didn’t want his future political “speech” to be transparent because voters might take that information into consideration when evaluating his message.

Adelson said he believed the media’s inevitable use of the phrase “casino mogul” whenever his donations became public “is not helpful to the person .”

So, thanks to the Supreme Court’s stream of rulings against political spending limits and the unwillingness of the Republicans in Congress and on the Federal Election Commission to even mandate disclosure of independent political ad funders, billionaires like Adelson can simply hide their massive donations through (c)(4)s when they get tired of the media and public scrutiny. And rather than letting the voters decide how much credibility to give an ad bankrolled entirely by an anti-union gambling magnate — he can just choose to keep them in the dark.

While Ralston seems convinced Adelson’s support will go to Karl Rove’s secretive Crossroads GPS, the most famous right-wing (c)(4), the truth is he and we have no idea. Adelson could give the money to former Sen. Norm Coleman’s (R-MN) American Action Network. Or to the Koch Brother’s Americans for Prosperity. Or some totally unknown 501(c)(4)s that could be collecting hundreds of millions of dollars without any footprint, waiting to pounce with a barrage of shady attack ads. Or, given his billions, all of those.

Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rand Paul (R-KY)

And, a ThinkProgress analysis reveals, both have newly established leadership PACs have have been very miserly with their support of other candidates.

In recent years, it has become typical for politicians elected to Congress to establish leadership PACs, which they use to make contributions to other candidates for office. So in March of 2011, two months after taking office, Rand Paul’s Reinventing A New Direction (RANDPAC) was organized. Marco Rubio’s Reclaim America PAC followed suit that August. RANDPAC’s website says its mission is “support and elect Pro-Liberty, Pro-Constitution candidates in Kentucky and across the country,” and its Facebook page says it is “dedicated to helping elect fiscally and Constitutionally responsible individuals to the U.S. Senate and to lowering our National Debt.” In a video on the Reclaim America website, Rubio says the PAC aims to “help and assist like-minded candidates who want to come here and serve in the House, in the Senate, or maybe even in the White House to make a difference for America’s future.”

So did they? By the end of 2011, Paul’s RANDPAC had already raised $173,031 and Rubio’s Reclaim America PAC had collected $563,390. By that time, neither PAC had given a dime to another federal candidate.

The latest filings by the committee reveal that in 2012, each has made a very small number of contributions to political candidates — but has spent only a fraction of a percent on direct support for political candidates, through March 31.

Paul’s RANDPAC:

Has raised $231,383.09.

Has spent $119,068.85.

Has given just $10,000 (less than 5 percent of the amount raised) to political candidates — Texas Sen. candidate Ted. Cruz (R), New Mexico Sen. candidate John Sanchez (R), Wisconsin Sen. candidate Mark Neumann (R), and the presidential campaign of his father Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).

Has spent more than $20,000 on political consultants and more than $70,000 on fundraising and administrative costs.

Rubio’s Reclaim America PAC:

Has raised $826,064.54.

Has spent $440,750.54.

Has given just $19,593 (less than 3 percent of the amount raised) to political candidates — including $14,593 in transferred contributions raised specifically for Ohio Sen. candidate Josh Mandel (R) and donations to Mandel and Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) – plus made $729.65 in independent expenditures.

Has spent more than $100,000 on political consultants and more than $200,000 on fundraising and administrative costs.

These numbers show little of the contributed money these two leadership PACs receive goes to the stated purpose of the PAC.

Reclaim America PAC did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Jesse Benton, spokesman for RANDPAC, told ThinkProgress that the PAC’s spending reflects the realities a new PAC faces. “As with other start-up organizations, there are initial fees and admin costs that are borne disproportionately in the beginning,” he explained, including “prospecting list rentals, which constitute about half of RANDPAC disbursements.” He said the low ratio of contributions to administrative costs “will certainly change as we get closer to the November election.”

And while it is true that new PACs do face significant upfront costs, other freshmen with leadership PACs have been much more active in sharing their wealth, including Sen. Ron Johnson’s (R-WI) Strategy PAC ($32,500 distributed to candidates out of $102,000 raised), Rep. Bob Hurt’s (R-VA) Help United Republicans Today PAC ($21,000 distributed to candidates out of $83,421 raised), and Rep. Scott Rigell’s (R-VA) Better Leadership – Better America PAC ($28,500 distributed to candidates out of $81,021 raised) — each of whom raised less and shared more.

The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics explains the role of these organizations: “By making donations to members of their party, ambitious lawmakers can use their leadership PACs to gain clout among their colleagues and boost their bids for leadership posts or committee chairmanships.” If these numbers are any indication, neither Paul nor Rubio is doing much of either. And given the committees’ apparent failure to use even ten percent of their donations toward their stated goal, donors to both PACs may want to be more conservative with their giving in the future.

King made the remarks during a town hall meeting on April 6 in Jefferson, Iowa. Pressed by a constituent about the impact of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, King claimed he had “not dug into” the decision yet, but conceded that he’s “not comfortable with the result.” Still, he claimed that his own campaign was free from the influence of corporate contributions.

CONSTITUENT: The whole question of what’s wrong with our country here is corruption. Money buying elections. Money buying corporate messages.

KING: That’s another thing. I will listen to him. I just want to tell you. I don’t have any corporate contributions into my campaign.

Watch it (relevant section begins at 1:25):

A cursory glance at King’s fundraising reports this year shows maxed-out contributions from the PACs of many corporations, including Koch Industries, American Crystal Sugar, AT&T, Berkshire Hathaway, Exxon, First American Bank, Kirke Financial Services, Mail Services LLC, Mobren Biological, Silverstone Group, Sukup Manufacturing, and a wide array of corporate trade associations.

King is technically correct that corporations haven’t contributed directly to his campaign. Federal election law prohibits corporations from making such contributions to any candidate. However, corporations establish their own PACs precisely so that their leadership and investors can donate to candidates. King’s campaign has benefited immensely from these corporate PACs, receiving more than $100,000 for his reelection bid.

But now that Paul’s campaign is all but over and presumably, Romney will be the Republican nominee, the military’s donation trend is beginning to shift: away from Paul and toward Obama, the Open Secrets blog reports:

[I]n March, it was Obama that scooped up the most support from the armed forces — about twice as much as Paul, in fact. Romney remains an also-ran when it comes to backing from the military.

Overall, Paul retains the lead. Analysis of OpenSecrets.org data shows that so far in this election cycle, members of the military who donated more than $200 have given Paul’s campaign about $333,134, versus $184,505 to Obama and just $45,738 to Romney.

But in March, Obama and Paul switched places. Members of the military sent $36,448 to Obama and just $17,733 to Paul. Even though Romney solidified his position as the presumptive Republican nominee, military donations to his campaign remained anemic — only $8,630.

Open Secrets charts the donations for March:

The 2012 trend in military donations to presidential candidates mirrors 2008. Early on in the race, both Paul and Obama led Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and other pro-war candidates in campaign contributions from U.S. servicemembers and by the time the Texas congressman exited the race, Obama maintained his lead in military donations over McCain.