Though Romney has not voluntarily disclosed any campaign bundlers who are not lobbyists, federal law requires that he identify major bundlers who are. To date, the campaign has identified 22 lobbyist bundlers who each raised $17,000 or more.

A ThinkProgress analysis of the data shows that 13 represent Big Energy and Big Finance — and between them, they collected more than $2.2 million in donations. They are:

• Patrick Durkin Sr. ($927,160), a lobbyist for British banking giant Barclays.
• Wayne Berman ($424,825), a lobbyist for Ogilvy Government Relations. His polluter clients include Chevron, Hess, and Kosmos Energy and his finance clients include Visa, Marwood Group, and The Travelers Companies.
• T. Martin Fioerentino Jr. ($325,045), a lobbyist for The Fiorentino Group. He represents Lender Processing Services, a prominent mortgage and consumer loan processing company.
• Austin Barbour ($210,700), a recent Romney campaign hire who, in 2011, worked as a lobbyist for Capitol Resources LLC. His clients included polluter Gulf LNG Energy. Barbour is the nephew of former Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS).
• Paul Mattera ($64,200), a lobbyist for Liberty Mutual Insurance.
• Drew Maloney ($56,750), a lobbyist for Ogilvy Government Relations. His polluter clients include GenOn Energy, Exelon Business Services, and Sempra Energy and he represents National Bank of Canada.
• Joseph Wall ($47,437), a lobbyist for Wall Street behemoth Goldman Sachs.
• David Tamasi ($39,785), a lobbyist for Rasky Baerlein Strategic Communication. His polluter clients include GDF Suez and his financial clients include Next Street Financial and the National Reverse Mortgage Lenders Association.
• Michael McSherry ($30,200), a lobbyist for Mercury Public Affairs. He represents Peabody Energy and Stifel Financial Corp.
• Kent Burton ($26,510), a lobbyist for National Environmental Strategies. His polluter clients include Murray Energy, Marathon Oil, Pacific Gas & Electric, and, as of recently, Shell Oil.
• Tom Boyd ($26,350), a lobbyist for DLA Piper. His financial sector clients include Experian Group, Charles Schwab & Co., and Discover Financial Services.
• Andrew Wheeler ($17,000), a lobbyist for Faegre Baker Daniels. His polluter clients include Murray Energy.
• Mark Isakowitz ($17,000), a lobbyist for Fierce, Isakowitz & Blalock. His polluter clients include Noble Energy and BP America and his many finance clients include Hartford Financial Services Group, JPMorgan Chase, the Managed Funds Association, Mutual of Omaha, and Zurich Financial.

Romney’s strong support from powerful Wall Street and energy lobbyists is unsurprising given his proposals to repeal the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and undo environmental protections — and his support for continuing subsidies for Big Oil.

As ThinkProgress previously reported, Romney’s lobbyist-bundler list also includes Ignacio E. Sanchez ($86,700) of DLA Piper, a registered foreign agent for the United Arab Emirates and a birther presidential candidate in the Dominican Republic.

President Obama does not accept campaign contributions donated or bundled by federal lobbyists or foreign agents. His campaign voluntarily discloses all of its major bundlers. He also voluntarily discloses all of his major bundlers, as did Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and President George W. Bush (R) in their 2000, 2004, and 2008 races.

Defense industry contributions to individual candidates and PACs reached nearly $13 million earlier this month. That number, only $11 million short of the $24 million contributed in the 2008 political cycle, suggests that the defense industry will contribute more in this political cycle than in any previous election. And the increase in funds is matched by a dramatic partisan shift in the industry’s contributions.

In 2008, 51 percent of contributions went to Democrats while 49 percent were designated for Republicans. In 2010, that trend continued with 53 percent going to Democrats and 47 percent to Republicans. But the 2012 cycle appears to mark a shift in partisan bent as a whopping 60 percent of defense industry campaign dollars went to Republican campaigns.

When contacted by Politico, General Dynamic spokesman Kendell Pease explained that the Republican majority in Congress could explain the shift in campaign dollars toward the GOP:

Those are the folks that are here. Those are the folks that are making decisions now, today, and it’s very easy to figure out where they stand on issues that we feel are most important. We continue to support those folks, both House and Senate, who support those issues that we feel are most important.

Indeed, supporting Republicans has paid off. A budget proposal put forward by Mitt Romney would add $100 billion to the Pentagon’s budget by 2016, while imposing cuts on health care for the poor and disabled and reductions in funding for food inspection, border security and education. And a House Republican budget proposal calls for $554 billion in defense spending in 2013, a $29 billion increase over the White House’s proposal.

As chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA) has found himself the biggest recipient of defense industry dollars, taking in over $393,000 in the 2012 political cycle. The defense industry, apparently eager to repay McKeon for fearlessly defending the defense industry from budget cuts, has extended its largess to his wife, Patricia McKeon, who took in at least $19,200 in defense industry campaign contributions for her California State Assembly campaign (where national defense is not at issue). But McKeon denies the contributions were the result of arm twisting or repayment for his work in protecting the defense budget as budget cuts sweep across Washington. “She’s made lots of friends [in Washington],” McKeon told the Los Angeles Times. “When they found out she was running, they offered to help.”

Romney Bundler and Registered Foreign Agent Ignacio E. Sanchez (credit: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars)

Mejia recently told a gathering of New York clergy that Obama “came from Africa and grew up over there.” Watch the video:

But there are two noteworthy things about this incident for followers of American polics.

First, as ThinkProgress exclusively reported in February, Mejia has retained a U.S. lobbyist to represent his presidential campaign’s interests before the U.S. government. His lobbyist is Ignacio E. Sanchez, of DLA Piper, and that makes Sanchez a registered foreign agent.

Sanchez is one of a growing number of lobbyists who are also “bundlers” for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign. He’s already reaised at least $86,700 in bundled contributions for the former Massachusetts governor.

President Obama does not accept campaign contributions donated or bundled by federal lobbyists or foreign agents. In last his January State of the Union address, he said, “Let’s make sure people who bundle campaign contributions for Congress can’t lobby Congress, and vice versa — an idea that has bipartisan support, at least outside of Washington.” He also voluntarily discloses all of his major bundlers, as did Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and President George W. Bush (R) in their 2000, 2004, and 2008 races.

But Romney — who has not voluntarily disclosed any bundlers who are not lobbyists — is apparently all too happy to accept money from those who are paid to influence policy decisions on behalf of special interests, foreign and domestic. Apparently, even if they represent foreign leaders who make unfounded scurrilous attacks on the legitimacy of the United States president and the credibility of its political system.

Meanwhile, it’s worth noting that the minister next to Mejia in the video, who bursts out into enthusiastic laughter at the comment, is Pentecostal Christian Rev. Ruben Diaz Sr. Diaz is the rabidly anti-gay New York State senator and volunteer National Organization of Marriage spokesman. While nominally a Democrat, Diaz has crossed party lines to endorse anti-gay Republicans over pro-equality Democrats.

Ignacio E. Sanchez (credit: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars)

While political candidates are not legally required to identify bundlers — volunteer fundraisers who collect bundles of campaign contribution checks for the campaign — a 2007 law requires that federal candidates disclose the names of any registered lobbyists who bundle large amounts for their campaign. On Tuesday, Romney’s campaign reported that 14 lobbyists combined to raise more than $1.6 million last year in bundled contributions.

One of those lobbyist-bundlers was Sanchez, who raked in $86,700 for the former Massachusetts governor. This major fundraising raises questions about the level of access and influence Sanchez — and by extension, his corporate and international clients — would have in a Romney administration.

Unlike the other 13 identified lobbyist-bundlers, Sanchez is a registered foreign agent. A form filed Monday with the U.S. Department of Justice reveals that he beyond just representing the interests of those domestic clients, Sanchez also represents the embassy of the United Arab Emirates and the presidential campaign of Dominican Republic former president Hipolito Mejia.

Mejia is seeking to reclaim the job he held from 2000 to 2004 and lost in a landslide defeat, amid a national economic crisis and financial near-collapse.

The United Arab Emirates has been among the stronger U.S. allies in the Middle East and is a key player in OPEC, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. But the interests of the two countries don’t always converge and groups like Human Rights Watch have raised concerns about the country’s suppression of free speech and political disagreement.

In the past, Sanchez also represented the governments of Turkey and Ethiopia. Current federal lobbying disclosure forms show that he lobbies Congress and the administration on behalf of Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide (which includes the Sheraton, W, and St. Regis brands) and Diageo North America, the makers of Guinness, Jose Cuervo, Captain Morgan, and dozens of other alcoholic beverages.

President Obama does not accept campaign contributions donated or bundled by federal lobbyists or foreign agents. In last week’s State of the Union address, he called for a ban on bundlers lobbying saying “Let’s make sure people who bundle campaign contributions for Congress can’t lobby Congress, and vice versa — an idea that has bipartisan support, at least outside of Washington.”

But Romney — who has not voluntarily disclosed any other bundlers — is apparently all too happy to accept money from those who are paid to influence policy decisions on behalf of special interests, foreign and domestic.

Yates, whose biography on the Newt Gingrich campaign website only lists him as president of DC International Advisors, “a consultancy,” since 2006, had an extremely active lobbying career in the two years following his job as Deputy Assistant to Vice President Dick Cheney for National Security Affairs from 2001 to 2005. The Gingrich campaign’s decision to leave Yates’ career as vice president of the “global affairs practice” at Barbour Griffith & Rogers off his official bio, might have something to do with the two years of active lobbying he conducted on behalf of foreign clients.

In 2005 and 2006, while he was based at Barbour Griffith & Rogers, Yates was listed on lobbying disclosures as having represented the interests of:

Yates also serves as a director at the U.S.-Taiwan Business Council.

The campaign’s decision to present Yates’ biography without any reference to his career at Barbour Griffith & Rogers or his representation of Taiwanese, Indonesian, Lebanese, Indian and British interests in Washington, raises questions. Indeed, Yates’ two-year career as a lobbyist focusing almost exclusively on foreign clients seeking influence in Washington is an interesting omission from a biography that portrays Gingrich’s national security adviser as a career civil servant.

Yates’ background in public service would indicate that he has a strong interest in U.S. foreign policy and national security. But his two years as a professional lobbyist might also suggest that annual contracts of $740,000 with the Indonesian National Shipowners Association, $720,000 with the Republic of India, and $1.5 million with the Republic of China (Taiwan), held a certain appeal in more recent years.

This firm wanted $850,000 to kill Occupy Wall Street

Hayes’ report, which can be viewed here, details how the Washington, D.C.-based lobbying firm Clark Lytle Geduldig & Cranford (CLGC) compiled a secret plan to undermine Occupy Wall Street for the American Bankers Association (ABA).

The plan, which CLGC was demanding $850,000 to implement, was presented in a secret memo that was leaked to Hayes’ staff. The memo warns that Occupy Wall Street, particularly if it is embraced by the Democratic Party, threatens to “have very long-lasting political, policy, and financial impacts on the companies in the center of the bullseye.”

Interestingly, the memo also cautioned that Tea Party protesters may join forces with Occupy Wall Street because “well-known Wall Street companies stand at the nexus of where [Occupy Wall Street] protesters and the Tea Party overlap on angered populism. [...] This combination has the potential to be explosive later in the year when media reports cover the next round of bonuses and contrast it with stories of millions of Americans making do with less this holiday season.”

In order to combat Occupy Wall Street’s growing movement, the firm offered to engage in research and advocacy to “undermine their credibility in a profound way.” This included researching activists’ financial histories and civil and criminal information, and monitoring social media. The goal of this research was to “create negative narratives of the [Occupy Wall Street] for high impact media placement to expose the backers of this movement”:

“Our Government Relations staff did receive the proposal – it was unsolicited and we chose not to act on it in any way,” said ABA spokesperson Jeff Sigmund to Hayes’ show. However, CLGC admits on its website that it has had ABA as a client before in the past, in addition to the Financial Services Roundtable, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Fidelity Investments, and other financial players.

Newt Gingrich

GINGRICH: We do no lobbying. We look at what they do. We offer them advice. We help them think through their problems, and they’ve got lots of different problems depending on what kind of company there are.

Listen here:

To help clear the record, ThinkProgress has compiled a short history of Gingrich’s influence peddling:

– Helping To Secure Health IT Earmarks For GE, Microsoft, IBM: Gingrich headed a for-profit health care consulting firm that engages in activities identical in nature to lobbying. As Business Week reported, firms like GE have hired Gingrich to figure out “on how to grab some of the $19.6 billion in federal stimulus money” on healthcare IT grants. A follow-up ThinkProgress investigation found that Gingrich had been paid to bring health IT lobbyists together with lawmakers like Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN) and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN).

– The Ethanol Lobby’s “Consulting” Contract With Gingrich: Growth Industry, the trade association for the ethanol energy lobby, provided a $312,500 contract to Gingrich’s consulting firm in 2009, according to a report by iWatch News. An association publication conceded that Gingrich was paid for “strategy and communication issues.” The retainer allowed the lobby group, then pressing for further government subsidies, to use Gingrich to “speak positively on ethanol related topics to media.”

– Gingrich Lobbied To Deregulate Insurers, While Accepting Hundreds Of Thousands From Health Insurance Corporations: Through his for-profit healthcare consulting firm, Gingrich accepted up to $200,000 in annual fees from insurers like WellPoint and UnitedHealth. As ThinkProgress reported, Gingrich not only pushed anti-health reform conspiracies like the infamous “death panel” smear, but he also crafted model legislation that formed the basis of GOP deregulatory proposals for health insurers. In March 2009, Gingrich met with Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) and other members of the GOP Doctors Caucus to help write conservative health reform alternative legislation. “Gingrich provided us with great insight as we work to craft health care solutions for the 21st Century,” proclaimed Gingrey after the meeting. Gingrich also wrote healthcare legislation introduced by Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA), and “consulted” with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) on health reform legislation that would deregulate the insurance industry. During this blitz of what many would consider lobbying-like activity, the BlueCross & BlueShield Association and AHIP, the umbrella lobbying group for the health insurance industry, paid Gingrich fees as well.

– “Sharing Resources” With The Oil Industry’s Top Lobbyists: In February of last year, ThinkProgress spoke to a public relations executive close to the oil industry who said that Gingrich’s political attack group, called ASWF, had been “sharing resources, coordinating efforts” with the American Petroleum Institute (API), the main oil lobby association. In an interview later with ThinkProgress, Gingrich confirmed that he had been working closely with API.

– Gingrich Sells His “Strategic Advice” To Lobbying Giants Like The U.S. Chamber Of Commerce: James Oliphant reported on the latest controversy over Gingrich’s lobbying for Freddie Mac, noting that Gingrich’s firm has also been paid by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the mega-corporate lobbying coalition, for “strategic advice.”

Gingrich may defend his unregistered lobbying by claiming that he does not meet the legal threshold in terms of legislator contact. However, news reports have painted a picture of Gingrich as constantly in communication with lawmakers and other public officials. According to the New York Times, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) has been known to discuss strategy on a “regular basis” with Gingrich. The Hill reported that Gingrich attended whip meetings with the GOP caucus to “educate” rank and file Republican lawmakers on the health reform debate. And as a separate piece from the Times noted, Gingrich fires off what have become known as “Newtgrams” — personal e-mails and messages with tactical advice — frequently to Republican legislators in both the House and Senate.

ThinkProgress once asked Gingrich why he never registered as a lobbyist, despite his clear history of pressing Congress on behalf of his clients. Gingrich defended his actions by stating that his lobbying is not technically lobbying because it “benefits the country at large.”

Rick Perry's first major K Street fundraiser is hosted in part by a longtime Merck lobbyist named Jeff MacKinnon

Regardless of the debate over administering the vaccine, there is no doubt that Perry grossly misrepresented the influence of Merck in his administration. For one thing, Perry has actually accepted $29,500 from the company’s PAC, and the Republican Governor Association, under Perry’s watch, took in $350,000 from Merck since 2006. Moreover, Mike Toomey, an Austin lobbyist that represented Merck during the Gardasil decision, has promised to raise $55 million to back Perry’s presidential bid using an independent so-called SuperPAC.

The Merck connections don’t end there. A review of fundraising documents by ThinkProgress reveals that Perry’s big “Washington Kickoff” fundraiser, scheduled for later this month and already billed as his first significant event with K Street lobbyists and Beltway power brokers, is hosted by a longtime Merck lobbyist. Event host Jeff MacKinnon’s firm served as a registered lobbying agent for Merck from 2005 to 2010, and has pulled in approximately $860,000 from Merck in exchange for lobbying Congress on “drug safety” issues. MacKinnon’s firm stopped lobbying for Merck starting this year.

View an invitation to Perry’s K Street fundraiser here.

MacKinnon is among several top lobbyists hosting the event, which takes place on September 27 at the Willard Hotel in Washington DC. Perry strategists told the National Journal that events like the one with MacKinnon will raise $2 million to $4 million for the campaign by the end of the year.

Another interesting note about Merck’s ties with Perry and his administration relates to third party allies. Merck is a major contributor to powerful Washington third party groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (providing $725,000 in donations last year) and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America trade group (providing $7,046,747 in 2010 and $12,767,272 in 2009). Perry has appeared at multiple Chamber events over the years, and it is likely these groups will again play an important role in the 2012 election.

Women in Government (WIG), a nonprofit with close ties to Merck that has pushed the Gardasil vaccine in multiple states, has enjoyed a friendly relationship with the Perry administration. Not only did WIG consult with the Perry administration on the Gardasil decision, but Perry’s wife Anita has addressed the group in the past. According to Merck’s disclosures, the company continues to provide funds to WIG.

Now new financial disclosure forms filed at the end of July reveal that Romney has raked in more campaign dough from lobbyists than all of the other Republican candidates combined:

According to disclosure forms filed at the end of July, 61 registered lobbyists and five lobbyist-linked political action committees contributed $137,650 to Romney’s campaign between Jan. 1 and June 30, 2011. The former Massachusetts governor raised more money from lobbyists during this period than all of his competitors combined.

The other Republican candidates who received contributions from lobbyists in the first half of 2011 were, in order of most money received, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty ($63,204), former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman ($31,600), former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) ($25,500), former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum ($8,800), and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn) ($125). The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) do not accept contributions from registered lobbyists.

Chart of lobbyist contributions, courtesy of Huffington Post.

Romney, a former venture capitalist who made his lucrative career by slashing jobs, has also relied on fundraising by Tea Party billionaire David Koch and a lobbyist for a robo-signing foreclosure mill. He’s also taken an early lead among the top bundlers who raised money for George W. Bush and John McCain.

(HT: Huffington Post)

Romney even made a campaign stop in a Nevada neighborhood blighted by foreclosure. However, Romney’s concern for the housing crisis seems to end where his campaign coffers begin. As the Boston Globe noted today, T. Martin Fiorentino Jr., one of Romney’s top fundraiser, is a registered lobbyist who lobbied on anti-predatory lending legislation on behalf of a company called Lender Processive Services, a notorious foreclosure mill:

As he has built his fund-raising machine, [Romney] has relied heavily on a man who has lobbied Congress on mortgage reform and antipredatory lending legislation that contained strict rules aimed at preventing another subprime mortgage collapse.

T. Martin Fiorentino Jr., who raised $102,900 for Romney, lobbied on the legislation on behalf of Lender Processing Services, a so-called “foreclosure mill’’ that was reprimanded in April by the government for “unsound practices related to residential mortgage loan serving and foreclosure processing.’’

If anything, the Globe downplays the problematic nature of Lender Processive Services. As Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism explained, the company was at the forefront of the robo-signing scandal, during which banks approved thousands of foreclosures without verifying basic information or engaging in due process:

Lender Processing Services has played a singularly destructive role in the mortgage servicing industry. The firm not only offered document fabrication services through DocX, a company it acquired and was forced to shut down after the Department of Justice started sniffing about, but is being revealed to be involved in more abuses as far as borrower records and legal process are concerned. [...]

This abuses matter due to the role that LPS has come to play. It is the biggest player in default services, meaning it acts as the de facto selector and supervisor of foreclosure mills via its system, LPS Desktop, which manages and oversees the work of local law firms on behalf of its bank servicer clients. It also provides the servicing platform for more than half of the servicing industry. And as our two latest examples show, the company clearly places its profits over integrity of records and due process.

The company was so keen to speed foreclosures on troubled borrowers that it hired temps to forge the signatures of its robo-signers. Considering that the Associated Press reported today that robo-signing is still very much alive and well, Romney should have to explain how his purported concern for homeowners squares with the actions of one of his top fundraisers.

Vin Weber

Weber, who supported the campaigns of the neoconservative Project For the New American Century and served in Congress from 1981 to 1993, is the CEO and managing partner of Clark & Weinstock, a “strategic advice and consulting” firm whose client list includes, or has included Hyundai Motor Co., Goldman Sachs, BNP Paribas, American International Group, Gazprom, and JP Morgan Chase & Co.

But Vin Weber’s lobbying expertise isn’t limited to private companies. Clark & Weinstock also represented the interests of Morocco, Greece, the Iraqi Governing Council, Panama, and the United Arab Emirates.

In his January 18, 2005 “Proposal For Representation of United Arab Emirates” (PDF), Weber promised to:

Enhance the reputation and understanding of the UAE as a U.S. strategic ally through major media and other opinion-makers, based mainly in New York and Washington.

Weber advocated portraying the UAE as a U.S. ally in combating terrorism and an observer of human rights, and boasts of his close relationship with DC think tanks. In a section titled “C&W’s Approach,” he writes:

In the area of foreign affairs, we would want to reach out to the Council on Foreign Relations, American Enterprise Institute, The Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Brookings Institution, the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies, among others. These are all groups with impecable reputations. Working with them goes well beyond writing a check — if that is even part of the relationship.

And he advises the UAE to “avoid the costly and impactless advertising purchased by other nations” and establish direct relationships with members of the media. Weber suggests holding “message-delivering” meetings with editorial boards, columnists, producers, and news people. Weber said his services would run the UAE $65,000 per month. (His representation of the UAE appears have been terminated on March 30, 2007.)

Weber’s understanding of Washington’s foreign policy circles and the importance of influencing editorial boards is a reflection of his Washington insider status, which, no doubt, played no small role in arranging Pawlenty’s recent speech at the Council on Foreign Relations (Weber sits on the Council’s board). While Weber and Pawlenty’s foreign policy positions are often in line with the more militarist, neoconservative, wing of the GOP, Weber clearly knows that in Washington you shouldn’t put all your eggs in one basket. In 2010, his campaign contributions showed a long list of Republican congressional candidates including Tim Pawlenty’s GOP primary opponent, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN).

Lobbyists from this firm now run the office for both Sen. Johnson (R-WI) and Sen. Rubio (R-FL)

One notable revelation from The Hill story relates to the fact that well-paid corporate lobbyists now occupy key positions at the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees pivotal healthcare and energy regulations. Another interesting fact is that a single corporate lobbying firm, called Navigators Global, has its lobbyists running the offices of Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Ron Johnson (R-WI). The two Tea Party politicians apparently thought that influence-peddlers from the same firm would best advance their interests:

Cesar Conda made $376,000 from Navigators Global in salary last year, according to his financial disclosure report. He is now Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-Fla.) chief of staff.

Conda’s former colleague at Navigators, Don Kent, now chief of staff to Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), made more than $227,000 in his bonus and salary last year from the firm.

Rubio’s chief of staff, Cesar Conda, worked at Navigators Global on accounts related to AT&T, PG&E, New York Life Insurance, and other companies. Don Kent, Johnson’s number two, represented CSX, UPS, and several biotech and computer science firms. Navigators Global, a lobbying firm that still represents many of the same clients as well as private prison companies and investment banks, brags that it not only does “insider” lobbying, but also public campaigns as well. For instance, the firm set up a front group for oil speculators to kill efforts to regulate the scope of excessive oil speculation back in 2008.

A chief of staff is the most important position on Capitol Hill outside of elected office. They are typically responsible for representing their boss at meetings, making staffing decisions, and helping the lawmaker decide how to cast a vote. It is not clear if Rubio or Johnson has an office policy for their lobbyist chiefs of staff. Are they allowed to still communicate with their former clients? Do they still collaborate with their colleagues at Navigators Global? Is there any sort of firewall to ensure they have stopped selling influence while working as a public servant?

Now, Peter Stone is reporting that Bayh will be joining the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, perhaps the most influential lobbying group for multinational corporations and big businesses with a far right lobbying agenda. (View ThinkProgress’ history of the Chamber, including its decades-long opposition to women’s rights, labor rights, and even its refusal to support a war against Nazi Germany.)

Bayh will be joining former Bush administration official Andy Card in a Chamber-led lobbying campaign designed to weaken regulations on corporations across the board, and make it more difficult to enact new regulations. The REINS Act, which Bayh will be helping to pass, will severely undercut (and effectively repeal) significant portions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, health and financial reform, the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, and the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, among many other laws.

It is not clear how much Bayh is being paid by the Chamber, or by his new gigs at Apollo Global Management or McGuireWoods. During the period of 2009-2010, when Bayh was still in office, he appeared to be auditioning for a job in the private sector as a lobbyist:

– Killing Labor Reform: Despite past support for the labor rights legislation, the Employee Free Choice Act, Bayh eventually wavered on support the bill once it had a real chance of passing when President Obama came into office. Killing the Employee Free Choice Act, which would have given workers a fair chance to form a union, was the Chamber’s biggest legislative priority other than passing the bank bailouts of 2008.

– Killing Climate Change And Clean Energy Jobs Legislation: Bayh positioned himself to the right of some members of the GOP in opposing a renewable energy standard. He later railed against clean energy reform, which died in the Senate because of obstruction from Bayh and several other conservative senators.

– Supporting Pro-Corporate Senate Obstruction: Bayh even formed a coalition of conservative senators — including Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) — to slow and kill major reforms proposed by President Obama. As ThinkProgress’ Matthew Yglesias has noted, Bayh and his cohorts appeared to be “hoping to soak up special interest cash in exchange for blocking the progressive agenda.”

One must wonder: when did Bayh begin negotiations with the Chamber for his current job as a lobbyist? Did the expectation that he would leave Congress and join the private sector as a lobbyist impact his votes and actions while in the Senate? If he had been a staunch advocate for the workers and families of Indiana, and had fought for labor reforms, would he have been welcome for what is probably an extremely highly paid job at the Chamber? The same type of questions could and should be asked of former Reps. David Obey (D-WI), John Tanner (D-TN), Allen Boyd (D-FL), Earl Pomeroy (D-ND), Bart Gordon (D-TN), and many other recently retired members of Congress who have joined corporate lobbying firms.

Equatorial Guinea President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo

News from the New York Times yesterday that U.S.-based military contractor Military Professional Resources Inc. (MPRI) is training Equatorial Guinea’s security forces has put the small, but oil-rich, West African nation back in the spotlight. And whenever a news story breaks about Equatorial Guinea, reports about its strongman leader, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, his rampant human rights violations, and his close relationship to power-circles in Washington, DC are quick to follow.

While the Times’s article focused on MPRI, a Virginia based company headed up by former Donald Rumsfeld aide Bantz Craddock, MPRI is just the latest in the long line of beltway consultancies and companies with lobbying interests in Washington to defend the interests of Obiang’s government.

An examination of Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) forms reveals some interesting insights into the influence which Obiang and his family are able to buy in Washington.

Former Democratic lobbyist and Clinton administration official Lanny Davis was a recipient of a $1 million per year contract (PDF) with Equatorial Guinea until earlier this year. Davis ended his contract with Obiang’s government after Salon’s Justin Elliott and other journalists cast scrutiny on his work. Obiang also got some bad publicity last year when the United Nations decided to suspend plans to award a life sciences prize sponsored by Equatorial Guinea.

But Qorvis Communications continues to represent Obiang in Washington and receives a lucrative $60,000 per month retainer in a contract (PDF) which runs through August 2011. Interestingly, the address of the “foreign principal” in the FARA registration isn’t an embassy or government building in Equatorial Guinea. The contract (PDF) is with Obiang’s playboy son, Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue, and the contact address is listed as “3620 Sweetwater Mesa Road, Malibu, CA 90265.” That’s the address of Teodoro’s $35 million Malibu mansion.

Obiang and his son don’t even need to cut checks from Malibu for some of their lobbying work. According to lobbying disclosure forms, some of the largest oil companies devote considerable resources to lobbying for their business interests in Equatorial Guinea.

Hess Oil paid over $1.3 million to lobby on “education and dissemination of information regarding registrant’s assets in Equatorial Guinea and Libya” in 2009.

Marathon Oil spent $1.08 million (PDF) in the first quarter of 2011 lobbying on a number of foreign policy issues including “investment by Marathon Oil Corporation in developing energy resources in Equatorial Guinea” and “Equatorial Guinea – U.S. Engagement.” In 2010, they spent over $5 million lobbying on similar foreign policy concerns.

In the first quarter of 2008, Exxon paid $6.6 million (PDF) lobbying for, among other issues of concern, “discussions regarding background on business in Equatorial Guinea.”

While MPRI’s training of Obiang’s security forces is just the latest story to emerge from the U.S.-Equatorial Guinea relationship, it’s clear that a lot of money and resources are being invested in keeping the U.S. in a close relationship with one of the world’s most corrupt governments.

“This is adding one more tool to our toolkit,” Martin Durbin, API’s executive vice president for government affairs, told Bloomberg News. “At the end of the day, our mission is trying to influence the policy debate.” As Bloomberg pointed out, oil-supported political action committees like the Independent Petroleum Association of America overwhelmingly donate to Republican candidates.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, API spent $6.7 million on lobbying alone last year, after clearing $7 million in 2009. In 2010, API was the seventh most prolific spender in the oil and gas industry, following ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Koch Industries and BP.

API’s turn toward direct political donations is doubly problematic because, in addition to acting as the industry’s chief lobbyists, the institute runs technical committees that set standards for the oil industry. In its official report, the commission that investigated the BP oil spill found that API was too “compromised” to be setting industry standards. “Because they would make oil and gas industry operations potentially more costly, API regularly resists agency rulemakings that government regulators believe would make those operations safer, and API favors rulemaking that promotes industry autonomy from government oversight,” the commission found. And this was before API established a political action committee!

In its proposed 2012 budget, the Obama administration suggested, once again, removing the billions in subsidies that taxpayers give oil companies every year. API has been at the forefront of the lobbying fight to preserve Big Oil’s subsidies, demonizing the removal of them as new “energy taxes,” even while admitting that cutting the subsidies and plowing the money back into clean energy technology would create “a lot more jobs.”

Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.

Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi told a state House committee this month that most of the rest is being covered by the National Federation of Independent Business, a group that opposes the law because of what it considers unconstitutional costs and regulations on firms and people.

“They have dedicated a tremendous amount of resources to the lawsuit,” Bondi said Feb. 10. “We’re thrilled, because that’s saving our state money. That’s saving the 25 other states money as well.”

As the Huffington Post notes, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) is no “mom and pop” operation. While dubbing itself “the Voice of Small Business,” NFIB has spent the past two years “yoking itself to the GOP” while simultaneously “jeopardizing billions of dollars in credit, tax benefits and other federal subsidies” at the expense of small businesses. Affiliated with both the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the GOP “since the Reagan era,” NFIB “is run mostly by and for Republicans” and spent 93 percent of its campaign contributions on GOP candidates. It is no wonder, then, that NFIB is happy to pay to secure the top GOP priority and equally “delighted” to see the pay off.

Heritage has applauded this dictatorship of the minority by hailing Republicans for exploiting loopholes in Senate parliamentary rules. But the status quo has little to do with “tradition” — filibusters have never been used as they were in the past two years by Senate Republicans. Rather, Senate obstruction benefits corporate interests looking to delay or kill regulations, reforms and taxes.

For today’s event, Heritage has invited lobbyists who personify the very problems of Senate obstruction to speak in support of the current Senate rules. Steven Duffield, one of Heritage’s experts for the event, is a GOP operative and the president of Endgame Strategies LLC, a lobbying firm he founded. According to Roll Call, Duffield, a former aide to Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), the Republican whip in the Senate, created his firm to help his clients work with Senate Republicans to “use their power to filibuster to hold up legislation.” Duffield’s lobbying website advertises that he can help his clients find just the right “backbench Senate Republicans” to “exercise their prerogatives to delay or obstruct” controversial legislation:

Managing Holds and Filibusters. Your organization has an interest in a bill that has proven controversial and you require advocacy before those legislators – often backbench Senate Republicans – who may exercise their prerogatives to delay or obstruct. Endgame Strategies will give you new ways to manage your interests in a legislative environment that gives great power to individual senators.

Although Duffield does not disclose his full client list, Duffield’s LinkedIn profile says he serves “corporate” clients. Joining Duffield for the Heritage panel is another lobbyist whose business has monetized the broken Senate, Bill Wichterman. A longtime Republican operative who was caught funneling donations to a Green Party candidate to boost his ally Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) in 2006, Wichterman now works at the firm Covington & Burling representing a variety of corporate clients, including the mercenary company Xe Services (formerly known as Blackwater), a copper company, and Avantis Medical Systems. Like Duffield, Wichterman’s firm specializes in helping corporations win legislative battles by simply exploiting Senate procedures. Martin Gold, a colleague to Wichterman at Covington & Burling, advertised the firm in a fairly candid pitch for a lobbying seminar:

Can you turn Congressional rules and procedures into a tactical advantage for achieving your policy goals? Absolutely!

While he helps corporations place secret holds for his corporate clients, Duffield has elected a new crew of Republican senators to boost his business. In addition to his lobbying gig, Duffield serves as “Policy Director” of Crossroads GPS, the undisclosed corporate front group that helped elect Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA), Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), and other freshmen Republican senators. By granting Duffield and Wichterman a platform to promote Senate obstruction, Heritage is doing a service for corporate lobbyists.

WALLACE: Senator Lee, you have chosen an energy lobbyist as your Chief of Staff. Is that the right person to drain the swamp here in Washington?

LEE: I’ve hired the brightest political mind, political consultant, and lobbyist in Utah – a man named Spencer Stokes. He’s a brilliant man. He understands Utah politics and he understands Washington politics and I need a man like that to help me in Washington.

WALLACE: And you’re not scared off by the fact that he is a lobbyist?

LEE:  Ahh no, he’s a lobbyist and he’s a political consultant and I am not scared off by that. He and I share a common vision…

Watch it:

Lee joins many other incoming Republicans, such as incoming Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Rand Paul (R-KY) who, despite rhetoric of cleaning up Washington, have all hired lobbyists. As the Washington Post reported last month, “Many incoming GOP lawmakers have hired registered lobbyists as senior aides. Several of the candidates won with strong support from the anti-establishment tea party movement… these cases illustrate the endurance of Washington’s traditional power structure, even in the wake of an election dominated by insurgent rhetoric.”

Throughout 2010, the State Board of Education has considered banning sugary drinks from Florida schools, including soft drinks, high-sugar juices, and chocolate milk. According to the Orlando Sentinel, Board member John Padget “has been pressing his colleagues for a year to cut out most beverages besides water, pure juice and white, low-fat milk.” Justifying such a move, Padget writes in a Key West Citizen op-ed, is the fact that “over one-third of America’s children are either overweight or obese,” leaving them “often less ready to learn in the classroom.”

A few weeks before the issue was to be considered, the state’s newly-elected Agriculture Commissioner, Adam Putnam, wrote a letter demanding that the Board of Education halt such a move. Putnam criticized the Board for choosing “to focus only on the nutrition content in beverages served in Florida schools,” rather than taking a more holistic approach:

One such area that I look forward to tackling is ensuring that Florida’s students have better nutrition options to reduce obesity and related long-term health risks. This is a topic your Board has discussed recently for possible policy recommendations. However, instead of looking at the entire nutrition intake of students, you have chosen to focus only on the nutrition content in beverages served in Florida schools. It is my belief that any nutrition improvement plan needs to be certain that students are receiving the best possible nutrition package, in concert with total wellness initiatives, to allow them to reach their optimum achievement potential. [...]

First steps would be to take a comprehensive look at current school foodservice offerings, rather than making individual product recommendations that do not address the broader health picture. This comprehensive approach will need time to develop and I would appreciate your Board considering delaying any plans to address just a single component of the nutrition factors and instead allow time for a complete approach to building a healthier generation of Florida students.

As a result, “the Board of Education decided to put off any further discussion of the issue,” Deborah Higgins of the Board of Education’s communications department told ThinkProgress, “until the agriculture commissioner-elect Adam Putnam was sworn in.”

However, campaign finance records show that Putnam is less than an impartial figure in the matter. A ThinkProgress investigation has found that the incoming Agriculture Commissioner has been the benefactor of a significant amount of money from both the sugar and dairy lobby during the campaign – both of whom have a strong financial interest in keeping sugary drinks in schools. Despite Florida’s $500 contribution limit for both individuals and PACs, Putnam received at least $61,000 in campaign funds from sugar and dairy interests, including maxed-out contributions from Coca Cola’s lobbyist in Tallahassee Brian Ballard and a slew of maxed out contributions from the Sugar Barons of South Florida, the Fanjul family.

Following his victory on November 2, Putnam also made a wealthy sugar magnate one of his first appointments. Tracy Duda Chapman, Vice President and General Counsel for the corporate megafarm A. Duda & Sons, Inc., was appointed by Putnam as co-chair of his four-member transition team. Chapman is not just heavily invested in the sugar industry herself. She also serves on the leadership of the Florida Land Council trade association alongside the senior vice president of the US Sugar Corporation, Robert Coker, who also maxed out to Putnam.

There is little doubt that sugarmakers take comfort with Chapman sitting at Putnam’s right hand. Now that Putnam has moved to block a ban of sugary beverages in schools, that faith has been vindicated. In an instance of life imitating art, Florida sugarmakers are proving true the classic Simpsons quote, “In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power.”

Padget, who has spearheaded this issue for over a year, remains cautiously optimistic. “I think we could have 4 votes for this issue,” Padget told ThinkProgress by phone, which would constitute a majority of the seven-member Board. “Still,” he said, “there is a lot of work to be done. I look forward to Commissioner-elect Putnam’s contributions to this effort.”