Mark Wayne Mullin Committee Assignments In Congress

Top Contributors, 2017 - 2018

ContributorTotalIndividualsPACs
Blue Cross/Blue Shield$10,500$0$10,500
Pelco Structural$10,400$10,400$0
Chickasaw Nation$10,100$10,100$0
Devon Energy$10,000$0$10,000
Urologic Specialists of Ok$9,500$9,500$0

Top Industries, 2017 - 2018

IndustryTotalIndividualsPACs
Oil & Gas$94,700$8,700$86,000
Health Professionals$65,500$15,500$50,000
Casinos/Gambling$51,450$47,450$4,000
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products$35,500$0$35,500
Electric Utilities$34,500$0$34,500

Total Raised vs. Average Raised

{:chart=>{:showvalues=>0, :numberprefix=>"$", :formatnumberscale=>1, :showborder=>0, :bgcolor=>"ffffff", :divlinedashed=>1, :showCanvasBorder=>0, :plotGradientColor=>"", :showplotborder=>0, :showAlternateHGridColor=>0, :legendBorderColor=>"ffffff", :legendShadow=>0}, :categories=>[{:category=>[{:label=>"12"}, {:label=>"14"}, {:label=>"16"}, {:label=>"18"}]}], :dataset=>[{:color=>"#3d71b7", :seriesname=>"Total Raised by Markwayne Mullin - Campaign Committee", :data=>[{:value=>1672418.18}, {:value=>1094795.15}, {:value=>1506085.8199999998}, {:value=>720188.41}]}, {:seriesname=>"Average Raised by House Members - Campaign Committee", :renderAs=>"line", :data=>[{:value=>1733862}, {:value=>1693059}, {:value=>1734164}, {:value=>854235}]}]}

NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 2017 - 2018 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released electronically on 03/10/18 for Fundraising totals, Source of Funds and Total Raised vs Average, and on 02/20/18 for Top Contributors and Industries.  ("Help! The numbers don't add up...")

WHY DON'T THE NUMBERS ADD UP?

Sometimes it's hard to make apple-to-apple comparisons across some of the pages in a candidate's profile. Here's why:

Summary numbers - specifically "Total Raised and Spent" and "PAC/Individual Split" - are based on summary reports filed by the candidates with the Federal Election Commission. All other numbers in these profiles ("Quality of Disclosure," "Geography" and "Special Interests") are derived from detailed FEC reports that itemize all contributions of $200 or more.

There is also a time lag in posting the information. While summary numbers are reported almost immediately by the FEC -- and listed quickly on OpenSecrets -- processing and analyzing the detailed records takes much longer. For that reason, summary numbers are usually higher (and more current) than the numbers based on detailed records.

HOW CURRENT ARE THESE FIGURES?

The figures in these profiles are taken from databases uploaded by the FEC to the internet on the first day of every month. Those databases are only as current as the FEC has been able to compile by that date (see the note above about lag times for data entry).

The Center updates figures for "Total Raised and Spent" and for "PAC/Individual Split" a few days after the first of the month. The remaining figures - based on detailed contribution data - is updated by the Center after the 20th of every month. This gives us time to analyze the contributions and categorize them by industry and interest group.

The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Why (and How) We Use Donors' Employer/Occupation Information

The organizations listed as "Top Contributors" reached this list for one of two reasons: either they gave through a political action committee sponsored by the organization, or individuals connected with the organization contributed directly to the candidate.

Under federal law, all contributions over $200 must be itemized and the donor's occupation and employer must be requested and disclosed, if provided. The Center uses that employer/occupation information to identify the donor's economic interest. We do this in two ways:

  • First, we apply a code to the contribution, identifying the industry. Totals for industries (and larger economic sectors) can be seen in each candidate and race profile, and in the Industry Profile section of the OpenSecrets website.
  • Second, we standardize the name of the donor's employer. If enough contributions came in from people connected with that same employer, the organization's name winds up on the Top Contributor list.

Of course, it is impossible to know either the economic interest that made each individual contribution possible or the motivation for each individual giver. However, the patterns of contributions provide critical information for voters, researchers and others. That is why Congress mandated that candidates and political parties request employer information from contributors and publicly report it when the contributor provides it.

In some cases, a cluster of contributions from the same organization may indicate a concerted effort by that organization to "bundle" contributions to the candidate. In other cases—both with private companies and with government agencies, non-profits and educational institutions—the reason for the contributions may be completely unrelated to the organization.

Showing these clusters of contributions from people associated with particular organizations provides a valuable—and unique—way of understanding where a candidate is getting his or her financial support. Knowing those groups is also useful after the election, as issues come before Congress and the administration that may affect those organizations and their industries.

METHODOLOGY

The figures profiled here include money from two sources: These contributors were either the sponsors of a PAC that gave to the politician, or they were listed as an individual donor's employer. Donors who give more than $200 to any federal candidate, PAC or party committee must list their occupation and employer. Based on that information, the donor is given an economic code. These totals are conservative, as not all of the individual contributions have yet been classified by the Center.

In cases where two or more people from the same family contributed, the income-earner's occupation/employer is assigned to all non-wage earning family members. If, for instance, Henry Jones lists his employer as First National Bank, his wife Matilda lists "Homemaker" and 12-year old Tammy shows up as "Student," the Center would identify all their contributions as being related to the "First National Bank" since that's the source of the family's income.

Although individual contributions are generally categorized based on the donor's occupation/employer, in some cases individuals may be classified instead as ideological donors. A contribution to a candidate may be given an ideological code, rather than an economic code, if the contributor gives to an ideological political action committee AND the candidate has received money from PACs representing that same ideological interest.

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: info[at]crp.org

Mr. McCarthy, clad in a ratty Stanford T-shirt and leaning against a boxing bag to catch his breath, wondered aloud: “At once? Or two sets of 15?”

“Or three sets of 10,” Mr. Mullin shouted back. “I don’t care. Just get it done.”

In an era of increasing gridlock and vitriol between the two parties, the House gym has emerged as one of the few places where members can set politics aside and achieve some sweat-infused bipartisanship. The across-the-aisle friendships, solidified over sets of box jumps, are already paying dividends. Ms. Gabbard and Mr. Schock — two of the fittest members of the group — co-founded the Congressional Future Caucus, a group intended to bring lawmakers together to work toward long-term solutions on issues that affect the next generation. The caucus, Ms. Gabbard said, “was really born from the conversations we had in the gym early in the morning, talking about the things we were finding frustrating.”

The two have also introduced a bipartisan immigration bill that would permanently extend a visa program for immigrant investors.

Mr. Rokita said he is more likely to look to his gym buddies on areas where they can find common ground: “None of what we’re working on is going to solve the national debt, but we can work around the edges,” he said. Ms. Gabbard agreed, explaining, “Spending that hour in the morning, you have fun, you have a good time, and you get to know people in a way you otherwise wouldn’t.”

Mr. Rokita praised Ms. Gabbard, a member of the Hawaii Army National Guard who has served two tours of duty in the Middle East, as “just a cool lady,” and said that he’s also enjoyed working out with a member of the dynastic Kennedy clan.

“He’ll smirk and deny this, but it’s historic,” Mr. Rokita said.

The regimen itself, however, is politics free. “It’s just a rule that’s unsaid: No one ever, ever brings up politics,” Mr. Mullin said. “It’s just people who have something in common. They want to live healthier.”

Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the Republican party’s 2012 vice-presidential nominee, previously garnered attention for leading members in an intense P90X workout, which includes a rigorous mix of jumping, martial arts, strength training, cardio and yoga.

But after watching Mr. Mullin do his own workout, several of the P90X aficionados slowly defected, preferring the spontaneity and originality of Mr. Mullin’s routine, which he makes up each time, pulling from his years as a high school and college wrestler, and later a professional fighter.

Now, the P90X guys share space with Mr. Mullin’s crew, though the P90X group still controls the stereo. “I do hear that P90X soundtrack getting louder and louder every day,” Mr. Rokita said.

Mr. Mullin’s results have been impressive. Mr. Smith has already met his original goal, losing just over 60 pounds since January. “It’s the Markwayne Mullin diet,” he said. “Fish, fruits and vegetables.”

Mr. McCarthy joked that he also adheres to the diet: “I eat all that, then I add ice cream and other things, too,” he said.

Others presented as slightly more fit. Mr. Schock, who previously did P90X with Mr. Ryan and once graced the cover of Men’s Health shirtless with a rippling six-pack, arrived Thursday drinking a GNC workout mixture, and took off his T-shirt to reveal a skintight gray tank top that hugged his famous abs.

“Oh, now the muscles come out,” Mr. Mullin teased. “Hot flash!” He briefly mock fanned himself, but then got down to business.

Mr. Mullin likes to begin every morning with a warm-up run. “We try to run as hard as you can for four minutes,” he said.

Up next: What he calls “three-minute abs.” “You absolutely kill your abs in three minutes,” said Mr. Mullin, who has nine different abdominal workouts he cycles through. “You leave them on the floor.”

The workout is painful — not so much in the moment as hours later, when muscles “you haven’t worked in a while or didn’t quite know existed,” as Ms. Gabbard put it, become excruciatingly sore. (Full disclosure: This reporter did about 20 minutes of the hourlong workout, and found herself unable to move several parts of her body for the next two days.)

“There were a couple of times in the beginning where I was like, ‘Oh, my God, you came back the next day?’ ” Mr. Rokita recalled. “I could not move, literally.”

At one point Thursday morning, Mr. Rokita and Mr. Smith, who had been slowing down with their medicine ball situps, dissolved into laughter as Mr. Rokita collapsed onto his back on the mat. Mr. Mullin marched over to yell a few words of encouragement, and they let out a collective groan.

“Markwayne says starting anything is easy,” Mr. Smith said, during a brief break. “It’s the sticking with it that’s tough.”

Then, he headed off to the next set of exercises. After all, Mr. Mullin was waiting.

Continue reading the main story

0 Thoughts to “Mark Wayne Mullin Committee Assignments In Congress

Leave a comment

L'indirizzo email non verrà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *