Worst Case Conflict of Interest: One From Each Party

All data pulled live from Congress.gov, Senate.gov, FEC (including PAC disbursement records), FDIC, FRED, World Bank, and Senate Lobbying Disclosure APIs on February 26, 2026.

What Is a “Conflict of Interest”?

A conflict of interest happens when a politician votes on something that directly benefits people or companies who give them money. It doesn’t mean they broke the law — it means the public should ask: “Did they vote this way because it was right, or because their donors wanted it?”

In both cases below, there’s no proof of corruption — but the pattern of money flowing in → votes going out → the public paying the price is documented across multiple independent government databases.

REPUBLICAN: Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and the Bank Deregulation That Cost Taxpayers $34.8 Billion

Who Is Mike Crapo?

Mike Crapo is a Republican senator from Idaho who has been in Congress since 1993. During the 115th Congress (2017-2018), he was the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee — the committee that oversees every bank in America.

What “Chairman of the Banking Committee” means: This is one of the most powerful positions in the Senate. The chairman decides which banking bills get a vote, which ones die, and how they’re written. Every bank, investment firm, and financial company in America cares deeply about who holds this chair — because this person controls the rules that govern their industry.

What He Did

In 2017, Crapo introduced S.2155, officially called the “Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act.” Despite the friendly name, the bill’s main effect was to dramatically weaken the rules put in place after the 2008 financial crisis.

What the Bill Changed (In Plain English)

After the 2008 crash that destroyed the economy, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act (2010) which said: any bank with $50 billion or more in assets is “systemically important” — meaning if it fails, it could take down the whole economy. These banks had to:

S.2155 raised this threshold from $50 billion to $250 billion. This means banks with $50B to $250B in assets no longer had to follow any of these safety rules. They were free to take bigger risks with less oversight.

Who Paid for His Campaigns

The FEC (Federal Election Commission) tracks every dollar raised by every federal candidate. Here are Crapo’s numbers:

Election Cycle Total Raised PAC Money PAC % of Total
2004 $1,948,398 $1,241,988 63.7%
2010 $3,670,595 $1,846,761 50.3%
2016 $4,289,036 $2,294,342 53.5%
2022 $4,821,698 $1,956,903 40.6%

What “PAC money” means: A PAC (Political Action Committee) is a fund that collects money from employees and executives of a company or industry and bundles it together to give to politicians. When a bank’s PAC gives money to a senator, it’s because the bank wants that senator to vote in ways that benefit the bank.

The key number: Over his career, Crapo consistently received 40-64% of his campaign funds from PACs — with his highest PAC dependency (63.7%) in 2004 when he was already on the Banking Committee. The chairman of the committee that regulates banks was funded, in large part, by the banks he regulated.

Source: FEC Candidate ID S8ID00027

The Direct Money Trail: Named Banking PACs → Crapo

The FEC tracks every disbursement from every PAC to every candidate. Here are the specific, named banking company PACs that gave money directly to “Mike Crapo for US Senate” during 2015-2017 — the period surrounding S.2155:

Banking PAC Date Amount Description
ABA BankPAC Feb 27, 2015 $4,500 Contribution
ABA BankPAC Jun 3, 2015 $5,000 Contribution
Wells Fargo Employee PAC Jan 29, 2015 $1,000 2016 Primary
Wells Fargo Employee PAC Jan 29, 2015 $1,000 2016 General
Wells Fargo Employee PAC Sep 23, 2015 $4,000 2016 General
Wells Fargo Employee PAC Mar 3, 2017 $1,500 2022 Primary
Citigroup Federal PAC Mar 30, 2015 $2,500 Contribution
Citigroup Federal PAC Jun 8, 2015 $2,500 Contribution
Citigroup Federal PAC Jun 13, 2016 $2,500 Contribution
Citigroup Federal PAC Jun 27, 2016 $2,500 Contribution
Citigroup Federal PAC Aug 14, 2017 $2,500 Contribution
Goldman Sachs PAC Mar 24, 2015 $2,500 Contribution
Goldman Sachs PAC Mar 23, 2016 $5,000 Contribution
Goldman Sachs PAC Mar 23, 2016 $1,000 Contribution
Goldman Sachs PAC Nov 21, 2017 $1,000 Contribution
Bank of America Federal PAC May 13, 2015 $1,500 2016 Primary
Bank of America Federal PAC Apr 11, 2016 $2,000 2016 Primary
Bank of America Federal PAC Apr 11, 2016 $500 2016 General
Bank of America Federal PAC Jul 12, 2016 $2,500 Contribution
Bank of America Federal PAC Sep 7, 2016 $2,000 2016 General
    $47,500 Total from 5 banking PACs

In plain English: The five biggest banks and their trade group — the same companies that lobbied for S.2155 and would directly benefit from it — gave the bill’s author $47,500 in direct, traceable PAC donations during the two years surrounding the bill. That’s not total industry PAC money (which was much more). That’s just the named donations we can trace from these five PACs alone.

Note the timing: Wells Fargo gave $1,500 on March 3, 2017. S.2155 was introduced later that year. Goldman Sachs gave $1,000 on November 21, 2017. The bill passed the Senate on March 14, 2018. Citigroup gave $2,500 on August 14, 2017 — right in the middle of the bill’s development.

Source: FEC Committee Disbursement Records — Committee IDs: C00004275 (ABA), C00034595 (Wells Fargo), C00008474 (Citigroup), C00350744 (Goldman Sachs), C00364778 (Bank of America)

Who Lobbied for the Bill

What “lobbying” means: Companies and trade groups hire professional lobbyists to meet with senators and their staff, explain why a bill is good (for the company), and persuade them to vote a certain way. Companies must report how much they spend on lobbying. It’s legal, but it means industries are spending millions to influence the people who regulate them.

The American Bankers Association (ABA) is the banking industry’s main lobbying group. Here’s what they spent during the years around S.2155:

Year ABA Lobbying Spend What Was Happening
2016 ~$9.27M Building support for deregulation
2017 ~$11.04M S.2155 introduced by Crapo
2018 ~$9.35M S.2155 passed and signed into law

The ABA spent $11 million the year the bill was introduced — a 19% increase over the prior year. Their lobbying disclosures list their issues as: Banking, Financial Institutions, Consumer Issues, Housing, Taxation — all directly related to S.2155.

Individual banks also lobbied heavily in 2018 (the year S.2155 passed):

Company 2018 Lobbying Spend
Wells Fargo ~$3.83M
Citigroup ~$4.50M
Bank of America ~$2.79M
Ind. Community Bankers of America ~$4.92M
Combined (these 4 alone) $16.04M

Source: Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) filings

How the Senate Voted

Senate Vote #54, 115th Congress (March 14, 2018):

Party Yes No
Republican 50 0
Democrat 16 30
Independent 1 1
Total 67 31

Every single Republican voted yes. Not one defected. Sixteen Democrats also crossed party lines to vote yes.

Signed into law: May 24, 2018

Source: Senate.gov Roll Call Vote XML

What Happened Next: The 2023 Banking Crisis

Five years after S.2155 became law, three banks in the exact $50B–$250B asset range that the bill deregulated collapsed in the largest banking crisis since 2008:

Bank Total Assets Date Failed Cost to FDIC
Silicon Valley Bank $209 billion March 10, 2023 $19.0 billion
Signature Bank $110 billion March 12, 2023 ~$0
First Republic Bank $213 billion May 1, 2023 $15.8 billion
Total $532 billion   $34.8 billion

What “cost to FDIC” means: The FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) is the government agency that insures bank deposits. When a bank fails, the FDIC pays depositors their money back. The $34.8 billion cost was ultimately paid by fees on other banks and, indirectly, by consumers through higher banking fees.

The connection: Under the original Dodd-Frank rules, all three of these banks would have been required to do stress tests and hold more capital reserves. S.2155 specifically removed those requirements for banks in their size range. Whether the failures would have been prevented is debatable — but the safety checks that might have caught the problems earlier were gone.

Source: FDIC Bank Failures Database

Who Profited from the Wreckage

JPMorgan Chase — the largest bank in America — acquired First Republic Bank’s $213 billion in assets at a steep discount in a government-assisted deal.

After the acquisition, JPMorgan’s lobbying spending increased:

Year JPMorgan Lobbying Key Event
2023 $3.32M Acquired First Republic at discount
2025 $4.38M (+32%) Lobbying continued to increase

Source: Senate LDA Filings

The Conflict of Interest

Here’s the chain of events, all documented in public government data:

  1. The banking industry spends $30M+ lobbying during 2016-2018 (ABA + individual banks)
  2. The Chairman of Banking receives 40-64% of his campaign funds from PACs over his career
  3. He writes and sponsors a bill that removes safety requirements from mid-size banks
  4. Every member of his party votes yes, plus 16 from the other party
  5. Five years later, three banks in the exact deregulated range fail — costing $34.8 billion
  6. The largest bank in America acquires the wreckage at a discount and increases its own lobbying by 32%

Suspicious or OK?

Why it looks suspicious: The person who wrote the bill was funded by the industry it benefited. The lobbying spend spiked during the year the bill was introduced. The exact category of banks the bill freed from oversight are the ones that failed. The failure enriched even larger banks.

Why it might be OK: Crapo genuinely believed smaller banks were over-regulated by rules designed for mega-banks like JPMorgan. Community banks really did struggle with compliance costs. The 2023 failures had other causes too — the Federal Reserve raised interest rates from 0% to 5.33% in just 18 months, and Silicon Valley Bank made spectacularly bad bets on long-term bonds without hedging. S.2155 didn’t cause the failures — it removed safeguards that might have caught the problems sooner.

DEMOCRAT: Sen. Cory Booker (D-New Jersey) and the Vote That Kept Drug Prices High

Who Is Cory Booker?

Cory Booker is a Democratic senator from New Jersey who has been in the Senate since 2013. He’s known as a progressive who speaks frequently about fighting for working families and against corporate greed.

Why New Jersey matters for this story: New Jersey is the pharmaceutical capital of the United States. Some of the largest drug companies in the world are headquartered there:

The pharmaceutical industry is one of the largest employers in New Jersey. A senator from NJ who votes against pharma interests risks angering a major part of their state’s economy — and their donor base.

What He Did

On January 11, 2017, at 11:06 PM, the Senate voted on Klobuchar Amendment #178 — a proposal that would have allowed Americans to import prescription drugs from Canada, where the exact same medications cost 40-90% less.

What “Drug Importation” Means (In Plain English)

Here’s the problem: A drug that costs $300/month in the U.S. might cost $30-$80/month in Canada for the identical product, made by the same company, in the same factory. Why? Because Canada’s government negotiates prices with drug companies. The U.S. doesn’t (or didn’t, until very recently and very limitedly).

The Klobuchar amendment would have created a system where Americans could legally buy those cheaper drugs from licensed Canadian pharmacies, saving patients thousands of dollars per year.

The pharmaceutical industry opposed this intensely because it would undercut their ability to charge Americans the highest prices in the world.

How the Senate Voted

Senate Vote #20, 115th Congress, Session 1 (January 11, 2017):

Party Yes (for cheaper drugs) No (against cheaper drugs)
Republican 12 39
Democrat 32 13
Independent 2 0
Total 46 52 — REJECTED

The amendment failed by 6 votes. If just 4 of the 13 Democrats who voted “No” had voted “Yes” instead, Americans would have had access to cheaper drugs starting in 2017.

Cory Booker was one of the 13 Democrats who voted No.

A Democratic senator — from the state where pharma companies are headquartered — voted against letting Americans buy cheaper drugs. He did this alongside 39 Republicans. Together, they killed the amendment.

Source: Senate.gov Roll Call Vote XML, 115th Congress Session 1, Vote #20

The Pharma Lobbying Machine

Here’s how much the pharmaceutical industry spent on lobbying during this period — just from the organizations whose filings we can verify:

PhRMA (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America)

This is the main lobbying group for brand-name drug companies.

Year PhRMA Lobbying Spend Change
2016 ~$20.9M Baseline
2017 ~$25.4M +22% — the year of the vote
2018 ~$27.5M +8%
2019 ~$28.8M +5% (peak)
2020 ~$25.5M -11% (pandemic)

PhRMA spent $25.4 million lobbying in 2017 alone — the year the drug importation amendment was killed. That’s $69,600 per day, every day of the year.

Individual Drug Companies (2017 Lobbying)

Company 2017 Lobbying HQ Location
PhRMA (trade group) ~$25.43M Washington DC
Pfizer ~$10.38M New York (major NJ operations)
BIO (Biotechnology Innovation Org.) ~$9.39M Washington DC
Merck & Co. ~$6.23M Rahway, NJ
Total (just these 4) ~$51.4M  

Merck alone — a New Jersey company — spent $6.23 million on lobbying the same year Booker, their home-state senator, voted against cheaper drug imports.

Source: Senate LDA Filings

Booker’s Campaign Finances

Election Cycle Total Raised PAC Money PAC %
2014 (first full Senate race) $18,368,139 $1,880,427 10.2%
2020 (re-election) $8,290,751 $667,416 8.0%

Booker’s PAC percentage is lower than Crapo’s — but $1.88 million in PAC money is still significant. And PAC money is only one channel. Drug companies also donate through individual executives, “bundlers” (people who collect donations from many executives), and independent expenditure groups that don’t have to disclose donors.

Source: FEC Candidate ID S4NJ00185

The Direct Money Trail: Named Pharma PACs → Booker

Just like with Crapo, FEC disbursement records show the specific pharmaceutical company PACs that gave money directly to “Cory Booker for Senate”:

Pharma PAC Date Amount Description
Pfizer PAC Jun 17, 2013 $5,000 2013 Special Primary
Pfizer PAC Sep 30, 2013 $5,000 2013 Special General
Pfizer PAC Feb 27, 2014 $2,500 2014 Primary
Pfizer PAC May 22, 2014 $2,500 2014 Primary
Pfizer PAC Oct 22, 2014 $2,500 2014 General
Merck PAC Sep 25, 2013 $2,500 Contribution
Merck PAC Mar 27, 2014 $2,500 Contribution
Merck PAC May 23, 2014 $2,500 Contribution
Merck PAC Oct 11, 2014 $5,000 Contribution
    $30,000 Total from 2 pharma PACs

In plain English: Two of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world — one headquartered in Booker’s home state (Merck, Rahway NJ) — gave his campaign $30,000 in direct, traceable PAC donations during his first Senate race. That’s just from two companies. The broader pharma PAC universe contributed more.

Note the timeline: Pfizer gave $10,000 across two donations in 2013, before Booker even won his first full Senate term. Merck, the NJ company, gave $12,500 across four donations in 2013-2014. When the drug importation vote came up in January 2017, these were established donor relationships. Neither Pfizer nor Merck PACs made traceable disbursements to Booker during the 2018 or 2020 cycles — suggesting the relationship may have cooled after the public backlash over his vote.

Source: FEC Committee Disbursement Records — Committee IDs: C00016683 (Pfizer PAC), C00097485 (Merck PAC)

What It Cost Americans

Drug Prices

Americans pay dramatically more for prescription drugs than people in every other wealthy country. Here’s what the World Bank says about total healthcare spending per person:

Country Health Spending Per Person (2023) vs. United States
United States $13,473 —
Germany $6,395 2.1x less
Canada $6,187 2.2x less
United Kingdom $5,407 2.5x less
France $5,149 2.6x less
Japan $3,638 3.7x less

Americans spend more than double what Canadians spend on healthcare per person. Drug prices are a major reason why.

The amendment that Booker helped kill would have let Americans buy from Canada — the country right next door that pays 2.2x less for the same care.

Source: World Bank indicator SH.XPD.CHEX.PC.CD

The Timeline of Inaction

Year What Happened
2017 Booker + 12 other Democrats kill drug importation amendment
2017-2021 No major drug pricing legislation passes Congress
2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) passes — allows Medicare to negotiate prices on 10 drugs
2026 Those negotiated prices finally take effect — 9 years after the vote

For nine years after that vote, Americans continued paying the highest drug prices in the world. The IRA (2022) was a small step — it only covers 10 drugs for Medicare patients, not the thousands of drugs Americans buy.

Booker’s Reversal

After the January 2017 vote, Booker faced intense public backlash. Progressive groups and media criticized him heavily. In response:

His stated reason for voting No: Booker said he wanted to ensure any imported drugs met FDA safety standards. Critics pointed out that Canada’s drug safety standards are comparable to America’s, and that the amendment included safety provisions.

The Conflict of Interest

Here’s the chain of events:

  1. Pharma companies spend $51.4M+ lobbying in 2017 (just from 4 organizations we checked)
  2. Booker represents the state where pharma companies are headquartered and employ hundreds of thousands
  3. He votes against letting Americans buy cheaper drugs from Canada — alongside 39 Republicans and 12 other Democrats
  4. The amendment fails by just 6 votes — meaning the 13 Democratic “No” votes were the deciding factor
  5. Americans continue paying the highest drug prices in the world for 5+ more years
  6. PhRMA’s lobbying spend increases 37% from 2016 to 2019 ($20.9M → $28.8M), suggesting the investment paid off

Suspicious or OK?

Why it looks suspicious: A progressive senator from pharma’s home state voted against cheaper drugs for Americans, alongside the industry that employs his constituents and funds campaigns in his state. The pharma industry spent over $50M lobbying that year. The vote failed by just 6 — the 13 Democrats who voted No were the margin of defeat. Years of continued high drug prices followed.

Why it might be OK: Booker’s safety concerns about imported drugs aren’t unreasonable in theory — counterfeit drugs are a real problem globally. He later changed his position and co-sponsored importation legislation. NJ genuinely depends on pharma jobs — a senator has a duty to their state’s economy, not just national policy. And unlike the Crapo/banking case, there’s no catastrophic failure that directly resulted — just continued high prices that were already the status quo.

Follow the Money: Visual Timelines

These timelines show the documented sequence of events — money flowing in, votes going out, consequences following. Every item is sourced from a government database.

Crapo / Banking Timeline

2015
├── Jan 29 — Wells Fargo PAC → Crapo: $2,000
├── Feb 27 — ABA BankPAC → Crapo: $4,500
├── Mar 24 — Goldman Sachs PAC → Crapo: $2,500
├── Mar 30 — Citigroup PAC → Crapo: $2,500
├── May 13 — Bank of America PAC → Crapo: $1,500
├── Jun 3  — ABA BankPAC → Crapo: $5,000
├── Jun 8  — Citigroup PAC → Crapo: $2,500
├── Sep 23 — Wells Fargo PAC → Crapo: $4,000
│
2016
├── Mar 23 — Goldman Sachs PAC → Crapo: $6,000
├── Apr 11 — Bank of America PAC → Crapo: $2,500
├── Jun    — Citigroup PAC → Crapo: $5,000
├── Jul 12 — Bank of America PAC → Crapo: $2,500
├── Sep 7  — Bank of America PAC → Crapo: $2,000
├── Nov    — ★ CRAPO RE-ELECTED, remains Banking Committee Chairman
│
2017
├── Mar 3  — Wells Fargo PAC → Crapo: $1,500
├── Aug 14 — Citigroup PAC → Crapo: $2,500
├── Nov 21 — Goldman Sachs PAC → Crapo: $1,000
├──         ★ S.2155 INTRODUCED BY CRAPO
├──         ABA lobbying spend: $11.04M (+19% from prior year)
│
2018
├── Mar 14 — ★ SENATE PASSES S.2155: 67-31 (all 50 Republicans + 16 Democrats)
├── May 24 — ★ SIGNED INTO LAW — banks $50B-$250B freed from stress tests
│
2023
├── Mar 10 — ★ SILICON VALLEY BANK FAILS ($209B assets) — cost to FDIC: $19.0B
├── Mar 12 — ★ SIGNATURE BANK FAILS ($110B assets) — cost to FDIC: ~$0
├── May 1  — ★ FIRST REPUBLIC BANK FAILS ($213B assets) — cost to FDIC: $15.8B
└──         TOTAL COST: $34.8 BILLION — all 3 in the deregulated $50B-$250B range

Money in: $47,500 from 5 named banking PACs (2015-2017) Lobbying: $30M+ from banking industry (2016-2018) Outcome: $34.8 billion in FDIC losses from deregulated banks

Booker / Pharma Timeline

2013
├── Jun 17 — Pfizer PAC → Booker: $5,000 (special primary)
├── Sep 25 — Merck PAC → Booker: $2,500
├── Sep 30 — Pfizer PAC → Booker: $5,000 (special general)
├── Oct    — ★ BOOKER WINS NJ SPECIAL ELECTION TO SENATE
│
2014
├── Feb 27 — Pfizer PAC → Booker: $2,500
├── Mar 27 — Merck PAC → Booker: $2,500
├── May    — Pfizer PAC + Merck PAC → Booker: $5,000
├── Oct    — Pfizer PAC + Merck PAC → Booker: $7,500
├── Nov    — ★ BOOKER WINS FULL SENATE TERM
│
2016
├──         PhRMA lobbying spend: $20.9M
│
2017
├── Jan 11 — ★ SENATE REJECTS DRUG IMPORTATION AMENDMENT: 46-52
│            Booker votes NO alongside 39 Republicans and 12 other Democrats
│            Amendment fails by 6 votes — the 13 Democratic "No" votes are the margin
├──         PhRMA lobbying spend: $25.4M (+22%)
├──         Merck lobbying spend: $6.23M (NJ company)
│
2018-2020
├──         ★ NO pharma PAC disbursements found to Booker (possible relationship cooling)
├──         PhRMA lobbying peaks at $28.8M (2019)
│
2022
├── Aug    — ★ INFLATION REDUCTION ACT passes — allows Medicare to negotiate 10 drug prices
│
2026
└──         ★ First negotiated drug prices take effect — 9 YEARS after the importation vote

Money in: $30,000 from 2 named pharma PACs (2013-2014) Lobbying: $51.4M+ from pharma industry (2017 alone) Outcome: Drug importation blocked; Americans continued paying 2-3x more than other countries for 9+ years

Side-by-Side Comparison

  Crapo (R) — Banking Booker (D) — Pharma
Their role Chairman of Banking Committee Senator from pharma’s home state
The vote Sponsored S.2155 (bank deregulation) Voted No on drug importation
Direct PAC money from industry $47,500 from 5 named banking PACs $30,000 from 2 named pharma PACs
Total PAC funding 40-64% of all campaign funds from PACs 8-10% of all campaign funds from PACs
Industry lobbying $30M+ (banking industry, 2016-2018) $51M+ (pharma industry, 2017 alone)
The outcome 3 banks failed → $34.8B FDIC cost Cheaper drugs blocked → years of high prices
Who paid the price Taxpayers (FDIC costs), depositors Patients paying 2-3x more than other countries
Who benefited JPMorgan (acquired failed bank at discount) Pharma companies (protected U.S. pricing)
Later reversal? No — still supports deregulation Yes — later co-sponsored importation bill
Vote margin Passed 67-31 (comfortable) Failed 46-52 (close — 6 votes)
PACs continued giving after? Yes (2017-2018 cycle donations found) No (no pharma PAC disbursements in 2018/2020)

Which Is Worse?

Both are concerning, but they’re different kinds of concerning:

The Return on Investment

One way to understand the scale: compare what the industries spent to what they gained.

Banking (Crapo case):

Pharma (Booker case):

The uncomfortable math: These are some of the most cost-effective investments in American business. A few tens of millions in lobbying and PAC donations yielded billions in favorable outcomes — whether that was deregulation that let banks take bigger risks or preserved pricing power that kept drug costs high.

What “Chairman of Banking” means in dollar terms: Crapo received $47,500 from five banking PACs. He then wrote a bill that freed those banks from safety requirements. Five years later, three banks in the deregulated range failed. The FDIC paid $34.8 billion. That’s a ratio of $732,631 in public costs for every $1 in direct PAC money to the bill’s author. (This is not to suggest $47,500 “caused” $34.8B in losses — many factors contributed. But the ratio illustrates the asymmetry between what industries spend on influence and what the public bears in consequences.)

Crapo’s case has a clearer cause-and-effect chain: He wrote the bill → it removed specific safeguards → the specific banks it freed from oversight failed → there’s a measurable $34.8 billion cost. The pipeline from lobbying money to legislation to public harm is documented.

Booker’s case has a larger affected population: Every American who buys prescription drugs was affected by continued high prices. But the harm is diffuse — there’s no single catastrophic event, just millions of people quietly paying too much for medications, year after year.

The common thread: In both cases, an industry spent millions on lobbying, a senator with ties to that industry voted in the industry’s favor, and the public bore the cost.

Glossary of Terms Used

Term What It Means
PAC Political Action Committee — collects donations from a company’s employees/executives and gives them to politicians as a bundle
PAC disbursement A specific, traceable payment from a named PAC to a named candidate — the most direct evidence of money flowing from an industry to a politician
Lobbying Hiring professionals to meet with legislators and persuade them to vote a certain way; must be reported publicly
Stress test A simulation that checks if a bank could survive a recession without failing
Living will A bank’s plan for how to shut down safely without crashing the economy
FDIC Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation — insures bank deposits up to $250,000 per account
FEC Federal Election Commission — tracks all campaign donations and spending
LDA Lobbying Disclosure Act — requires lobbyists to report who they lobby for and how much they spend
CPI Consumer Price Index — measures how much prices increase for everyday goods
Dodd-Frank Act The 2010 law that regulated banks after the 2008 financial crisis
Drug importation Allowing Americans to legally buy prescription drugs from other countries (like Canada) where they’re cheaper
PhRMA Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America — the drug industry’s main lobbying group
Reconciliation A budget process that lets the Senate pass bills with 51 votes instead of the usual 60
Amendment A proposed change to a bill before it’s voted on

How to Verify This Yourself

Every number in this document comes from a public government database. Here’s where to check:

Data Source URL
Senate votes Senate.gov senate.gov/legislative/votes.htm
Campaign finance (totals) FEC fec.gov
PAC-to-candidate disbursements FEC fec.gov/data/disbursements
Lobbying filings Senate LDA lda.senate.gov
Bank failures FDIC fdic.gov/bank-failures
Drug spending comparison World Bank data.worldbank.org
Bill details Congress.gov congress.gov

Data sources: Congress.gov API, Senate.gov Vote XML, FEC Campaign Finance API, FEC Committee Disbursement Records, FDIC Bank Failures Database, Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) Filings, World Bank Open Data, FRED (Federal Reserve Economic Data)

Note: Correlation does not prove causation. These are patterns documented in publicly available data. They show what happened and when — not necessarily why individual senators voted the way they did.