Gone but Still Giving

You could call it Cash From the Living Dead. No, not a sequel by George Romero, but a way some folks stay politically active and influential even after their demise.

Death -- unless, of course, you live in Chicago -- will deprive you of your ability to vote. But so what? You can join the hundreds of dead people who have remained politically involved -- even influential -- by contributing more than $656,000 to various campaigns and PACs in the last decade. They've done it by leaving "testamentary bequests" to their favorite committees and, occasionally, to candidates.

Dead Democrats have been far more generous than deceased Republicans, according to a Washington Post analysis by our colleague Alice Crites. From 2001 through 2007, the Democratic National Committee scooped up about $265,000 from just 23 of the well-heeled departed. In contrast, the Republican National Committee collected just over $64,000, from 10 deceased but caring backers, according to Federal Election Commission data.

The Democrats benefited as well from contributions during that period to the liberal National Council for an Effective Congress, a PAC established by Eleanor Roosevelt in 1948. Seven deceased folks gave a total of $78,000 -- usually in $5,000 chunks -- to the NCEC.

Most of the contributions from the dead went to institutions, not individual candidates. But some office-seekers -- such as Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) and Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) -- appear in FEC records of dead contributors. And fringe candidate Lyndon LaRouche hauled in $64,749, nearly all from donations of about $200 to $500, before his 2004 presidential run. Many of his donors were very much alive when they originally contributed but were later listed as deceased when the campaign cleaned up its records.

All these gifts from the grave are perfectly legal. The FEC said some years ago that the dearly departed may contribute. They are subject to federal contribution limits, but brain waves are not required.

A Gusher of Information

The Bush administration has developed a well-deserved reputation for secrecy -- generally when it comes to Freedom of Information Act requests involving the Pentagon, most specifically for those related to the Iraq war.

Even as the administration begins packing up, the Pentagon is holding tight to every page of a six-year-old prewar study of Iraq's oil industry, a 500-plus-page report that might back both its initial claims that Iraq oil money would pay for the war. More important, rebut charges by critics -- and former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan -- that the war really was all about oil.

Oddly, former New York Times reporter Jeff Gerth, who filed suit in federal court here yesterday seeking the documents, wrote about the study in 2003 after conducting a telephone interview, with a major general listening in, of a top Pentagon official involved in the oil industry assessment.

In the suit, Gerth says that Michael Mobbs, a top deputy to then-Undersecretary Douglas Feith, denied the FOIA request, even though that Pentagon official on the phone, whoever that may have been, had no problem talking about a lot of its contents.

After the article appeared, the general sent Gerth an e-mail "praising the 'good job' he said I had done," Gerth said in an appeal of the Pentagon's initial denial.

Well, maybe they're worried about protecting sources and methods? Or maybe if Gerth gets the whole document, the Pentagon won't think what he'll write will be so good.