Inaugural Ball a Campaign Finance Affair

Joe Hogsett is joining what now appears to be a tradition for Indianapolis Mayors - holding a dual purpose inaugural ball; a campaign fundraiser combined with a great party.

Just in case anyone who might want to be on a newly seated Mayor Hogsett's good side failed to donate to the campaign, you still have the opportunity to toss in anywhere from $100 for a single ticket to $10,000 to be a 'gold sponsor' and attend the Inaugural Ball.  The information is posted on RSVP.JoeHogsett.com which is paid for by his campaign.  The information gathered for registration is identical to the campaign finance information that is to be gathered for public disclosure purposes.

The adherence to the letter of the campaign finance laws is a good thing.  And, the fact that those ponying up the cash will be listed in a future campaign finance report for all the public to peruse is awesome.

For those of us who were heartened by Hogsett's campaign that, in part, spoke against the same old deal for the same old downtown insiders, the price tags raise the hair on the back of one's neck.  It doesn't help that 'The Inaugural Committee' and 'Browning Investments' are co-hosts of the affair.  My attempts to find out who comprises the Committee have not been productive - but at some point I expect that list will be publicly disclosed.  What I do know is the Browning Investments has been a beneficiary of City Government largess in the past - and some might very well think they are one of the downtown insiders the campaign commercial alluded to.

Maybe a new Mayor, some day down the road, could add a 'less than affluent - less than influential - just as important' ball that same night.  The new Mayor could hop from party to party and all of us would have a chance to celebrate the hope and good will that a new Mayor sweeps into office with them.

Keeping my fingers crossed that January 1, 2016, will actually be a new day for Indianapolis and its neighborhoods....  But, I'm not tossing in $100 to attend a fundraiser disguised as a black tie optional ball.

Lobbyist Ties To Councillor Leroy Robinson Continue Unabated

Councillor Leroy Robinson, Chairman of the Metropolitan & Economic Development committee of the City-County Council, continues his cozy relationship with lobbyists who have business before his powerful committee.

His latest campaign finance report, covering contributions from January 1 and April 10 of this year, lists contributions from lobbyists D. William Moreau, Jr. and Greg Hahn.   Hahn is, and has been for some time, a registered lobbyist for Lamar Companies and Outfront Media, both billboard companies.  Moreau was registered to lobby for Clear Channel last year, but has not registered to lobby for them this year.

Hahn is also Robinson's Campaign Treasurer.

Hahn is not doing a particularly good job at that position as far as filing a complete report is concerned.  Hahn reports, as he should, donations for the reporting period as well as the total donation by an individual for the year-to-date.  Since these time periods are one and the same, both columns should be identical.  They are not.  Hahn lists himself as having given a $250 donation on March 15 and a year-to-date total of $500.  There is no entry of another time at which Hahn gave Robinson's campaign the other $250, as there is required to be. 

Additionally, Hahn lists Moreau's $250 donation on February 15, with a year-to-date total of $700.  Again, there is not another entry showing exactly when Moreau gave that money.

And, the summary cover page does not report the year-to-date figures.

Also, there is no mention of any donor's occupation, whereby the public might have a shot at putting two and two together.

You might be interested in the fact that on April 21, after the campaign finance reporting period ended, Robinson had a fundraiser, co-sponsored in part by not one, not two, not three, but four lobbyists with business before his committee --  Greg Hahn, Ahmed Young, Carl Drummer and Lacy Johnson.  Of course, the public will not be able to find out how much these 'interested citizens' helped Robinson's campaign raise that night, until after the Primary Election on May 5.

Robinson has tried to do some good things while in office, of that I have no doubt.  But, he is damaging, if not destroying, his reputation and the public confidence in him by continuing to have lobbyists front and center of his campaign.  The fact that they have business before his committee is cause for immense concern.

Billboard Lobby Donations Create an Appearance of a Conflict of Interest

Just posted on Indiana Forefront...
***

The powerful Metropolitan & Economic Development committee of the City-County Council has postponed a decision on the billboard industry-written Prop 250.  If enacted, Prop 250 would allow digital billboards now, and any future technology that fits in the same frame would also be allowed – without timely public or Council review.

IndyStar reporter, Brian Eason, reports that billboard lobbyists were extremely generous with campaign contributions last year – with more than $12,000 being donated.

He also reports that a lobbyist firm held a fundraiser for committee Chair, Leroy Robinson.  Robinson, by the way, was beneficiary of nearly a third of all billboard lobby donations last year.
Another committee member, Zach Adamson got $1100.

Eason notes that Council leadership in combination, pulled down more than $5000 from billboard lobby sources.

Those who chose to talk with Eason about the contributions didn’t seem to grasp that by accepting the money, the Councillors, at a minimum, solidified an appearance of a conflict of interest. 

Suspicious minds are already correlating the donations with the fast track that Prop 250 was on and the postponement of a vote after hours of testimony against Prop 250, rather than a vote to kill it.  I have been privately assured that, had it not been delayed, the vote would have been “NO”; that the delay means little.

The public trust is a valuable commodity and important, especially in an election year.

The Councillors who took billboard lobby money can and should return it.  That would help clear up the appearance of a conflict of interest that they helped establish by accepting the money in the first place.

This is Important - Campaign Contributors and No-Bid Contracts

Gary Welsh over at Advance Indiana, posted some really important information the other day.  I feel it is so important that I should post an echo of it here.

In "Rebuild Indy 2 Should Easily Cover the Cost of Mayor's Re-election Campaign", Welsh reports that a reader provided him with an analysis of Mayor Ballard's campaign finance reports and construction companies who received any of the Rebuild Indy money.

All construction company contributions, including the personal contributions of company principles, between 2010 and 2013 were tabulated.  The list was cross referenced to a list of all contracts awarded for Rebuild Indy. The top ten campaign-contributing companies just happened to get no-bid contracts for Rebuild Indy work during that same time period.

Let me say that again - the top ten construction company contributors to Mayor Ballard's campaign, all just happened to get no-bid contracts for Rebuild Indy work.

A no-bid contract is awarded without any competition to ascertain the lowest and most responsive bid for a particular project.  It is just awarded to the chosen company straight out.

Welsh reports this table of the top ten contributors, the value of their no-bid Rebuild Indy contracts awarded between 2010 and 2013 in parentheses, and the amount they contributed during the same period:

1.   American Structurepoint, Inc. ($37,203,475)--$129,700
2.   RW Armstrong & Associates ($13,554,892)--$90,000
3.   United Consulting Engineering, Inc. ($9,066,041)--$101,250
4.   Bernardin Lochmueller and Associates, Inc. ($7,406,845)--$83,500
5.   Butler, Fairman and Seufert, Inc. ($3,847,164)--$63,550
6.   V.S. Engineering, Inc. ($1,957,866)--$41,000
7.   M.D. Wessler and Associates, Inc. ($1,835,236)--$30,250
8.   First Group Engineering, Inc. ($1,282,052)--$36,250
9.   Janssen & Spaans Engineering, Inc. ($1,384,600)--$42,500
10. DLZ Indiana, LLC ($736,250)--$88,905

If you are counting, the top ten contributors got $78,274,421 in no-bid Rebuild Indy contracts and fattened the Gregory Ballard for Mayor Committee coffers by $706,905.

For more analysis, I refer you to Welsh's excellent piece.

Brian Mahern's Curious Campaign Finance Report - edited

Not long after my last blog entry went live (see "Maggie Lewis' Curious Campaign Finance Reports"), an alert reader made me aware of the curious nature of City-County Councillor Brian Mahern's latest campaign finance report.

Covering all of 2013, the report for "Brian Mahern for Better Government" notes $6055.94 in contributions - all unitemized.  Since my husband and I made a small donation to Mahern's campaign last year, I know for a fact that at least one was reportable as an itemized entry.  [edited to add: another alert reader sent me an Indiana Code citation that says only donations over $100.00 need be itemized in campaign finance reports.  My donation was less than that.  While our names and addresses were available on the check, there was no legal requirement to report it.]

The purpose of campaign finance reporting is simple transparency of who gave how much, and where it went.  To ignore that, or worse to have something to hide, is not "Better Government".  With non-disclosure, the public is left to wonder why.

I have a great deal of respect for Mahern; respect that grew gradually as I saw him take one stand after another that demonstrated an expectation that government work for the benefit of the people.  That respect does not evaporate with this one omission. But, this one omission does sadden me.

All of Mahern's earlier campaign finance reports itemized contributions.  Whether Mahern took a 'screw them' attitude, couldn't locate his ledger containing the donors' names, had something to hide, or something totally different - I do not know.  Unless the online Election Board listing is somehow incomplete, this is one time Mahern did not hold the public interest in high regard, and that mars his record.

Maggie Lewis' Curious Campaign Finance Reports

I was scanning recent campaign finance reports of some of our City-County Councillors as part of my background for the Kidde smoke detector blog entry ("Will Passage of Prop 364 Give Monopoly to Smoke Detector Company?").  I didn't see any contributions from Kidde or its parent company in the few reports I reviewed.

However, I did see a goodly number of curious expenses reported by the "Maggie Lewis Campaign" for 2013.  For those who don't know, Lewis serves as the President of the Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council.  These expenses were curious for two reasons.  One, they were paid directly to Maggie Lewis with no reason for the expenditure noted.  Two, they were always whole dollar figures.  A person might expect to see 'reimbursement for expenses' and/or an indication of 'so many' dollars and 'so many' cents being paid, implying the expense was backed by receipts.

These 13 direct payments to Lewis totaled $5906 in 2013.

In 2012, Lewis' campaign finance report noted two direct payments and eight payments with "payment of debt" noted.  There was no mention of any debts owed by the campaign to Lewis in any previous finance report.  There wasn't even any contribution by Lewis to her own campaign noted in any finance report.  The 2012 direct payments totaled $200.  The "payment of debt" payments to Lewis totaled $2759.

Reaching back to 2011 we finally get to non-whole numbers as well as notes explaining the payments to Lewis.  Coded for advertising, a payment of $264.01 was reported.  Another payment to Lewis for $353.58 had the note, 'food reimbursement for fundraiser'.  Reported for later in 2011, though, were two payments to Lewis totaling $1000, for which no reason for the expense was provided.

Campaign finance reports for 2009 and 2010 show no payments to Lewis.

So, over three years, the curious payments to Lewis by her campaign were $1000, $2959, and $5906, coming to a grand total of $9865 even, no cents.

Still, I don't pour over campaign finance reports much; this might be something usual.  So, I went through the 2013 annual reports from all sitting Councillors.  Two, Shreve and Gooden, were appointed during the term and have yet to file campaign finance reports.  If a Councillor's 2013 report showed no expenses whatsoever, I went through that Councillor's reports until I reached a year during which there were itemized expenses.  For two Councillors, Talley and Brown, I looked at their campaign reports for 2013 for their runs as Trustees, as well.

The vast majority of Councillors didn't pay themselves a penny in the reports I reviewed.  There were four exceptions besides Lewis. Minority Leader McQuillen, whose campaign in 2013 paid him $2961.80, all noted as 'reimburse expenses' and all noted with dollars and cents. The Talley For Trustee campaign reported a single $461.83 payment to Talley and noted 'reimburse campaign expenses'.  Hunter's campaign reported two payments totaling $170 to a Keri Hunter, with explanations noted, and a $100 direct payment to Hunter himself, with no explanation.  Cain's campaign paid her $30 in 2013 with no explanation.

So, of 29 Councillors, two have no campaign finance reports filed, 22 have no payment to themselves in the most recent filing that includes itemized expenses, two have payments with explanations, and two have one payment to themselves with no explanation, and then there is Lewis.

Lewis' campaign payments to herself are curious, and stand out among her colleagues, especially in their amount.

What Makes Pay-To-Play?

I noted in my last blog post that while some of the PACs contributing to the candidates have names that tell you who is behind that PAC, some do not.

Today we look at the PAC named Citizens for Excellence In Government.  In the last two years this PAC has given $34,000 to the Kennedy campaign and $15,000 to the Ballard Campaign.  These figures are from the PAC campaign finance filings with the State of Indiana, as well as contributions reported by the candidates and posted on the Election Board website through yesterday.

Turns out there have been two primary contributors to Citizens for Excellence in Government PAC in the last couple of years. One is an individual, Alex Oak, and the other is LC Investors, LLC.   State PAC finance records posted online go only up to the 2011 pre-primary report.  Posted records show that during all of 2010 and up through 4/8 of 2011, the PAC took in $64,200 in contributions.  Oak gave $31,000 of that and LC Investors, LLC, gave $25,000.  I do not have access to the donors of record from 4/8/11 through yesterday, as the 2011 pre-election campaign finance report for the PAC has not yet been posted on the Secretary of State's website.

But, you get the picture.  A great deal of money has flowed to the two campaigns through this PAC that has two main contributors.

So, who are the contributors?

Alex Oak is Chairman, CEO, and Partner at Paul I. Cripe, Inc., d/b/a Cripe Architects + Engineers.  There is surprisingly little information about LC Investors, LLC.  Their registered agent is Stephen W. Lee who is a partner at Barnes and Thornburg who specializes in Real Estate Development.  There is one news story from the IBJ wherein LC Investors, LLC, is mentioned as a creditor in the bankruptcy of Flaherty & Collins Properties.

A review of Paul I. Cripe, Inc., in the City's contract database reveals 8 contracts - two originating in the Peterson administration and the rest in the Ballard administration.  Contract 1354 originated in 2005 and was for $25,000.  Contract 1425 originated in 2007 for $2.1 million.  That was extended in 2009, 2010, and 2011, adding $668,880 to the original amount. Contracts 8033, 8108, 8403, and 8284 originated in 2010 for a grand total that year of $691,143.74.  Contracts 9314 and 9115 have been inked down so far this year for a total this year of $406,826.  Grand total of two contracts under Peterson was $2,125,000.  Grand total of 6 contracts plus three extensions of a Peterson contract under Ballard was $1,766,849.74.

Did Oak contribute to this PAC to further the cause of 'excellence in government'?  Who knows.  Were any of these contracts and donations used in Kennedy's supposed calculation of pay-to-play schemes by Ballard?  Who knows.  That list has not been revealed beyond the Indy Star.  A review by the Star did find that Kennedy's claims were overblown (see my blog entry "Is the Kennedy Campaign in Trouble?")

So, if these contracts are extended in a Kennedy administration, or if new contracts are awarded to Paul I. Cripe, Inc., will that be considered by the Kennedy camp to be pay-to-play politics?

Campaign Finance - Ballard & Kennedy, 2011

I have pulled together the entire year's contributions, as of today (large donation supplemental reports are being filed daily), and totaled the sources for the itemized donations for both Greg Ballard and Melina Kennedy.  The campaign finance reports are available on the Election Board website - for Mayoral candidates specifically, click here.

Itemized Campaign Contributions - 1-1-11 through 10-24-11
	Ballard	Kennedy
total itemized	$1,723,067.80	$2,067,977.37
individuals	1,180,710.24	1,256,281.02
corporations	147,029.57	70,908.87
labor	1500.00	6200.00
PACs	83,529.71	359,426.72
other	381,328.64	439,876.74

Many labor organizations have formed PACs, and their contributions show up in that category.

The 'other' category includes businesses that are not formed as corporations (law firms, LLCs, etc), and donations from political and candidate organizations. 

Individual donation totals were pretty darned close, with Kennedy taking the edge.

Ballard took in twice as much from corporations, but Kennedy outpaced him more than 4 to 1 in donations from PACs.  Kennedy scored slightly better than Ballard in the 'other' category of donors.

As of the pre-election campaign finance report filed last week (covering through 10-14-11), Ballard had $886,435.37 cash on hand, while Kennedy had $738,126.19.  Since that report, Ballard has filed reports of large donations (greater than $1000 each) totalling $35,000, while Kennedy reports total large donations of $47,000.  However, no smaller donations or any expenditures are reported since 10-14-11.

IBJ On Topic Yet Again

The IBJ is on top of it, yet again.  In today's issue, Cory Schouten follows up on the issue of the Broad Ripple Parking Garage.  (Unfortunately for those without a subscription, the article is locked)

To summarize the article without trespassing too far into IBJ copyright territory...  the summary provided as a teaser to all says:

"City mum on economics of $15M Broad Ripple garage project"
Both city officials and the developer of a proposed 350-space parking garage in Broad Ripple have refused to share financial projections for its construction and operation, describing the documents -- as a "trade secret" exempt from public disclosure."

The article covers more than the public assess issue.  Schouten goes through the high points of each competing bid and offers quotes from many of the players.

Schouten has a fantastic quote from Ersal Ozdemir, CEO of Keystone Construction, a partner in the winning project.

“I think it’s a heck of a deal,” Ozdemir said. “We’re spending a lot of time and money developing this project. Do we want to make money? Sure. We won’t make the same profit as a private deal, but there are intangible values for us here.”

All I can say about that is -- if the garage was doable as a private deal, and they would make more money doing it that way, why are the taxpayers involved at all?

Of particular interest, to my eye, was the side bar that provides an IBJ analysis of the cost breakdown of the proposed garage project and how it might add up to $15 million.  This analysis includes $4.5 million for acquisition of the property.  The property will be leased, however, not purchased.  The cost of the land, therefore, becomes an operating expense, and not a cost of construction.

Schouten also touches on the 2007 study of parking needs in Broad Ripple, done by Walker Parking Consultants, another partner in the winning proposal.  This study determined that the current site was inadequate and also estimated the cost of construction, without land purchase or building demolition, at about half the price of the current proposal.

Schouten brings up Ozdemir's campaign contributions to Greg Ballard and his hiring of former Ballard Chief of Staff, Paul Okeson.

Schouten goes into the fact the the winning bid actually proposed two versions of this project FOR LESS MONEY.  Yes folks, thanks to the keen fiscal responsibility and business acumen of the Ballard Administration, the price tag went UP during negotiations between the City and the bidders with the winning proposal.   Wow ! Adequate words escape me.

Back to the public access issue.  As I noted in a previous blog entry (see "Are Taxpayer Dollars Being Flagrantly Misused?"), I was denied the financial analysis of the winning proposal, with the City stating it was information to be protected as a 'trade secret'.  I have filed a formal complaint with the State's Public Access Counselor.  I will have to amend that complaint to add the fact, ferreted out by Schouten, that other bids, losing bids mind you, had the financial analysis included in the materials provided to the public by the City.  So, how can they claim that only the winning bidder's numbers need protection.  In addition, Schouten reports that the City will release the winning bidders' financial analysis, once the deal has closed.  

So, let me summarize the Administration's position on public access to the key portion of the winning proposal.  Nope, you can't have it because it is a 'trade secret' and State law protects disclosure of 'trade secrets'.  Yes, you can have the financial analysis from non-winning bids.  No 'trade secrets' there.  Once we have the deal finalized and the terms become contractual obligations of the City and the City's taxpayers, then the financial analysis of the winning bid will be provided to the public.  At that point it will no longer be a 'trade secret'.  Anyone know what kind of logic is being applied here? 

Laugh of the Day

I'll leave the campaign finance donor analysis in the capable hands of Gary Welsh at Advance Indiana (see here and keep checking back) and Paul Ogden at Ogden on Politics (see here and keep checking back). But, one thing made me laugh out loud reading the morning paper. Francesca Jarosz ran an item in the Indianapolis Star on Mayor Ballard's campaign finance report. In it there is a quote from one Jennifer Hallowell, "a general consultant to the Ballard campaign".

But Hallowell said the fact that Ballard has raised so much cash proves he's capable as mayor.

"It really demonstrates the support that he has and the leadership that he's provided," she said. "He's producing results, and people recognize that."

Of course, that can be read more than one way. Leadership and producing results in getting donations -- is pretty much what I read. How anyone can conclude a person is a capable mayor by looking at the size of his campaign coffers is a thread of logic I cannot follow. But, I do have an idea how Ms. Hallowell made the connection.

Although I don't feel the well of expertise to analyse donors and which firms they represent, doesn't mean I don't peruse the campaign finance reports. Even with my surface review of Mayor Ballard's report, payments to Hallowell Consulting jumped out at me. In fact, that's why I even recognized Ms. Hallowell's name this morning. Hallowell Consulting was paid a total of $92,857.14 between March 2, 2009, and November 6, 2009. On December 1, 2009, the firm donated $10,000 of in-kind consulting services. What that really means is that Hallowell Consulting took a pay cut for its services and the cut was used to pad Ballard's finance report.

You don't have to review many campaign finance reports to see there is often a shell game going on to make the 'donations' look larger than they really are. Candidate A donates $200 from his campaign war chest to the 'Committee to Elect Candidate B'. Candidate B, in turn, donates $200 from his war chest to the 'Friends of Candidate A' coffers. Helps both candidates look better.

But, aside from Hallowell Consulting's generous in-kind donation of advise to the Ballard Campaign, they still got $92,857.14 of cold hard cash. That's the kind of leadership a campaign consultant can believe in - and preach about.

Council Campaign Finance Reports

I figured it would be interesting to just get the highlights of each sitting Councillor's campaign finance report for 2009. Below I will record the name of the Councillor as a link to their report posted on the Election Board's campaign finance website. I'll list the beginning balance, the total of receipts, the total of expenses and the ending balance for each.

Name	Beginning Balance ($)	Total Receipts ($)	Total Expenditures ($)	Ending Balance ($)
Paul Bateman	0	100.00	100.00	0
Vernon Brown	93.26	0	0	93.26
Virginia Cain	1,403.52	0	635.00	768.52
Jeff Cardwell	5,578.00	0	2,727.00	2,851.00
Bob Cockrum	1,090.54	45.00	854.00	281.54
Susie Day	423.58	0	240.45	183.13
Jose Evans	150.00	22,815.03	21,304.76	1,510.27
Monroe Gray	2,467.89	0	0	2,467.89
Ben Hunter	3,337.67	7,125.00	4,917.99	5,544.68
Maggie Lewis	0	250.00	0	250.00
Bob Lutz	700.47	244.00	160.00	784.47
Brian Mahern	320.62	3,700.00	270.00	3,750.62
Dane Mahern	3,495.29	5,820.00	1,310.00	8,005.29
Barbara Malone	414.00	0	300.00	114.00
Angela Mansfield	1,171.00	300.00	80.95	1,390.05
Janice McHenry	947.32	1,504.71	867.02	1,635.01
Doris McNeil Minton	0	0	0	0
Mike McQuillen	2,616.43	7,225.00	2,709.31	7,054.12
Lynn McWhirter	nothing yet available
Mary Moriarty Adams	1,641.70	0	0	1,641.70
Jackie Nytes	431.89	8,017.77	2,013.59	6,436.07
Bill Oliver	1,152.83	0	380.00	772.83
Marilyn Pfisterer	79.51	2,245.00	453.90	1,870.61
Lincoln Plowman	794.02	14,622.61	14,830.76	1,572.61
Joanne Sanders	14,097.96	4,123.33	4,227.30	13,993.99
Christine Scales	nothing yet available
Kent Smith	0	420.00	0	0 reported amount
Mike Speedy	no council campaign report	IN State House campaign report
Ryan Vaughn	332.75	16,933.90	15,079.27	2,187.38

I contacted the Election Board Office a few days ago, and they said it would take a few days after the January 20, 2010, filing deadline to get all reports posted online. I'll keep checking back and fill in the few we still have outstanding.

Buyer Supporting a Fake Charity

Congressman Steve Buyer is hip deep in supporting the Frontier Foundation, a charity whose mission is to provide scholarships for deserving Indiana students, but which has spent nothing on that mission since its inception in 2004; while it has managed to provide money for travel and food to assist in its fundraising.

Thanks to Jon Easter over at IndyDemocrat for bringing forward today, an expose' from the Journal & Courier of Lafayette, Indiana, by reporter David Smith - Rep. Buyer-linked foundation draws attention. This report evolved out of a report by USA Today (an IndyStar sister paper) titled Lobbyists unlimited in honoring lawmakers, which reported on the largess bestowed on charities with ties to Congressmen, and which exposed the Buyer / Frontier Foundation / lobbyist largess link. Sandra Chapman at Channel 13 (an IndyStar local sister media outlet) reported on Buyer's Foundation just last night, and other blogs have picked this story up, including MassonsBlog entries going back to June, 2009 (here, here, and here), TalkingPointsMemo, and now BlueIndiana, which links to Chapman's report. Will the Star be next?

Starting it all, USA Today reported:

Under ethics rules passed in 2007, lobbyists for the first time last year had to report any payment made for an event or to a group connected to a lawmaker and other top federal officials.

USA TODAY undertook the first comprehensive analysis of the lobbying reports and found 2,759 payments, totaling $35.8 million, were made in 2008. The money went to honor 534 current and former lawmakers, almost 250 other federal officials and more than 100 groups, many of which count lawmakers among their members.

The total cost is roughly equivalent to what the U.S. government spends to operate Yellowstone National Park each year.

Most of the money — about $28 million — went to non-profit groups, some with direct ties to members of Congress. In two cases, USA TODAY found, the donations to non-profits associated with a member of Congress came in response to a personal appeal for funds from the lawmaker.

Of Buyer's Frontier Foundation, Inc., in particular they reported:

Amgen also donated to the Frontier Foundation in honor of Rep. Steve Buyer, R-Ind., who is on the House panel that regulates the drug industry. The foundation, which provides college scholarships and once was headed by Buyer's daughter, received $385,000 in donations from pharmaceutical companies from 2005 through 2007, according to its IRS filings.

Buyer, who has worked on health policy in Congress for years, helped kill a provision in 2007 opposed by drug companies and broadcasters that would have imposed a three-year ban on advertising new drugs, congressional records show. Consumer advocates, including the Consumers Union, pushed the measure, arguing that aggressive drug pitches unduly sway patients to seek treatment from drugs before their safety records have been established.

During debate by a Commerce subcommittee, Buyer co-sponsored an amendment that stripped the advertising ban from a larger bill overhauling the Food and Drug Administration.

In an interview, Buyer said "there is no connection" between his legislative actions and donations to the foundation. "I'm not an officer. I'm not a board director," he said of his role in the non-profit. "Do I help the foundation? Yes, I do. Do I help other charity groups? Yes, I do." He referred other questions to foundation officials.

The charity's IRS filing covering the year 2007, the most recent available, listed Buyer's daughter, Colleen, as its unpaid president. Stephanie Mattix, listed as the group's paid secretary/treasurer, is executive director of Buyer's political action committee, Storm Chasers, according to Federal Election Commission filings.
Mattix and Buyer told USA TODAY that Colleen Buyer had left the group and referred questions to its president, Brenda Olthoff. Olthoff did not respond to e-mails and calls. Colleen Buyer did not return telephone calls.

The National Association of Broadcasters contributed $25,000 in honor of Buyer to the foundation last year. Amgen donated $15,000. "I don't think there is a link between a specific vote on drug legislation and contributing to kids going to college in Indiana," says Dennis Wharton, the broadcasters' executive vice president. "We look at where we think it's a worthy cause." Davenport, Amgen's spokeswoman, says the gift matched the company's "philanthropic mission to improve education."

David Smith, Journal & Courier, brought out the twist that Frontier Foundation hasn't actually spent any of its money on the scholarships that are purported to be at the heart of their mission:

A nonprofit foundation associated with Rep. Steve Buyer, R-Monticello, has been
quietly collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations for the primary purpose of helping students pay for college.

But the foundation, which enjoys tax-exempt status, has yet to award its first scholarship after six years in existence.

Until this year, the operations of the Frontier Foundation operated under the public radar. People in Monticello's Twin Lakes High School, which keeps a file of scholarship resources from 55 local organizations, had not heard of it.

Information about Frontier Foundation emerged in the limelight earlier this year, triggered by a 2007 federal law that required companies to report, for the first time, contributions made in honor of members of Congress.

USA Today went through the documents and compiled a list of who received the most in honorary donations in 2008.

Buyer was 13th on the list with $192,225. Two of those donations, totaling $35,000, went to the Frontier Foundation.

Frontier Foundation's donations over the years have come primarily from organizations with stakes in legislation moving through committees on which Buyer sits.

Those include the pharmaceutical, health insurance and tobacco industries -- which have a stake in bills that go through the House Subcommittee on Health -- and the telecommunications industry. Bills affecting the latter go through the House Subcommittee on Communications, telecommunications and the Internet.

Attempts to reach Buyer for comment were unsuccessful. His press secretary referred questions to Frontier Foundation and said there was no connection between Buyer and the foundation.

"It's not Congressman Buyer's foundation," press secretary Anjulen Anderson said.

Buyer has several indirect connections, however. The foundation shares an office with his district office in Monticello, or at least did as of June 8, 2009, when it filed its most recent IRS Form 990 tax report. The Form 990 is an annual report certain federally tax-exempt organizations must file.

That report listed Buyer's daughter, Colleen Buyer, as president, and his finance director, Stephanie Mattix, as secretary-treasurer.

I took a look at the IRS Form 990s available at GuideStar.org, and found some more interesting information. In 2008, the Frontier Foundation, Inc., took in $117,633 and spent $63,711. Of the money spent, $55,827 is listed as 'Disbursement's for charitable purposes'. Of that, $16,411 went for salaries (not bad), $7,114 for fundraising expense, $52 for postage, $3,822 for meals, and a whopping $22,002 for travel for fundraising. Now $600 was spent on some awards, but no scholarships.

Back to David Smith's report:

In July 2004, Frontier Foundation Inc. sent out a letter, from Buyer's office, soliciting donations of $25,000 for each foursome at an Aug. 31, 2004, outing at Fenway Golf Club in Scarsdale, N.Y. Buyer's name was listed at the top as "honorary chairman." His daughter, Colleen, was listed as a board member.

So, who knows if the 2008 expenses were for a golf outing. But, it is outrageous that a slush fund for travel and food expenses can continue to masquerade as a charity to support Indiana scholars. We need to overhaul our campaign finance laws and plug the loopholes that allow these obvious frauds from being perpetrated to buy votes in Congress.