Category Archives: government fraud spending collusion

The Most Corrupt U.S. Govt Bank Goes Dark

Posted on by

This is a small win for conservatives, but more it stops epic abuse and pay to play operations. The Exim Bank is for small business to be able to get global access. Would you consider Boeing or General Electric to be small?

 

(CNSNews.com) – Three corporations together received 44 percent of the Export-Import Bank’s $32.7 billion in assistance in 2011 – a total of $13.5 billion in federal financial aid. The three were Boeing, General Electric and international engineering firm Black and Veatch International.

Boeing alone received 38 percent of the bank’s financial assistance, or $12.4 billion ($11.7 billion for the mother company and another $700 million for its Boeing Satellite Systems subsidiary.)

General Electric received $1.2 billion while Black and Veatch received $805 million, according to the bank’s 2011 annual report.

The Export-Import Bank, whose authorization runs out in seven weeks’ time, is opposed by some conservatives who argue that it provides corporate welfare and below-market financing.

***  “The global economy is more integrated than ever … If we’re going to grow, it’s going to be because of exports. We’re on track to double our exports – a goal that I set when I came into office. Part of the reason for that is the terrific work that’s being done by our Export-Import Bank.”
President Barack Obama
November 12, 2011

It should be noted that the White House and the State Department had their hands all over this loan give-away agency. Note this is a State Department website link proving collusion and pay to play.

From the Washington Examiner:

Export-Import Bank enters ‘liquidation’ tomorrow night at midnight

Tuesday night at midnight, the 2014 reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank expires. The agency, under law, doesn’t evaporate immediately. Instead, per the law, Ex-Im enters “liquidation,” which is basically Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

Specifically, Ex-Im’s authorization allows it to continue to exist for one purpose: “exercising any of its functions subsequent to such date for purposes of orderly liquidation….”

Liquidation is Chapter 7 bankruptcy — which is exit, extinction. It is not Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which is what companies enter temporarily in order to reorganize and then come back. Ex-Im workers, when they return Wednesday morning, are supposed to be in the business of dismantling Ex-Im.

As I read it, that means Ex-Im is supposed to sell off the loans and guarantees on which it is currently sitting — not in a fire sale, but in an orderly fashion.

This isn’t a “lapse.” This is liquidation. I know many Ex-Im employees simply see this as a temporary lapse in lending authority, but that view is contrary to the law.

It will be interesting to see how Ex-Im officials follow the law.

Here is the full text of the relevant section of the law:

Export-Import Bank of the United States shall continue to exercise its functions in connection with and in furtherance of its objects and purposes until the close of business on September 30, 2014, but the provisions of this section shall not be construed as preventing the bank from acquiring obligations prior to such date which mature subsequent to such date or from assuming prior to such date liability as guarantor, endorser, or acceptor of obligations which mature subsequent to such date or from issuing, either prior or subsequent to such date, for purchase by the Secretary of the Treasury or any other purchasers, its notes, debentures, bonds, or other obligations which mature subsequent to such date or from continuing as a corporate agency of the United States and exercising any of its functions subsequent to such date for purposes of orderly liquidation, including the administration of its assets and the collection of any obligations held by the bank.

 

 

The U.S. $73 Billion Puerto Rico Problem

Posted on by

In a White House briefing, Josh Earnest, the spokesperson revealed that the United States will not bail our Puerto Rico. Oh really? In March of 2009, the White House created one of ‘those’ task forces, this one dedicated to Puerto Rico. 4 years later….financial crisis is worse.

On October 30, 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order 13517, which directed the Task Force to maintain its focus on the status question, but added to the Task Force’s responsibilities by seeking advice and recommendations on policies that promote job creation, education, health care, clean energy, and economic development on the Island.

The current Task Force was convened in December 2009 with members from every Cabinet agency. It organized two public hearings in San Juan, Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. to hear directly from a broad cross section of voices on the issues of status and economic development. Furthermore, hundreds of citizens from Puerto Rico and the mainland offered input by sending materials through the mail and electronically through a White House public comment e-mail address. Members of the Task Force and White House staff also met with congressional leaders, Puerto Rican elected officials, and other interested parties to hear their views.

 

   

From the WSJ:

As Puerto Rico sinks under the weight of $73 billion in government and agency debt—not to mention billions more in unfunded pension and health-care liabilities—its political class is looking for an escape hatch.

This isn’t about wiping the slate clean. But if a bankruptcy judge approved the write-down of, say, half the municipal debt, it would reduce the fiscal pressure.

There’s an app for that. The trouble for Puerto Rico is that getting it requires a retroactive change in U.S. law. If Congress cares about the future of Puerto Rico or the hundreds of thousands of Americans who hold Puerto Rican debt, it will just say no.

More than half of the outstanding Puerto Rico debt is triple tax-exempt revenue bonds issued by government-owned corporations. Unlike public corporations and municipalities in the 50 states, these enterprises do not have access to Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection under the U.S. code. If they fail to meet their loan obligations, they face receivership.

Last June Puerto Rico enacted a law to allow its government corporations to declare bankruptcy. But in February, a U.S. federal judge in San Juan struck down that law on grounds that the federal bankruptcy code supersedes it.

Greece vs. Puerto Rico

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico –  The governor warned that Puerto Rico can’t pay its $72 billion public debt on the eve of a private Monday meeting with legislators, delivering another jolt to the recession-gripped U.S. island as well as a world financial system already worrying over Greece’s collapsing finances.

Gov. Alejandro Garcia Padilla is hoping to defer debt payments while negotiating with creditors, spokesman Jesus Manuel Ortiz said Sunday night.

Garcia is expected to air a pre-recorded televised address after meeting with legislators, who are still debating a $9.8 billion budget that calls for $674 million in cuts and sets aside $1.5 billion to help pay off the debt. The budget has to be approved by Tuesday.

Ortiz confirmed comments by Padilla that appeared in a report in The New York Times published late Sunday, less than a day before Garcia planned to meet with legislators.

“There is no other option. I would love to have an easier option. This is not politics, this is math,” Garcia is quoted as saying in the Times.

Puerto Rico’s bonds were popular with U.S. mutual funds because they were tax-free, but hedge funds and distressed-debt buyers began stepping in to buy up debt as the island’s economy worsened and its credit rating dropped.

Garcia’s comments will likely not have much impact on Wall Street, said economist Jose Villamil, a former U.N. consultant and CEO of an economic and planning consulting firm.

“The markets are clear that Puerto Rico is heading to a direction of a restructuring or default,” said the economist, adding that a voluntary restructuring by bondholders might be the best option.

“The last four administrations have kicked the can down the road,” said Villamil. “At this point, there is no more can to kick. So we’re going to take some very strict measures and some very profound measures. It’s going to hurt, but there’s no way out.”

Some legislators were taken aback by Garcia’s comments, including Rep. Jenniffer Gonzalez, spokeswoman for the main opposition party.

“I think it’s irresponsible,” Gonzalez said. “He met privately with The New York Times last week, but he hasn’t met with the leaders of this island.”

Puerto Rico’s constitution dictates that the debt has to be paid before any other financial obligation is met. If Garcia seeks to not pay the debt at all, it will require a referendum and a vote on a constitutional amendment, she said in a phone interview.

Puerto Rico’s situation has drawn comparisons to Greece, where the government decreed this weekend that banks would be shuttered for six business days and restrictions imposed on cash withdrawals. The country’s five-year financial crisis has sparked questions about its continued membership in the 19-nation shared euro currency and the European Union.

Puerto Rico’s governor recently confirmed that he had considered having his government seek permission from the U.S. Congress to declare bankruptcy amid a nearly decade-long economic slump. His administration is currently pushing for the right for Puerto Rico’s public agencies to file for bankruptcy under Chapter 9. Neither the agencies nor the island’s government can file for bankruptcy under current U.S. rules.

Puerto Rico’s public agencies owe a large portion of the debt, with the power company alone owing some $9 billion. The company is facing a restructuring as the government continues to negotiate with creditors as the deadline for a roughly $400 million payment nears.

Garcia has taken several measures to help generate more government revenue, including signing legislation raising the sales tax to 11.5 percent and creating a 4 percent tax on professional services. The sales tax increase goes into effect Wednesday and the new services tax on Oct. 1, to be followed by a transition to a value-added tax by April 1.

National Preparedness is up to YOU

Posted on by
At no other time in American history has the United States been so vulnerable to national security threats. The text below is for you benefit, take is seriously and don’t rely on FEMA, you are your own best resource.

National Preparedness Report

Main Content

This page provides information on the 2015 National Preparedness Report, including the overarching findings on national issues, preparedness progress, and opportunities for improvement. This page is for anyone interested in seeing how preparedness can inform priorities and community actions.

National Preparedness Report

The 2015 National Preparedness Report marks the fourth iteration of this annual report. Required annually by Presidential Policy Directive 8: National Preparedness, the National Preparedness Report summarizes progress in building, sustaining, and delivering the 31 core capabilities described in the 2011 National Preparedness Goal (the Goal). Each year, the report presents an opportunity to assess gains that whole community partners—including all levels of government, private and nonprofit sectors, faith-based organizations, communities, and individuals—have made in preparedness, and to identify where challenges remain.

The intent of the National Preparedness Report is to provide the Nation with practical insights on preparedness that can inform decisions about program priorities, resource allocations, and community actions. The 2015 National Preparedness Report focuses primarily on preparedness activities undertaken or reported during 2014, and places particular emphasis on progress made in implementing the National Planning Frameworks (the Frameworks) across the Prevention, Protection, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery mission areas. The Frameworks describe how the whole community works together to achieve the goal of a secure and resilient Nation.

Overarching Findings on National Issues

In addition to key findings for each of the five preparedness mission areas, the 2015 NPR identifies overarching national trends that cut across multiple mission areas:

  • Incorporating Emergency Preparedness into Technology Platforms: Businesses and public-private partnerships are increasingly incorporating emergency preparedness into technology platforms, such as Internet and social media tools and services.
  • Challenges Assessing the Status of Corrective Actions: While Federal departments and agencies individually assess progress for corrective actions identified during national-level exercises and real-world incidents, challenges remain to comprehensively assess corrective actions with broad implications across the Federal Government.
  • Response Coordination Challenges for Events that Do Not Receive Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) Declarations: Recent events, including the epidemic of Ebola virus disease, have highlighted challenges with coordinating the response to and recovery from complex incidents that do not receive Stafford Act declarations.

The Nation Continues to Make Progress

The 2015 NPR identifies three new core capabilities – Environmental Response/Health and Safety, Intelligence and Information Sharing, and Operational Coordination – as meeting acceptable levels of performance but requiring sustained effort to maintain capability and meet emerging challenges. These capabilities join five others from the 2014 report that future National Preparedness Reports will revisit to determine if they are still meeting performance goals.

Opportunities for Improvement

The 2015 National Preparedness Report also highlights key preparedness challenges remaining for the Nation. Three core capabilities—Cybersecurity, Housing, and Infrastructure Systems—have persisted as areas for improvement across all four National Preparedness Reports. A fourth core capability, Long-term Vulnerability Reduction, repeats as an area for improvement from last year, due in part to questions surrounding the long-term solvency of the National Flood Insurance Program and nascent national efforts for climate change adaptation and green infrastructure. Preparedness data further revealed that the Federal Government, states, and territories are also struggling to build capacity for the Access Control and Identity Verification and Economic Recovery core capabilities. These areas for improvement are a reminder that preparedness gains are gradual and that solutions to complex challenges will not materialize without sustained support from the whole community.

Key Factors for Future Progress

The 2015 NPR represents the fourth opportunity for the Nation to reflect on progress in strengthening national preparedness and to identify where preparedness gaps remain. Looking across all five mission areas, the NPR provides a national perspective on critical preparedness trends for whole community partners to use to inform program priorities, to allocate resources, and to communicate with stakeholders about issues of shared concern.

Resources

Core Capabilities

Main Content

The National Preparedness Goal identified 31 core capabilities—these are the distinct critical elements needed to achieve the goal.

These capabilities are referenced in many national preparedness efforts, including the National Planning Frameworks. The Goal grouped the capabilities into five mission areas, based on where they most logically fit. Some fall into only one mission area, while some others apply to several mission areas.

Download the capabilities crosswalk to see how the legacy Target Capabilities List compares with the new core capabilities.

Planning

  • Mission Areas: All
  • Description: Conduct a systematic process engaging the whole community as appropriate in the development of executable strategic, operational, and/or community-based approaches to meet defined objectives.

Public Information and Warning

  • Mission Areas: All
  • Description: Deliver coordinated, prompt, reliable, and actionable information to the whole community through the use of clear, consistent, accessible, and culturally and linguistically appropriate methods to effectively relay information regarding any threat or hazard, as well as the actions being taken and the assistance being made available, as appropriate.

Operational Coordination

  • Mission Areas: All
  • Description: Establish and maintain a unified and coordinated operational structure and process that appropriately integrates all critical stakeholders and supports the execution of core capabilities.

Forensics and Attribution

  • Mission Area: Prevention
  • Description: Conduct forensic analysis and attribute terrorist acts (including the means and methods of terrorism) to their source, to include forensic analysis as well as attribution for an attack and for the preparation for an attack in an effort to prevent initial or follow-on acts and/or swiftly develop counter-options.

Intelligence and Information Sharing

  • Mission Areas: Prevention, Protection
  • Description: Provide timely, accurate, and actionable information resulting from the planning, direction, collection, exploitation, processing, analysis, production, dissemination, evaluation, and feedback of available information concerning threats to the United States, its people, property, or interests; the development, proliferation, or use of WMDs; or any other matter bearing on U.S. national or homeland security by Federal, state, local, and other stakeholders. Information sharing is the ability to exchange intelligence, information, data, or knowledge among Federal, state, local, or private sector entities, as appropriate.

Interdiction and Disruption

  • Mission Areas: Prevention, Protection
  • Description: Delay, divert, intercept, halt, apprehend, or secure threats and/or hazards.

Screening, Search, and Detection

  • Mission Areas: Prevention, Protection
  • Description: Identify, discover, or locate threats and/or hazards through active and passive surveillance and search procedures. This may include the use of systematic examinations and assessments, sensor technologies, or physical investigation and intelligence.

Access Control and Identity Verification

  • Mission Area: Protection
  • Description: Apply a broad range of physical, technological, and cyber measures to control admittance to critical locations and systems, limiting access to authorized individuals to carry out legitimate activities.

Cybersecurity

  • Mission Area: Protection
  • Description: Protect against damage to, the unauthorized use of, and/or the exploitation of (and, if needed, the restoration of) electronic communications systems and services (and the information contained therein).

Physical Protective Measures

  • Mission Area: Protection
  • Description: Reduce or mitigate risks, including actions targeted at threats, vulnerabilities, and/or consequences, by controlling movement and protecting borders, critical infrastructure, and the homeland.

Risk Management for Protection Programs and Activities

  • Mission Area: Protection
  • Description: Identify, assess, and prioritize risks to inform Protection activities and investments.

Supply Chain Integrity and Security

  • Mission Area: Protection
  • Description: Strengthen the security and resilience of the supply chain.

Community Resilience

  • Mission Area: Mitigation
  • Description: Lead the integrated effort to recognize, understand, communicate, plan, and address risks so that the community can develop a set of actions to accomplish Mitigation and improve resilience.

Long-term Vulnerability Reduction

  • Mission Area: Mitigation
  • Description: Build and sustain resilient systems, communities, and critical infrastructure and key resources lifelines so as to reduce their vulnerability to natural, technological, and human-caused incidents by lessening the likelihood, severity, and duration of the adverse consequences related to these incidents.

Risk and Disaster Resilience Assessment

  • Mission Area: Mitigation
  • Description: Assess risk and disaster resilience so that decision makers, responders, and community members can take informed action to reduce their entity’s risk and increase their resilience.

Threats and Hazard Identification

  • Mission Area: Mitigation
  • Description: Identify the threats and hazards that occur in the geographic area; determine the frequency and magnitude; and incorporate this into analysis and planning processes so as to clearly understand the needs of a community or entity.

Critical Transportation

  • Mission Area: Response
  • Description: Provide transportation (including infrastructure access and accessible transportation services) for response priority objectives, including the evacuation of people and animals, and the delivery of vital response personnel, equipment, and services into the affected areas.

Environmental Response/Health and Safety

  • Mission Area: Response
  • Description: Ensure the availability of guidance and resources to address all hazards including hazardous materials, acts of terrorism, and natural disasters in support of the responder operations and the affected communities.

Fatality Management Services

  • Mission Area: Response
  • Description: Provide fatality management services, including body recovery and victim identification, working with state and local authorities to provide temporary mortuary solutions, sharing information with mass care services for the purpose of reunifying family members and caregivers with missing persons/remains, and providing counseling to the bereaved.

Infrastructure Systems

  • Mission Area: Response, Recovery
  • Description: Stabilize critical infrastructure functions, minimize health and safety threats, and efficiently restore and revitalize systems and services to support a viable, resilient community.

Mass Care Services

  • Mission Area: Response
  • Description: Provide life-sustaining services to the affected population with a focus on hydration, feeding, and sheltering to those who have the most need, as well as support for reunifying families.

Mass Search and Rescue Operations

  • Mission Area: Response
  • Description: Deliver traditional and atypical search and rescue capabilities, including personnel, services, animals, and assets to survivors in need, with the goal of saving the greatest number of endangered lives in the shortest time possible.

On-scene Security and Protection

  • Mission Area: Response
  • Description: Ensure a safe and secure environment through law enforcement and related security and protection operations for people and communities located within affected areas and also for all traditional and atypical response personnel engaged in lifesaving and life-sustaining operations.

Operational Communications

  • Mission Area: Response
  • Description: Ensure the capacity for timely communications in support of security, situational awareness, and operations by any and all means available, among and between affected communities in the impact area and all response forces.

Public and Private Services and Resources

  • Mission Area: Response
  • Description: Provide essential public and private services and resources to the affected population and surrounding communities, to include emergency power to critical facilities, fuel support for emergency responders, and access to community staples (e.g., grocery stores, pharmacies, and banks) and fire and other first response services.

Public Health and Medical Services

  • Mission Area: Response
  • Description: Provide lifesaving medical treatment via emergency medical services and related operations and avoid additional disease and injury by providing targeted public health and medical support and products to all people in need within the affected area.

Situational Assessment

  • Mission Area: Response
  • Description: Provide all decision makers with decision-relevant information regarding the nature and extent of the hazard, any cascading effects, and the status of the response.

Economic Recovery

  • Mission Area: Recovery
  • Description: Return economic and business activities (including food and agriculture) to a healthy state and develop new business and employment opportunities that result in a sustainable and economically viable community.

Health and Social Services

  • Mission Area: Recovery
  • Description: Restore and improve health and social services networks to promote the resilience, independence, health (including behavioral health), and well-being of the whole community.

Housing

  • Mission Area: Recovery
  • Description: Implement housing solutions that effectively support the needs of the whole community and contribute to its sustainability and resilience.

Natural and Cultural Resources

  • Mission Area: Recovery
  • Description: Protect natural and cultural resources and historic properties through appropriate planning, mitigation, response, and recovery actions to preserve, conserve, rehabilitate, and restore them consistent with post-disaster community priorities and best practices and in compliance with appropriate environmental and historical preservation laws and executive orders.

Adhere to a New Orthodoxy or Go to Jail

Posted on by

The full court opinion is here:

Embedded image permalink

Embedded image permalink

Supreme Court Affirms Constitutionality of Gay Marriage

The court’s historic 5-4 ruling cements the legality of same-sex unions nationwide.

In part the opinion of Justice Kennedy:

“The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times,” Kennedy wrote in a 34-page opinion. “The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.”

In part the dissenting opinion of Justice Roberts:

In a dissenting opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts argued that the issue was not within the court’s realm to decide.

“This Court is not a legislature,” Roberts wrote, calling the majority’s decision “an act of will, not legal judgment.” “Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.”

Roberts also said he would “begrudge none their celebration” following the ruling, but said the majority’s approach was “deeply disheartening.” All the dissenting judges indicated the decision amounted to overreach on the part of the judiciary, with suggestions that the ruling interrupted the democratic process through which the legality of gay marriage had been extending across the U.S.

Questions remain:

1. How will it work if 2 gay Muslims want to get married in a mosque where Sharia is applied?

2. Will any church lose their tax exempt status for refusing a gay marriage ceremony?

3. Will a bakery be sued for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay marriage?

4. Is the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed by Bill Clinton a law that has been repealed by the Supreme Court decision?

5. Marriage is recognized at the State level and by the Supreme Court decision has now become a Federal law, has this ruling laid the ground for the death of the 10th amendment?

 

Presidential Senator Candidates Take Big Lobby $$

Posted on by

Hillary was a Senator and just recently a lobby issue could be a problem given the Transpacific Partnership Pact that is so contentious in the country right now.

Per Lee Fang: While Hillary Clinton has demurred over her position on the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, her campaign has partnered with a pro-TPP law and lobby firm to raise money.

At The Intercept, Lee Fang reports that Clinton’s campaign held a fundraiser in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday with the political action committee of a law firm called McGuireWoods. Lobby registration documents reveal that a subsidiary of the group lobbies on behalf of Smithfield Foods, the world’s largest producer of pork, to pass both the TPP and “fast track”—a special presidential mandate that nearly eliminates Congress’ role in crafting trade legislation.

The fundraiser occurred as Congress rescheduled a vote on fast track, also known as Trade Promotion Authority (TPA).

Fang continues:

Despite mounting pressure to take a position, Clinton has only provided [noncommittal] answers regarding her stance on both TPP and TPA. On Sunday, at a rally in Iowa, Clinton said there should be better protections for American workers and called for the president to work with Democrats in Congress — hardly a clarifying statement. Earlier that day, her chief pollster dismissed a call from ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos to provide a clear stance on TPA, casting the issue as simply “Washington inside baseball.”

For the event in D.C., billed as a “Conversation with John Podesta, Campaign Chair,” the Clinton campaign website said that I could learn the exact location only after RSVPing through a donation. I gave one dollar to find out. Apparently, that wasn’t enough. Instead of providing the address of the fundraiser as the campaign website had said it would, the campaign directed me to a site where I could volunteer.

Lobby money owns Washington DC, of this there is no dispute. The 10 largest lobby operations include the following industries:

The Technology lobby, the Mining lobby, the Defense lobby, the Agriculture lobby, Big Oil lobby, the Financial lobby, the Big Pharma lobby, the AARP lobby, the Pro-Israel lobby and the National Rifle Association lobby. The primer of these lobby groups is found here.

So what Senators that are running for president are on some lobby dollar hooks?

From Open Secrets:

Three of five senators running for WH have big backing from lobbyists

Three of the five U.S. senators running for president have made super-fans out of a few K Street lobbyists, an analysis of campaign finance data by OpenSecrets Blog shows.

Republican Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) have each raised hundreds of thousands of dollars from current or one-time federal lobbyists throughout their careers, the analysis shows. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has raised $82,050 from the same pool and Sen. Bernie Sanders‘ (D-Vt.) total fundraising haul from lobbyists stands at an even more paltry $50,075.

Neither Sanders nor Paul have hidden their disdain for lobbyists, so there’s some logic to their low fundraising totals from those in the profession. Both candidates, in their announcement speeches, railed against those who want to influence politics with money — Sanders referred to “billionaires…and their lobbyists,” Paul called them “special interests” — and struck similar tones.

“Both [Paul and Sanders] have publicly decried the influence of corporations in American public life,” Joshua Rosenstein, a Washington, D.C.-based lawyer and expert on lobbying, said. “If you are a corporation, is it possible that you view each of them as relative lost cause? Sure.”

For some candidates, it’s not bad politics to keep K Street at arm’s length. In 2008 and 2012, Barack Obama pledged not to accept donations from lobbyists and refunded money to those who did contribute. After taking office, he barred federally registered lobbyists from joining advisory boards in his administration, before partially rolling back that ban last year.

But no 2016 hopeful has followed that lead, as the Wall Street Journal reports. And setting Paul and Sanders aside, the other senators running for president have already wooed a handful of lobbyists with deep pockets and a willingness to give to anyone who might help their clients.

In all, Graham has taken in $753,841 during his congressional career from current or one-time federally registered lobbyists who contributed more than $200 to him. Rubio and Cruz have received $571,952 and $265,043 from the same group, respectively. Those sums include donations to the senators’ campaign committees and leadership PACs.

Rubio, Cruz and Graham each have at least one lobbyist donor who, along with their spouses in some cases, has given in excess of $20,000 to the candidate’s campaign and PAC. Rubio has Ignacio Sanchez, a presidential bundler for Mitt Romney in 2012 from the firm DLA Piper; he represents Al Jazeera Satellite Network and Diageo PLC. Cruz has lobbying revolver Charles Cooper of Cooper & Kirk and his wife, Debra.

Graham, a senator since 2003, has enjoyed financial support from current or former lobbyists longer than his GOP Senate colleagues running for president. William H. Skipper, Jr. of the American Business Development Group, Reed Scott of Chesapeake Enterprises and his wife, and presidential bundler Van D. Hipp of American Defense International and his wife, have each given Graham more than $20,000 over the years.

The most Paul has received from any one lobbyist barely tops $6,000; that came from Charles Grizzle of Grizzle Co., who currently represents several Kentucky-based clients like the University of Louisville and the Louisville Regional Airport Authority. Sanders topped out at $3,000 from Nancy Zirkin of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and her husband.

The data analysis only covered sitting U.S. senators. Other presidential candidates or potential candidates who have served in federal office, like former Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and one-time House member, now governor, John Kasich (R-Ohio), haven’t run a Senate or House campaign in some time. And for former governors like Rick Perry and Jeb Bush, state data on which of their donors were lobbyists isn’t available. Fundraising reports for candidates’ presidential campaigns won’t be available till mid-July, and the super PACs backing them don’t have to report until the end of that month.

Still, it’s clear that the non-Senate candidates also have their eyes on K Street money. Clinton has already reached out to prominent lobbyists on her side of the aisle, while Jeb Bush started seeking commitments from Washington allies even earlier this year. Lobbyists are reportedly starting to line up behind him.

Despite that fact that making contributions may be good for business, Rosenstein noted, many lobbyists also donate for ideological reasons.

“While they certainly have to be pragmatists about what they’re doing…and that certainly drives some of the giving,” he said, “there might very well be an equal or greater ideological segment of the lobbying community that aren’t driven by pragmatic reasons,” Rosenstein said.