As Deep Throat said: "Follow the money."

California-based MAPLight.org, a non-profit research and advocacy group that follows the connections between campaign contributions and legislative outcomes, says members of the House who voted for the bailout package received, on average, $231,877 in contributions from banks and securities companies over the last five years while those voting against the measure received an average of $150,982 from such firms during the same period.

"House Democrats split their votes on this bill, 140 voting yes and 95 voting no. Democrats voting yes received an average of $212,700 each, about twice as much as those voting no, $107,993," MapLight reported last night. "House Republicans also split their votes on this bill, 65 voting yes and 133 voting no (and one not voting). Republicans voting yes received an average of $273,181 each, 50% more than those voting no, $181,688."

Leading the way among yes-voters from Maryland was Steny Hoyer, the majority leader, with $633,649 from financial services companies. (Pretty nice for someone whose only opponent in the 2006 election was a Green Party candidate with under $10,000 in contributions.) Following Hoyer were by John Sarbanes, with $159,578, Chris Van Hollen with $144,214, Dutch "It's Not A Bailout" Ruppersburger, $137,300, and Republican Wayne Gilchrest ($23,550).

Among those voting no from Maryland, the representative who received the least amount of contributions from banks or investment companies was Republican Roscoe Bartlett ($14,200). He was followed by newcomer Donna Edwards, a Democrat, with $26,800 and Baltimore's Elijah Cummings, with $95,000.

Click here to view how your legislator voted

MAPLight.org says its looked at campaign funds from January 2003 through August 2008 given by banks (including commercial banks, savings & loans, and investment banks), credit unions, finance companies, stock exchanges, venture capital and private equity firms, hedge funds, and securities and commodities brokers and firms. Data includes both PAC and individual contributions. MapLight used Congressional voting records from the U.S. House website, via GovTrack.us.

Financial Services Sector - Contribution History

Here's more commentary from MapLight about the amount of contributions members of Congress get from the financial services sector:

"The financial services sector has contributed more to candidates for Congress, Presidential candidates, and political parties than any other sector, totaling $339,649,585 from 2007-present. 
. . . The sector has also contributed heavily to both John McCain and Barack Obama’s Presidential campaigns in 2007-2008: $22,108,926 to Sen. McCain and $24,860,257 to Sen. Obama.
  . . . . The financial services sector has been a top campaign contributor for years, donating more than $2 billion to Federal candidates from 1989 through today. . . . Note: The financial services sector referenced on OpenSecrets.org includes more industries than just the banking and securities industries MAPLight.org examined in this vote correlation report."

Looking Back: Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 (Gramm-Leach-Bliley)

"In 1999 Congress passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill, with bipartisan support, allowing the nation's largest banks to get even larger and take risks that had been prohibited since the Great Depression. A recent CRP analysis found that legislators who voted for this act received twice as much from the financial, insurance and real estate sectors as those who voted against it. Citigroup was the Act’s most aggressive supporter. "

MAPLight.org's research department reveals how contributions correlate with legislation so that citizens have key information needed to draw their own conclusions about how campaign contributions affect policy. Campaign contributions are only one factor affecting legislator behavior. The correlations we highlight between industry and union giving and legislative outcomes do not show that one caused the other, and we do not make this claim. We do make the claim, however, that campaign contributions bias our legislative system. Simply put, candidates who take positions contrary to industry interests are unlikely to receive industry funds and thus have fewer resources for their election campaigns than those whose votes favor industry interests.

To learn more visit: MAPLight.org.