The House will vote today on a bill to prevent the interest rate on government-backed student loans from doubling. Both Republicans and Democrats support the extension on the lower rate, but not the Club for Growth, the deep-pocketed political group backed by wealthy conservative donors, especially from the financial sector.

The group put out a “Key Vote Alert” this morning “urg[ing] all House members to vote “NO” on the Interest Rate Reduction Act (HR 4628)” and warning members that their vote may be used against them on the Club’s Congressional Scorecard, which they use to rate members when making considerations about endorsements and independent expenditures.

The Club explains that it thinks the government should not be subsidizing student loans and that the the Affordable Care Act should only be repealed as a whole:

Regardless of the merits, the government should not be in the business of subsidizing student loans. [...] It’s bad policy to subsidize student loans in the first place, but the net result will likely drive up tuition costs for all students, making the overall cost of the bill much higher than its current price tag. House Republicans want to offset this subsidy by repealing the Prevention and Public Health Fund that was created with the passage of ObamaCare. That fund should indeed be repealed, but fiscal conservatives should only try to repeal the entire law, not just parts of it. And for the most part, the offset is irrelevant. Fiscal conservatives should not be promoting bad policy, which this bill contains.

As Education Secretary Arne Duncan has noted, federal tuition assistance has not at all kept up with tuition increases, so there is little evidence to support the Club’s claim that subsidizing student loans leads to higher tuition costs. Data from Pell Grants also casts doubt on the claim.

The Club has been active in a number key Republican primary elections this year, funding hard-right challengers against mainline conservative incumbents.

Social Security privatization has been a long-standing priority of the GOP. President Bush and the Republican congressional majorities focused on it when they last won an election cycle in 2004 and the idea is reemerging as a GOP pledge this year. Privatization is a central tenet of Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) budget plan, “a Roadmap for America’s Future,” and Reps. Dan Lungren (R-CA), Jack Kingston (R-GA), and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, senate candidates Sharron Angle (R-NV), and Ken Buck (R-CO) have all embraced Social Security privatization measures.

The right-wing Club for Growth’s “primary tactic” is to find candidates that will enthusiastically adopt measures like privatization and “support it loudly.” Indeed, the Club endorsed senate candidate Marco Rubio (R-FL) in 2009 when he supported privatization, saying he is “the real deal” and a “champion of economic liberty.”

But, after Wednesday night’s senatorial debate in Florida, the Club may want to reconsider its champion. During the debate, Rubio’s opponents Gov. Charlie Crist (I) and Rep. Kendrick Meek (D) pounced on Rubio’s record for “being all over the map” on his privatization stance, citing previous times in which Rubio had touted the idea. Rubio said their claims were “blatantly untrue” and “lies.” But when pressed by moderator George Stephanopoulos to nail down his stance, Rubio firmly rejected privatization “because it doesn’t work”:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s– let’s try to wrap this up and then move on to the next round of questioning. On the question of privatization, you’ve raised some charges, as well. And I just want a yes or no answer. Is it still on the table?

RUBIO:It is not. Because it doesn’t work. Because you’re taking payers out of the sys[tem]. And I said that in March, by the way, in a debate. Governor Crist was sitting right next to me. I said it to the Wall Street Journal. But once again, the Governor’s mischaracterized my position. But once again, the Governor’s mischaracterized my position. He’s saying that this impacts seniors. Not a single senior watching this program would be impacted by any of the changes that I’ve discussed. Not one.

Watch it:

Crist and Meek were justifiably critical of Rubio’s stance on this issue. In late January, Rubio told newspaper reporters and editors in Tallahassee that “he favored giving younger workers the option of investing some of their payroll taxes ‘in an alternative to the Social Security System’” and endorsed the private account measure outlined in Ryan’s “Roadmap.” However, after giving his position some actual thought, he later determined that the time for privatization “has come and gone.”

Rubio’s Republican colleagues should take note of his awakening. Touting privatization as a budget reform measure that would not adversely affect seniors is “unrealistic” and “imprudent.” Not only would this type of reform create new administrative costs and force benefit reductions, it would impose significant risk on seniors and would actually cost more than the current system. Now if Rubio would just give his other stances similar thought, he just might have to part ways with his compatriots altogether.

In the wake of the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling earlier this year, corporations and special interest groups now enjoy the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections. Now, with less than 10 weeks until November, it’s clear just how far conservative groups are willing to go to try to influence the midterm elections.

According to a new report from ThinkProgress, conservative organizations have committed (or already spent) $400 million to advance their conservative agenda at the ballot box this year. For comparison’s sake, this outside money alone is more than the Democratic campaign committees spent combined when they took back both houses of Congress in the last midterm election. Indeed, the Wall Street Journal notes that special interest groups have already spent three times as much in 2010 than they had in 2006.

Among the outside groups that plan to spend hundreds of millions of dollars electing conservatives are some familiar faces and some new ones as well. While the NRA and the Chamber of Commerce have long supported conservative causes, the former plans to double its spending from $10 million in 2006 to $20 million now and the latter will triple its commitment to $75 million this year. Many new groups are also entering the scene in a big way, including Karl Rove’s American Crossroads group with $52 million and Norm Coleman’s American Action Network with $25 million.

Those conservative groups trying to use $400 million in outside spending to tip the midterm election include:

– Chamber of Commerce has pledged to spend $75 million
– American Crossroads has pledged to spend $52 million
– Americans for Prosperity has pledged to spend $45 million
– Republican State Leadership Committee has pledged to spend $40 million
– American Action Network has pledged to spend $25 million
– American Future Fund has pledged to spend up to $25 million
– Club for Growth has pledged to spend at least $24 million
– National Republican Trust PAC has pledged to spend at least $20 million
– An unnamed health insurance industry coalition has pledged to spend $20 million
– National Rifle Association has pledged to spend $20 million
– Faith and Freedom Coalition has pledged to spend $11 million
– FreedomWorks has pledged to spend $10 million
– Americans for Job Security has pledged to spend $10 million
– Susan B. Anthony List has pledged to spend $6 million
– Our Country Deserves Better (Tea Party Express) has already spent $5 million
– Tax Relief Coalition has already spent $4 million
– Republican Majority Campaign has pledged to spend $3 million
– Campaign for Working Families has pledged to spend $2 million
– Heritage Action for America has pledged to spend $1 million
– Financial Services Roundtable has already spent $0.5 million
– Family Research Council has raised $0.5 million
– Citizens United Political Victory Fund has pledged to spend $0.2 million

TOTAL: $399.2 million

Given the number of progressive accomplishments in the 111th Congress, including health care reform, the economic stimulus bill, and Wall Street reform, it’s no wonder that conservative groups are fighting tooth-and-nail to prevent a repeat next term. Chris LaCivita, a Republican strategist who has also been involved in many independent-expenditure campaigns, told Politico, “If there is a time for independent groups to step up, this is it. This is the year for independent groups to put up or shut up.” Indeed, with conservative special interest groups putting it all on the line this November, their $400 million pledge may even increase before long.

Roll Call’s John McArdle reported this week that the radical Wall Street front group “Club for Growth” is “celebrating” a near perfect winning streak this election cycle so far, especially given the results in run-off elections last Tuesday. The Club’s political action committee is known for running hard-hitting attack ads, especially in Republican primaries, against candidates who would consider raising any form of taxes on the rich or have done anything to hold powerful corporations accountable. Noting the Club’s historic role of purging moderates from the GOP, Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH) is quoted in the article calling it the “Spanish Inquisition.”

Chaired by prominent Wall Street investors like Thomas Rhodes and Richard Gilder, as well as the wealthy and reclusive Howie Rich, the Club collects funds from employees of J.P. Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, while being buoyed by large donations like a $1.4 million contribution from investor Stephen Jacksons of Stephens Groups Inc. The hand-picked candidates of the Club claim to lead the tea party movement, even though polls show that 70% of self identified tea partiers want the government to help create jobs, and nearly half want government to rein in executive bonuses.

Despite this contradiction, the Club-endorsed primary winners are already tacking to the extreme, pro-corporate right. For example, with BP’s oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, Club candidates are rushing to defend the rights of corporations over the rights of the American victims of the catastrophe:

– State Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC), the Club PAC-endorsed candidate to win in the primary run-off for South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District, attacked Democrats for holding hearings to investigate BP’s crimes. In a post on his website, Scott said, “Democratic lawmakers seem to enjoy hauling CEOs before their committees so they can grandstand and condescend to them.”

– Mike Lee (R-UT), who won in the primary run-off for the Utah Senate seat after the Club PAC helped to defeat incumbent Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) in the party convention earlier this year, said recently that he wants to keep the low $75 million dollar liability cap for companies like BP. Lee said it would be a “mistake” to raise the liability cap for companies like BP and Anadarko, even if maintaining the status quo leaves “taxpayers on the hook for part of the damage.” Lee said he wanted taxpayers, rather than BP, to pay for the oil spill because the low liability cap was part of a “set of settled expectations that you give to a business when it decides to make an investment.”

– Trey Gowdy (R-SC), the South Carolina Club for Growth-endorsed candidate who defeated incumbent Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) in the primary run-off last Tuesday, was asked in a debate last week if he agrees with Rep. Joe Barton’s (R-TX) apology to BP executives. Gowdy recommended that Barton should have “stuck by his guns” and not apologize for apologizing to BP. He then said that the Obama administration should not “use the criminal justice system to extort money” from BP.

– Sharron Angle (R-NV), the Club PAC-endorsed candidate who won in the Nevada Senate primary, told Nevada Newsmakers that in the wake of BP’s spill, the government needs to further deregulate the oil industry.

– Jeff Duncan (R-SC), the Club PAC-endorsed candidate who won the GOP nomination in the South Carolina 3rd Congressional district run-off, closed his campaign by arguing for expanded offshore drilling last week. As one of South Carolina’s most right-wing state lawmakers, Duncan proudly refers to himself as a “states’ rights” politician.

– Mike Pompeo (R-KS), the oil executive and Club PAC-endorsed candidate in Kansas’ 4th Congressional district, said his first reaction to BP’s oil spill was the “fervent hope that Congress doesn’t overreact” and curtail dangerous offshore drilling.

While much has been reported on the impact of the tea parties and their role in elections this year, the true driver for the hard right are corporate front groups like FreedomWorks and the Club for Growth. Using Wall Street cash, these fronts have helped to boost a cadre faux populists who are really just shills for large banks and foreign oil giants like BP. Notably, financial conglomerate J.P. Morgan, which funds the Club, is one of the largest shareholders of BP.