The watchdog group Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington yesterday released a study critical of House lawmakers accepting campaign contributions from industries under their purview.

The study utilized data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics and MapLight.org to track both campaign finances and voting records of House committee leaders and ranking members between 1998 and 2010.

CREW's study, titled "Funds for Favors: Exposing Donors' Influence on Committee Leaders," focused on overall contributions received by the selected campaigns and also provides a breakdown of donations from industries under the jurisdictions of the respective committees.

The review also tracked votes from the 110th, 111th and 112th Congresses to determine whether each lawmaker voted in agreement with those same industries on legislative matters.

"Almost across the board, industries and interest groups are engaging in what amounts to legalized bribery by funneling enormous amounts of money to the very lawmakers who are supposed to be holding their feet to the fire," CREW executive director Melanie Sloan said in a statement. "Congress would be a lot more transparent if it just put a for sale sign on the front of the Capitol."

Center for Responsive Politics spokesman Michael Beckel, who said the nonprofit was not actively involved in the study, said the results are not surprising.

"It's a pattern that we see time and time again, money follows power," Beckel said, noting that special interest groups often view campaign donations as "strategic investments."

"The pattern is if you are a typical rank and file member, if you find yourself on the right committee, you are going to have people knocking on your door trying to build that relationship with you," Beckel added.

But lawmakers often defend such contributions, asserting that they are not influenced by donations or arguing that their votes, even if aligned with special interests, actually represent the interests of their constituents.

"People often are drawn to issues that will impact and help their constituents back in whatever state they hail from," Beckel said. "In terms of a good strategy, it makes sense for special interests to try and align themselves with regional power players."

Among the lawmakers CREW cited in its report are Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and ranking member Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.).

CREW found that overall donations to Upton's campaign have increased 277 percent between the 1998 election cycle and the 2010 cycle, when his campaign raised nearly $2.5 million. According to the report, Upton's receipts from industries or individuals overseen by the Energy panel accounted for nearly $1.3 million of his 2010 campaign funds, an increase of 548 percent since the 1998 cycle.

In the current Congress, the report notes Upton is in line with an "average" Republican colleague who votes in favor of industry stances 71 percent of the time. Upton scores a 75 percent average on those same votes. In the previous cycle, Upton voted in line with industry positions 62 percent of the time, while the average GOP voted in agreement 54 percent.

Waxman likewise saw significant increases, raising more than $1.9 million in the 2010 cycle, an increase of 1,100 percent over his 1998 take of more than $160,000. His share of industry-related donations increased to $935,000 in the 2010 cycle, an increase of 1,055 percent over the 1998 cycle.

But the report notes that Waxman's voting pattern is not that different from the "average Democrat" during those same periods. During the 2008 cycle, Waxman voted 65 percent of the time in agreement with industries regulated by the Energy and Commerce panel, below the average Democratic score of 70 percent. In the 2010 cycle, he voted in agreement with the industry 67 percent of the time, compared to 65 percent for average Democrats.