WASHINGTON – For every campaign contribution from a major arms manufacturer to a Republican candidate or group, one of comparable size to a Democrat is not far behind.
Defense-sector insiders have said for months that they would prefer Republicans to control the House, which they have for several years, and the Senate, which most prominent analysts say likely will happen after the Nov. 4 midterm elections.
Their thinking is that GOP leaders would move annual Pentagon policy and spending bills much earlier than has Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in recent years. Congress might actually send the president full-year defense appropriations bills under full GOP control, something Pentagon and industry officials want.
So campaign donation figures likely show a strong preference from defense firms for Republican incumbents and candidates, as well as for that parties' congressional campaign committees, right?
Not exactly.
Lockheed Martin, which was ranked first on Defense News' 2014 Top 100 list, has donated more of its more than $3.5 million of donations during the 2014 midterm cycle to Republican congressional candidates, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. The defense behemoth has given the most to three Texas GOP lawmakers: $97,200 to Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn, $75,900 to House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Vice Chairman Mac Thornberry and $73,100 to House Appropriations Defense subcommittee Vice Chair Kay Granger.
Lockheed builds the F-35 fighter, a crucial program for the company, in the Lone Star State, and Thornberry is expected to take the HASC gavel in January.
House Appropriations Committee-Defense Subcommittee (HAC-D) Chair Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-N.J., is next at $42,350. He crafts the lower chamber's version of the Pentagon appropriations bill each year.
But a closer look at Lockheed's contributions reveals plenty of cash heading into Democratic campaign coffers. Scattered throughout a Center for Responsive Politics list of candidates receiving Lockheed donations are plenty of Democrats, who received from just over $16,000 to $8,000.
Lockheed has channeled $38,081 to the Republican National Committee, and $33,860 to the National Republican Congressional Committee. But it also has given $33,745 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and $32,994 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
Defense and commercial aviation giant Boeing also has given more of its $2.6 million in donations to Republican candidates. But, as with other defense firms, the funds going to Democratic incumbents often is strategically targeted.
For instance, it has donated the most ($43,000) in the 2014 cycle to the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Defense subcommittee, Democrat Dick Durbin of its home state, Illinois.
Republican lawmakers important to Boeing's commercial aviation business have received tens of thousands from the company. But also ranking among the top 20 of incumbents receiving Boeing donations are senior Democrats like Reid and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md.
Like Lockheed, Boeing has given comparable amounts to the parties' House and Senate campaign committees.
In spreading the wealth, defense firms are expressing their political savvy, analysts and insiders say.
"The defense industry knows that its contributions to candidates aren't going to drive the outcome of elections, so all it is really buying is goodwill," said Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute and an industry consultant. "The biggest contributions ... go to legislators likely to sit on defense authorizing and appropriating committees. Legislators who have accumulated enough seniority to reach leadership posts on those committees seldom get unseated in elections, as the tea party is learning to its chagrin. So they are the safest bet and offer the best potential return on investment."
Data compiled by the center for other major weapon makers like Raytheon and General Dynamics follow their larger competitors: More overall to GOP incumbents, targeted amounts to key Democrats, and nearly identical amounts to the parties' congressional campaign arms.
"An industry that is so dependent on government contracts can't afford to alienate either party in a closely divided Congress." said Viveca Novak, editorial director at the Center for Responsive Politics. "That said, other industries split their giving as well in the interest of not making enemies, even if they don't [depend] on government contracts to the same degree. Wall Street, for instance, has been fairly even-handed, giving slightly more to Democrats until the last two cycles." ■
Email: jbennett@defensenews.com.
