The ad opens with a match being struck and an announcer saying: “You know the old saying….fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Will Dave Loebsack fool you again?”

It then notes Loebsack support for ARRA, and asks whether he’ll support President Obama’s Americans Jobs Act. It then shows Loebsack’s phone number.

“What will Dave Loebsack do? Tell Dave Loebsack: don’t burn us again,” the announcer says.

Brian Fristch, political director for Loebsack’s campaign, said “Iowans are sick of these constant negative attacks.”

“If Republicans in Washington want to tell Iowans that increasing taxes on working class Iowa families is the position of their candidates, they should step up and say so, instead of once again hiding behind attack ads,” he said.

Fristch noted tax relief was the largest piece of ARRA, and said 99 percent of working Iowans received average tax relief of $1,115 due to the bill.

“Dave’s focus is, and always will be, fighting for an economy that actually works for Iowa families and businesses,” he said.

Taxpayers for Common Sense rolled out advertisements last week asserting that, even during these belt-tightening times, energy companies receive about $15 billion in annual tax breaks and subsidies. These fiscal policies are wasteful and indefensible, Taxpayers for Common Sense asserts, and they say many Americans, even ones living in oil and gas-producing states, do not support the handouts.

“Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals agree that these giveaways do not reduce our reliance on oil, lower gas prices, or promote innovation, Taxpayers for Common Sense President Ryan Alexander said. “They cost American families and taxpayers billions of dollars each year, they add to the debt and they show how a powerful industry gets special treatment in Washington.”

Meanwhile, a new Federal Election Commission data analysis shows Tipton, the Republican freshman representative for Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District, received at least $27,175 from oil and gas interests and $38,075 from the energy sector overall in the recently completed third quarter of 2011.

Oil and gas was the largest giving sector to Tipton from July 1 to Sept. 30, another watchdog group, Public Campaign, reported this week following The Colorado Independent’s own review of special interests that bankroll the congressman’s 2012 reelection bid. In addition to the numerous executives giving to Tipton, political action committees for ExxonMobil ($5,000), Chevron PAC ($2,000), also contributed to the congressman’s campaign coffers.

After a dismal second quarter fundraising effort, Tipton raked in $303,880 in the third quarter — 43 percent of which were donations that came from outside of Colorado, according to Public Campaign. He also took $13,650 from real estate interests, including several generous gifts from prominent Colorado real estate firms and agents.

So far Tipton is out-raising his opponent, Democratic candidate and state House Minority Leader Sal Pace, who reported $165,786 for the quarter that just ended for a total of $267,533 year to date. Tipton has raised almost $655,800 year to date and his latest report showed $111,388 in outstanding debt.

Joanna Burgos, a spokeswoman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Tipton has paid off some of that debt, but she ignored questions about the oil and gas interests backing him.

“Scott Tipton has sided with big oil companies, and Coloradans are paying twice for it – once in higher taxes to support Big Oil subsidies and then again with high gas prices at the pump,” said David Donnelly, national campaigns director of Public Campaign.

Oil and gas double-dipping is the point Taxpayers for Common Sense is making in radio spots on the Western Slope featuring two men discussing gas prices and the paperwork they prepare for Uncle Sam.

Man 1: Hey, can you believe these gas prices? $3.50 a gallon?!?
Man 2: I know. They’re going up again.
Man 1: Yeah, it is costing me over 100 bucks to fill my truck. And, you know we pay twice for gas?
Man 2: Twice? What are you talking about?
Man 1: Well you pay once when you fill your tank and then a second time when you pay your taxes.
Man 2: When I pay my taxes? What?
Man 1: Yes, It’s true. You pay twice because the oil companies that sell gasoline get billions in subsidies from Congress and those subsidies are taxpayer-funded – you and I pay for them.
Man 2: You’re kidding!?
Man 1: Oh yeah, oil companies got $15 billion in subsidies from Congress just last year.
Man 2: That’s just crazy! Why would they do that?
Man 1: Congressman Tipton, Americans don’t want to pay twice for gas at the pump.
Man 1: Taxpayers for Common Sense is responsible for the content of this advertising.

The freshman congressman from Colorado’s 3rd District raised roughly $300,000, according to campaign finance reports filed over the weekend. The sum is a marked improvement from the previous quarter when he raised just $147,000 and was widely panned as one of the GOP’s worst fundraisers.

Russell Gordy, owner of SG Interests in Houston, Texas, and two of his employees are among the congressman’s biggest boosters, collectively contributing $5,600 to his campaign coffers to date. SG Interests is seeking federal approval to commence exploratory drilling on leases that cover 32,000 acres of public land in a section of the Thompson Divide area that is in the congressman’s sprawling district.

Since taking office in 2011, Tipton has been a cheerleader for oil and gas and he has worked to weaken the Environmental Protection Agency and other bureaucracies that regulate the industry. He has not yet taken a position on Thompson Divide and is in the process of gathering stakeholder input.

Upon reviewing the congressman’s latest finance report, Tipton’s challenger, Sal Pace, didn’t seize on the oil and gas ties but instead issued a press release titled “Here’s a Tip — Don’t Loan Scott Tipton Any Money” in reference to a $110,000 debt listed in the Republican lawmaker’s latest report.

“How would you feel if Scott Tipton owed you $110,000? He has had enough money to pay off his campaign debt to a Colorado company for more than half a year, yet he has refused to,” the Democrat said in his prepared statement. “With Congress having to address serious fiscal problems in America, how can we trust Scott Tipton to make good choices when he can’t even balance his own budget?”

Joanna Burgos, a spokeswoman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, responded that Tipton paid off the debt in October, and that it will be reflected in the next reporting period. She said Pace is trying to distract from his “weak” fundraising haul of $165,000 for the quarter that just ended.

“If Sal Pace wants to talk about debt, we’re happy to discuss the trillions in debt that his party has put on the backs of our children and grandchildren,” Burgos told The Colorado Independent.

To date, Tipton has raised almost $655,800 and has $510,800 on hand while Pace has raised about $267,500 and has $212,600 on hand.

The incumbent’s recent windfall can, in large part, be traced back to a fundraiser hosted by former Colorado gubernatorial candidate Marc Holtzman, who brought House Speaker John Boehner to his Aspen home to mingle with Tipton and a well-heeled crowd. Holtzman, his wife and his father collectively donated $6,000 to Tipton, records show. Other Aspen denizens gave generously too. Aspen area real estate brokers Lorraine Winnerman, Anthony Scheer, Shellie Roy, Arthur Martin and John Ginn made the list along with election activist Marilyn Marks, construction kingpin Mark Gould, Colorado Mountain College President Robert Spuhler and many others from the Roaring Fork Valley.

Colorado Women’s Hall of Fame inductee Sue Anschutz-Rodgers, who manages Crystal River Ranch in Carbondale, is also helping bankroll Tipton’s reelection bid. She has already contributed $5,000.

Tipton, as it turns out, is a sexy name in Colorado’s conservative circles.

He even landed $1,300 from Deborah Matthews, owner of the Glendale strip club Shotgun Willies.

Another name to highlight in the congressman’s latest financial disclosures is Fred Malek, a Virginia power broker who was implicated in Nixon’s crusade against Jews and resigned from the Republican National Committee in 1988 because of it. Malek has so far contributed $2,500 to Tipton’s reelection.

But while physicians, lawyers, ranchers, businessmen and retirees are all filling the congressman’s coffers, the one industry that is hard to ignore when reviewing Tipton’s contributors is oil and gas.

Other contributors to the congressman’s campaign who work in the extraction industry include Bentek Energy CEO Porter Bennet of Evergreen who has given him $5,000 so far in the 2012 election cycle; Smith Interests owner Stuart Smith of Houston ($2,500); Smith Interests’ Michelle Hendry of Houston ($2,500); Smith Management Co. owner Lester Smith of Houston ($2,500); Kiva Energy Co. President Albert Haertlein of Houston ($2,500); Laramie Energy CEO Bruce Payne of Denver ($2,500); Cimarex Energy executive Thomas Jorden of Centennial ($2,500); Pel-Tex Oil Company President Wynne M. Snoots of Houston ($2,500); Alexco Resource Corp. Vice President Joseph Harrington of Denver ($1,500); Anschutz Exploration’s Marguerite Timbel of Denver ($1,500); Alpine Gas geologist Gilman Hill of Centennial; Gilbert Stewart Operating’s Scott Stewart of Denver ($1,000); Arch Coal engineer Eugene Diclaudio ($450); Great Northern Gas Company executive Tom DiGrappa ($250); Williams Companies regional manager Shane Henry of Lakewood ($250); Power Company of Wyoming Vice President Roxanne Perruso of Denver ($250); Energy Strategies President Scott Gutting of Salt Lake City ($250); Anschutz Exploration’s William Miller of Littleton ($250); Western Fuels mine manager Robert Wade of Nucla ($100); and Berry Petroleum manager Thomas Hogelin of Parachute ($25).

The initiative asks, “Where are the Blue Dogs?” and gives the label of “lap dog” the remaining 20-some members of the caucus. Blue Dog Democrats, like Boswell, typically represent more rural and/or politically diverse districts and have a reputation for being fiscal moderates. According to the National Republican Congressional Committee, which gleefully recounts the 2010 defeat of 28 former caucus members, the remaining members of the group constitute “Washington’s endangered species.”

Videos have been developed to attack Blue Dogs in California, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Oregon and Utah. Thus far Boswell, a Democrat who represents Iowa’s 3rd District, has only been a target in a news release by the group. Similar releases have also attacked lawmakers from California, Maine, Minnesota, North Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.

With much of the content on the NRCC page focusing on how difficult it will be for more moderate Democrats to keep hold of their seats in 2012, it’s quite obvious that the Republicans would simply like more Blue Dogs to play dead now than force a GOP challenger to run against an incumbent.

It’s hardly the first time that House Republicans have targeted Boswell, who, as a result of redistricting, is expected to face Republican incumbent Tom Latham in 2012. Following a May 31 vote on whether or not to raise the national debt ceiling, Boswell was one of several House Democrats targeted by the NRCC through robocalls.

“After spending recklessly and maxing out the nation’s credit card, [Rep. Leonard] Boswell demanded that Congress vote to increase the nation’s debt limit without making any spending cuts,” the call advised without noting that Boswell and other Democrats being targeted with the same robocall had actually voted against the bill to raise the debt ceiling.

The NRCC said the call was actually referencing a letter authored by U.S. Rep. Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat, and signed by Boswell and three other Blue Dogs that asked for Congress to pass a “clean extension of the debt ceiling.”

The call’s initial claim about “reckless spending” by Boswell and Democrats was given a “mostly false” rating by PolitiFact Ohio for completely ignoring the impact Republicans themselves have had on the national debt.

Now, in a recent interview with Inside Higher Ed, Foxx reiterates her desire to hold hearings on student loan reform though, she says, repealing the reform bill,  SAFRA (Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act), is not a priority to her.

Q. Your Republican colleagues in the House are calling for repealing the health care law. You strongly opposed the overhaul of the student loan programs that was enacted in the same budget reconciliation legislation. Would you favor a similar repeal of SAFRA, to restore the Federal Family Education Loan Program, and do you foresee (and would you favor) an attempt to do that?

A. There will be many opportunities in the coming months to look closely at federal student loan programs. I expect to hold hearings to gain additional insight on how student loan programs are performing and if recent changes are proving to be effective or ineffective. At this point I don’t know that a repeal would be a top priority.

Foxx also lays out her vision higher education in America, saying fiscal responsibility in higher ed funding is her priority. She says this despite her problems with student loan reform, which the Congressional Budget Office says will save $62 million over the next decade.

Q. What do you perceive to be the biggest problems facing American higher education right now?

A. Though perhaps not unique to higher education, a major problem facing institutions of higher education is the delay in fully grasping the magnitude of the fiscal problems facing our country. Many sectors are grappling with this issue and higher education is by no means exempt.

America is facing a real turning point, where we are borrowing about four out of every 10 dollars we spend. We must come to terms with this reality and focus on avoiding the fate of nations like Greece and Ireland who borrowed and spent far beyond their means.

As we work through new standards of spending restraint, we will concentrate on accountability for every taxpayer dollar — and that must include the dollars spent on higher education. We are in a different world than when the economy was booming, and everyone needs to adjust to that reality.

[...]

Q. More generally, you have said you don’t believe there’s an appropriate role for the federal government in higher education. How far do you think the current, fairly significant role can — or should — be rolled back?

A. The federal government’s involvement in higher education can and should be scaled back gradually in the coming years. Ideally we’d be able to reduce the burdensome federal bureaucracy and delegate much of the funding and policy decision making to state governments. This would help to foster better solutions to the specific issues confronting higher education and provide improved accountability for taxpayer dollars.

In addition to her new role on the higher education subcommittee, Foxx was named vice-chair of grassroots development for the National Republican Congressional Committee on Thursday.

The Republican National Committee, headed by Chairman Michael Steele, is losing influence as interest groups increase their independent spending. (Flickr: pamhule)

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, many groups, from independent political action committees to the Republican National Committee, decided to test the waters and file cases against the Federal Elections Commission arguing that they, too, should enjoy the ability to solicit unlimited donations for spending on specific, non-coordinated campaign activities. In the case of the RNC, the group sought to reverse the longstanding “soft money” ban in McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation that prevented the parties from raising unlimited sums of money for “party building” and other activities not directly related to elections. While the challenge failed, the three-judge panel that ruled against the RNC did express worry about the implications of a growing divide between the fundraising capacities of outside groups and the traditional party committees.

[Economy1] “Under current law,” the panel wrote in a footnote to its opinion, “outside groups — unlike candidates and political parties — may receive unlimited donations both to advocate in favor of federal candidates and to sponsor issue ads. We recognize the RNC’s concern about this disparity, which, it argues, discriminates against the national political parties in political and legislative debates. But that is an argument for the Supreme Court or Congress.”

In the absence of any such intervention in Congress, however, that potential disparity is looking increasingly like a reality. After countless election cycles in which the traditional party committees — the RNC, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and their Democratic counterparts — dominated the landscape of independent expenditures on behalf of candidates, they are being substantially outgunned this time around by a nexus of outside spending outfits that represent a variety of special interests. According to data compiled in mid-October, 59 percent of all independent expenditures are coming from non-party-aligned groups — a substantial reversal from the previous midterm election cycle in 2006, when party committees accounted for 82 percent of all spending on such ads.

This election cycle, the bulk of independent expenditures — particularly among conservative groups — have in many ways mimicked the former role of the now-enfeebled RNC. As of Oct. 20, conservative outside groups have combined to spend over $99 million on ads to support Republicans and attack Democrats, more than twice as much as the NRSC and the NRCC. And the biggest conservative non-party players — like American Crossroads, Crossroads GPS, the 60-Plus Association, and Americans for Job Security — are linked both to each other and the Bush-era GOP by operatives such as Bush advisers Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie, who informally advise and raise funds for the groups.

Election experts and campaign lawyers argue that the changed landscape has broad implications for the future of how elections are fought and won. Fueled by the anonymity afforded by the tax status of many outside groups on one side and the laws enforcing tight fundraising limits for the parties on the other, the shift in the landscape threatens to weaken the party committees’ ability to enforce discipline over the messaging it would like to adopt and the candidates it might want to run in different races around the country. Meanwhile, the shadowy and transient nature of many new groups entering the scene has the potential to usher in a decidedly more reckless era of campaign spending, in which outside spending entities that lack the accountability and reputational considerations of the national parties continue to seize a more prominent role in the national discourse.

*****

When the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law passed in 2002, it drew praise from reform groups as a way to limit the influence of money in elections. Now, however, many admit that after lax enforcement by regulatory agencies and court rulings like Citizens United, McCain-Feingold ultimately just caused that money to migrate to groups outside the umbrella of the traditional parties. Following the law’s passage, new independent groups began exploiting various sections of the tax code in earnest to serve as an outlet for the soft-money political contributions that previously made their way to the national party coffers.

“The soft money ban, no question,” said Caleb Burns, a partner at Wiley Rein, a law firm that specializes in election law, in response to a question about the cause of the declining influence of the party committees. “You can point right to that and the congressional testimony where the rise of independent third-party groups was predicted on the floor of the U.S. Congress.” Some groups opposed the bill’s basic principle of limiting any form of campaign spending, but to others, said Burns, “it was a policy objection among people who feared we’re going to legislate away the power of political parties. I don’t have a judgment as to whether the RNC is any less powerful in relation to American Crossroads or whomever, but by hamstringing the parties in terms of the money they can raise for similar activity, that can’t not be detrimental.”

The party committees aren’t in danger of disappearing anytime soon — the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, NRSC and NRCC are all still among the top ten groups makings independent expenditures — but experts note that their decline in relative importance in funding races could affect the bridging role they often play in crafting a common message among different interest groups in the parties.

“In coming up with a platform, in our country the parties tend to be umbrella groups that prevent splintering among allies, like social and fiscal conservatives in the Republican Party, or labor unions and ethnic minorities in the Democratic Party,” said Loyola Law School professor Rick Hasen, an elections law expert. “If parties were weaker, I think that you could potentially see some shift in the two-party system, but I don’t think it would ever come to that because the people who control the rules are also a part of the parties.”

But even if the two-party system remains intact, there is evidence that the new campaign finance landscape has already come to the aid of outside candidates who were, at times, opposed by party leadership. “I think you’re seeing a perfect example on the right with the rise of the Tea Party,” said Burns.

Indeed, in many low-turnout primaries across the country, outside spending groups like the Club for Growth and the Tea Party Express were able to leverage conservative anger into upset primary victories for hyper-conservative candidates through large, last-minute infusions of cash in states like Kentucky, Alaska and Delaware. And while the Republican Party has temporarily put its internecine conflicts on hold in an effort to win majorities in Congress, the party’s divisions following the election could quickly be magnified once again by the outside spending outfits that have risen to support the different factions.

“Republicans don’t really have that consensus on where to go and who’s in charge right now,” said Paul Blumenthal, who studies political spending at the Sunlight Foundation, which advocates for greater transparency in government. “Where do they line up in the Republican [presidential] primary? How do they go after each other? That’s the next story.”

And while most outside spending efforts in the current general election cycle are informally acknowledged as a sort of auxiliary wing of the Republican and Democratic parties, there’s no guarantee that this will remain the case in elections to come.

“What we’ve seen up till now is the Republican leadership in exile control the party and decide who can get elected and who can’t, but it’s conceivable another group of people or corporations not in Republican leadership could do the same thing,” said Blumenthal. “While we haven’t directly seen that in many cases, there have been some groups, like [Alaskans Standing Together] running ads for Lisa Murkowski, that are made up entirely of corporations. This is just the first instance where such a landscape exists and I’m sure it will continue to surprise us.”

*****

As to whether this infusion of outside cash at the expense of the parties’ ability to enforce discipline represents a positive or negative trend for policy debates — and democratic discourse in general — it’s simply too soon to tell. On one level, said Burns, “as much as one might disagree with a group’s message, you’re increasing the amount of public debate and bringing in more voices, and that’s always a net positive.”

Yet non-party actors tend to bring an element of recklessness to political contests as well. “Outside groups tend to be more negative because there’s less reputational costs for doing so,” said Hasen. “If the Republican Party runs an ad that’s really negative, it could hurt the party brand, but a group like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is gone by the next election cycle.”

Analyses of the nature of ads during the current election cycle by the Wesleyan Media Project bear these predictions out, at least in part. While the overall percentage of negative ads isn’t up significantly over the 2008 cycle, the Project concludes that “one effect of increased interest group activity is that outside groups are increasingly becoming the source of negativity.”

One in every three attack ads in Senate races, according to the study, is brought by an interest group — a rate that’s up about 7 percentage points from 2008. A growing division of campaign labor has emerged, in other words, in which candidates in many races — most notably Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck in Colorado — pledge to run clean campaigns while relying on outside spending outfits to perform their dirty work for them.

“Campaign financing tends to be dynamic,” said Hasen. “After every election cycle there’s often a response.” But if recent trends continue and Congress doesn’t act, it’s possible the traditional party committees could eventually find themselves in an unfamiliar place — just one special interest group among many.

While the Democrats stuck largely to defense — choosing to shore up vulnerable incumbents in 54 of the 60 districts where they reserved ad time — Republicans are going on the offensive. 39 of the 40 seats covered by the NRCC’s buy are currently held by Democrats. (Politico has a full list of the districts here.)

The disparity between the numbers of districts staked out by the two committees tell a larger story, however, in which the ambitions of the Republican committees are getting hampered by their lack of funds. The DCCC’s ad buy was for over $49 million, shoring up some vulnerable incumbents that the NRCC concluded it simply didn’t have the resources to go after. Whether independent expenditure groups, who can’t coordinate with the party but can very easily look at the NRCC’s preliminary fall list, take a cue and fill in the spending gaps remains to be seen.

Under a picture of him in his Archbishop Moeller High School football uniform, the leader is depicted as a child of the Midwest who grew up as the son of a Cincinnati tavern owner, learned life lessons from legendary football coach Gerry Faust and got his start in politics by joining his neighborhood homeowners’ association.

The image is a far cry from the “dapper, deeply tanned” image that Boehner projects in Washington today, and so is the hefty price to participate in the committee’s perks:

According to materials distributed by Boehner’s camp and obtained by POLITICO, lobbyists and other major donors across the country who give the maximum or help raise $100,000 will get meetings with Boehner, calls from senior aides with updates on the campaign and “VIP access to all events, including roundtables, briefings, breakout discussions and interactive panel discussions.”

Boehner’s new initiative — which will be a joint fundraising committee of Friends of John Boehner, the NRCC and Boehner’s leadership PAC, The Freedom Project — is another indication of Republican fears that dismal fundraising numbers could thwart the GOP’s quest for power this November. It’s also yet another drive for money that circumvents Chairman Michael Steele’s strife-riven Republican National Committee, the traditional powerhouse for Republican fundraising.

Boehner will spend almost all of August raising money for himself and his fellow candidates, traveling state to state by bus and headlining events for more than 30 Republican candidates over recess.

Politico reports that the DNC raised $6.6 million — about $150,000 more than the RNC. The DNC also has a $1.9 million cash-on-hand advantage, though that is partially because the committee spent about $1 million less than the RNC.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee also beat its Republican rival, raising $1.4 million more. The National Republican Senatorial Committee had the last laugh here, though, as CQ Politics reports that the committee ended up with the financial advantage at the end of the month. The Democrats’ committee held a 2-1 lead in banked money just last fall.

Meanwhile, the National Republican Congressional Committee outraised the DCCC by $300,000. However, the DCCC ends the month with a $16 million-plus advantage and has raised $17.8 million more than the Republican committee over the entire election cycle.

While May was a major primary month — one that saw a number of high-profile electoral battles — both national committees and the NRSC reported that fundraising was down from April. The DSCC raised about $800,000 more than the month before.