To learn more about Mormon voting patterns, I spoke with Quin Monson, a professor of political science at Brigham Young University.

The polls out of Nevada are saying Romney will win 86 percent of Mormon caucus-goers. Does that high number surprise you? 

Well, based on 2008 results both in Utah and Nevada, that doesn’t surprise me. It was similar — about 9 out of 10 Mormons in Utah supported Romney. And that was about the same number in the entrance polls in 2008 in Nevada.

What do you think the dynamic is here — is this a solidarity vote?

There are a lot of things going on. One, Mormons are overwhelmingly Republican. A recent Pew survey shows that and there’s other data that I have that show the same thing. So it’s a choice among Mormon Republicans of which candidate to go for, and I think there is a sense of solidarity with Romney. It’s not unlike Catholics and John F. Kennedy in 1960. In that context, Catholics felt like they were a bit of a beleaguered minority, sort of beginning to be better accepted in American society but still viewed with some suspicion. And they saw Kennedy in part as representing their group and representing it well. I think Mormons see Romney in the same light. Even some people in the church that don’t necessarily agree with him — either because they’re more conservative or more liberal than Romney — appreciate that he’s kind of taking one on the chin for his religion at some points. It seems to get linked to him in so many ways that even Mormon Democrats will speak in favorable terms of him and have admiration for the fact that he’s had to put up with so much.

In terms of party identification among Mormons, why is it so overwhelmingly Republican?

The first thing to say is that it wasn’t always that way. When you go back in time, you don’t have a lot of national data but you have data from Utah, which is a reasonable measure. Utah was even more heavily Mormon the further back in time you go. Utah voted for Lyndon Johnson and had a Democratic governor and state Legislature in the ’70s. So it wasn’t that long ago that it was a fairly balanced place politically. Go back even further and it was heavily Democratic. At the time of statehood in 1896, the Republican Party was the anti-Mormon party.

So what happened?

Well, I think the New Deal brought some conservatives over to the Republican side. What really happened mostly was the 1960s happened. And Roe v. Wade happened. There was a shift in American culture, and then the national parties shifted. The parties were divided internally on social issues in the ’50s and ’60s. I don’t think civil rights was as big a deal for Mormons as other issues, abortion and gay marriage in particular. The parties into the ’70s took more clear and opposing positions on social issues, and Republicans ended up taking positions that side more consistently with the church. I don’t think the church changed. The parties changed, and that left more Mormons feeling at home with the Republican Party.

Everyone is expecting the presidential election this year to be primarily about the economy. Are Mormons somehow naturally in sync with the GOP on economic issues?  

I do think there’s a natural affinity. There’s a lot of emphasis among Mormons on self-reliance, and that plays right into how some people would view American exceptionalism or perhaps rugged individualism. There is a communitarian element to Mormon theology, but I don’t know that that has been emphasized in modern times. Early on, when Mormons had problems with their neighbors in places like Missouri and Illinois it was in part because their sense of communitarianism conflicted with the surround community. And then later in Utah, there were some experiments in communitarian living. But the faith is much more focused now on self-reliance; there is an emphasis on helping your neighbor, but mostly  in the context of your Mormon congregation. But that emphasis doesn’t include government most of the time; government is left out of the rhetoric. What’s in the rhetoric is that individuals should become self-reliant, should get an education, should provide for their families, and so on.

Turnout among Mormons is also expected to be high in Nevada and elsewhere. Is this because of the Romney candidacy?

There is a consistent historical pattern in Mormons being slightly higher in political participation and slightly more civically engaged in measures of community service and other things. Some of that is because there is a lot asked of Mormons within their own congregation. On the other side of the coin, Utah political participation has  declined — turnout is very poor. That’s a function of the fact that there is not a lot of political competition in Utah; there’s a sense that things are over before they even happen. Utah used to be at or near the top in political participation 20 years ago, and now we’re at or near the bottom.

There is a clear encouragement from the church — official statements read over the pulpit — about two things. One is political neutrality in partisan elections: Members are always reminded not to use church facilities or lists and so on. And then, two, that members should be involved and vote. Those statements are typically read a couple weeks prior to a major election. In the Romney case, and in a place like Nevada where you have a sizable Mormon population, even though there is no official action by the church, there is a strong social network that could lead to Mormons being mobilized by each other.

Obviously we see Romney will get lots of support from the Mormon community. But on the other side of it, is there any way to quantify how much anti-Mormon sentiment might hurt him?  

I’ve done some work with some colleagues on this to attempt to measure the affect of framing Romney as a Mormon. And it does have a clearly negative effect. What we’ve done is create little vignettes in national surveys in which we write biographical statements about Romney and add different pieces of information in. Sociologists talk about a social contact hypothesis, where contacts with a group you’re unfamiliar with helps you to become less fearful and more understanding, and to like them more. That would lead you to believe that if people know a Mormon, they might be resistant to a negative message about Romney being a Mormon.

What we find is that people who know a Mormon really well — a family member or close friend — clearly resist any kind of negative information about Romney and his religion. Because they know otherwise. People that don’t know a Mormon at all are strongly affected by that information, but you can also counter it with positive information and they’ll take that into account. What’s really interesting is that people who know a Mormon in passing — maybe a guy at the office — react strongly to the negative information and you can’t counterbalance it with positive information. We think that has something to do with the fact that Mormons are, in fact, a little different. And if you know one in passing you know enough to know that that person is a little different, but you don’t know enough to know that, although they’re different they’re probably just fine.

I’m asking you to speculate, but do you think in a general election context Romney would be helped or hurt by being Mormon?

If Mormons made up 25 percent of the population, I’d say it would really help him. But Mormons are at best 2 percent of the population. I think on balance it’s probably not going to be helpful. The reason I think he has a chance is that it’s not going to be the focus of the conversation for most of the time. I think that’s why Romney doesn’t bring it up and when it is brought up he quickly tries to move on to something else. If it becomes central to his campaign for some reason, I think it will be to his detriment. I would look for an attempt by — not directly from the Obama campaign — but from surrogates or others, to raise questions about Romney’s Mormonism. If it continues to be a kind of sideshow and the main issue is the economy, then I don’t think his Mormonism does a lot of damage.

We recognize the limited nature of the sales, and we acknowledge that the Bahraini government has taken some positive steps with respect to human rights in recent months. However, it has not done enough to justify the sale of any military items or services to Bahrain. Moreover, if the Administration wishes to reward the Bahraini government for any progress, there are other methods that do not involve strengthening the Bahraini military or security forces.

Tragically, even a brief survey of reports from reliable sources makes clear that the Bahraini government continues to perpetrate significant human rights violations.

The letter then enumerates some of those reported violations, things like the killing of at least 10 people in the past few months, the prosecution of doctors who treated protesters, and the barring of international human rights observers from entering the country.

It’s not clear Congress can actually do anything to stop the arms sale at this point, so the letter mostly serves to draw public attention to the issue. I’ve asked the State Department for comment and will update if I hear back.

Here’s the full letter:

2012Feb2 Final Bahrain Letter

First, some context. The news broke last March that Adelson’s Las Vegas Sands Corp. is under federal investigation into whether it has complied with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The act makes it illegal to bribe foreign officials to obtain business deals.

The investigation reportedly came about after a breach-of-contract lawsuit was filed by former Sands executive Steven Jacobs that floated the possibility of an FCPA violation by Sands:

Jacobs alleges, among other things, that Adelson wanted him to conduct secret investigations of the dealings of the Macau government officials to dig up dirt so they could be intimidated, and that Adelson wanted the corporation to continue using the services of a Macau attorney with a bad reputation “despite concerns that [the individual's] retention posed serious risk under the criminal provisions of the United States code commonly known as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.”

A confidential September 2009 cable sent from the U.S. consulate in Hong Kong back to Washington describes Adelson’s business practices in Macau. Unlike its competitor Wynn, Adelson’s Sands was lobbying Chinese government officials in Beijing rather than focusing exclusively on local officials in Macau, according to the cable. The issues of concern to Sands included “foreign labor visas, gaming oversight and regulation, infrastructure development, and perceived interference in personnel management decisions affecting Macau resident workers.”

The cable goes on to describe Adelson’s personal interest in direct engagement with Beijing and the intriguing matter of the “Adelson Center for U.S.-China Enterprise” in Beijing, a nonprofit that was to be financed with a whopping $100 million. A former Sands executive told an unnamed American official that the Chinese government forced Sands to close the center following government inquiries about “funds transfer mechanisms used by [Sands] to establish the now-closed USD 100 million Adelson Center.” The nature of those mechanisms is not specified.

The cable continues that Sands’ “current efforts in Beijing are designed in part to offset these early ‘missteps’” — but there is no elaboration on what the “missteps” were. Sands did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

As for what the Adelson Center was supposed to do, the New Yorker reported in June 2008 that it was to act as a kind of facilitator for U.S. businesses looking to operate in China:

In early August [2008], during the Olympic Games, Las Vegas Sands will launch the Adelson Center for U.S.-China Enterprise, in Beijing, which seems positioned to wield substantial influence. If you were an American businessman coming to China, the Sands’s Bill Weidner testified at the Suen trial, “you might need a logistics partner to deliver your goods. You might need a manufacturer to manufacture your goods. You might need a law firm. You might need an accounting firm. Whatever it would take to get you involved in business in China, we would-the center would help arrange for you.”

Here is the logo for the center from a filing with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; it’s not clear that it was ever used:

Below is the relevant section of the cable. Another interesting moment comes further down in the cable when Sands executive Jacobs (who later sued the company) is quoted as saying that a new regulation about how much Macau casino junket operators could be paid “will be routinely violated.”

LVS [Las Vegas Sands] Macau President and CEO Steve Jacobs told EP Chief  on September 17 that LVS restarted its government outreach  efforts in Beijing over the past several months, and achieved  “great success” in building direct relationships with senior  officials.  Jacobs said LVS’s direct engagement in Beijing is  designed to build goodwill, explain the company’s current and  planned contributions to Macau’s economy and society, and encourage freer movement of PRC residents into Macau.  LVS CEO and majority shareholder Sheldon Adelson highly values  direct engagement in Beijing, according to Jacobs, especially  given the impact of Beijing’s visa policies on the company’s  growing mass market operations in Macau.

LVS’s pre-Olympic outreach efforts were suspended in early 2009, after the PRC forced the company to close its  newly established non-profit Adelson Center for U.S.-China Enterprise in Beijing.  The PRC’s State Administration of Foreign Exchange in China, according to LVS’s latest quarterly report published in August 2009, “made inquiries and requested and obtained documents relating to certain payments made by the company’s wholly foreign-owned enterprises to counterparties and other vendors in China.” A  former LVS senior executive told Econoff that the PRC inquiries relate primarily to funds transfer mechanisms used by LVS to establish the now-closed USD 100 million Adelson Center.  LVS’s current efforts in Beijing are designed in part to offset these early “missteps.”

Priorities USA Action, the Obama super PAC, raised $1.2 million and had 38 individual donors in the second half of 2011. Out of those, 33, or 86 percent, were male. (I did not include corporate or union donations in these calculations.)

The disparity is even wider with the Romney super PAC, Restore our Future, which raised $17 million in the second half of 2011. Out of 146 individual donors, 134, or 92 percent, were male.

This is hardly a new phenomenon.

A 2009 study (.pdf) by the Women’s Campaign Fund Foundation found that, “In 2008, women contributed just 31% of total contributions to candidates, political action committees (PACs), and party committees. This represented a mere four percent increase over women’s  contributions in the 2006 cycle.”

The disparity in giving when it comes to super PACs this year is even more drastic than the overall numbers from 2008. Part of the reason may be that super PAC donors tend to be very rich, a slice of the population with more men than women. (For example, women accounted for just 10 percent of the 2010 Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans.) So this phenomenon is probably at least in part a reflection of the distribution of wealth in America.

The Center for Responsive Politics looked at the issue in the 2010 election cycle in terms of money rather than number of donors. It found that women gave at least $386 million while men gave at least $1.07 billion. It will be interesting to see if the trend holds throughout the 2012 election cycle.

One of the big headlines out of the filings Tuesday is that Harold Simmons, a Texas billionaire, gave the Karl Rove-affiliated American Crossroads an impressive $7 million over the course of just a couple months in the fourth quarter of 2011. That’s nearly 40 percent of the $18 million the group raised last year; an affiliated group, Crossroads GPS, whose donors are secret, raised more than $30 million.

Simmons gave $5 million of the money personally, and another $2 million via a corporation he owns called Contran. Even though the $7 million he gave to Crossroads (along with another $1 million to the Rick Perry super PAC) puts Simmons among the top donors of the cycle, his bank account can handle the hit. Simmons was the 33rd richest American in 2011, according to Forbes, which put his net worth at $9.3 billion. Amazingly, his net worth increased in 2011 $4.3 billion from the previous year, Forbes says.

Simmons owns companies that manufacture a range of products including metal goods and chemicals. And he has generously funded a range of right-wing causes going back to the 1980s; perhaps his most notorious effort in recent years was the money he gave to the Swift Boats group that went after John Kerry’s Vietnam service.

His campaign donations have been known to help his bottom line. Simmons has, for example, been a longtime patron of Rick Perry and he recently got a potentially lucrative favor from the governor, the Los Angeles Times reported last year:

Simmons, the second largest individual contributor to Perry, is poised to gain perhaps the most as his firm constructs the first new low-level radioactive waste disposal site in the country in three decades. The venture could not have happened without the backing of Perry, who early in his administration signed a controversial law allowing a private company to build such a facility in Texas.

Simmons’ company, Waste Control Specialists, or WCS, lobbied fiercely for the measure and eventually got its license approved by Perry-appointed state regulators despite objections from some state environmental agency staff.

Simmons’ donations to Crossroads have been funding ads like this:

As of this writing, the filings of the super PACs backing Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have not yet appeared on the FEC’s website. But we have learned something about the pro-Jon Huntsman group, Our Destiny PAC: It was funded primarily by Huntsman’s father, Jon Huntsman Sr.

Huntsman Sr. is the founder and chairman of the Huntsman Corp., a giant chemical company, and he was on Forbes’ list of the 1,000 richest people in the world in 2010.

Huntsman Sr. provided a steady flow of contributions to Our Destiny PAC totaling about $1.9 million, which was given in seven chunks. That was 70 percent of the $2.7 million the group raised. The rest of the money came from just 17 other donors, including two members of the Walton family, which has made a fortune from Walmart.

That money allowed Our Destiny PAC to run ads like this one from New Hampshire, which labeled Mitt Romney a “chameleon”:

Huntsman has, of course, since dropped out of the race and endorsed Romney.