Who gets the 'big money' in Washingon?

Great Debates
1

One of the tropes Democrats like to pass along is that Republicans are the party of big corporations, big lobbyists, and rich people. The Democrats are the part of the grassroots, getting their money directly from the people, and eschewing the big, shadowy forces that are behind the Republican agenda.

I knew this was bunk, and I figured the ‘big money’ pretty much got spread out evenly. So I was suprised to see this list of the biggest organizations and people that donate money to politicians and engage in lobbying activity.

It shows that the Democrats are much more in bed with big special interests, whereas Republicans get their money more from smaller doners. And it’s not even close.

Since 1989, first big player in Washington that leans more Republican than Democrat in donations, is Fed Ex, all the way down at #35. And the only one that leans significantly more Republican is the NRA at #37. Before that, it’s all Democrat money, or evenly split:

At #2, AFSCME donates to Democrats 98% to 0%
At #4, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers gives to Democrats by 98% to 1%.

And it’s not just unions, which could be said to be a naturally Democratic constituency. Goldman-Sachs is #5, and gives to Democrats 68% to 31%. What a coincidence that they wound up the main beneficiary of the financial bailout.

Then there’s Time-Warner. Big media conglomerate, supporter of the DMCA and beneficiary of many changes to copyright law and other government regulations, donating to Democrats by 87% to 12%. Freddie Mac, 87% to 12%. What a surprise that Freddy Mac got about a 100 billion dollar gift from the government and escaped any government scrrutiny over its role in the financial crisis.

The usual Republican subjects are there: Big Oil, Tobacco, small businesses. But far from being the big Washington players, they’re contributions are pittance - the top two biggest Democratic contributions together give more money than all of the Republican leaning organizations combined.

That chart is a sea of money flowing primarily to Democrats, making them the party of special interests much more so than the Republicans.

As for rich people, here’s the top ten biggest individual political contributors in 2010. Again, the list is way top heavy with money going to the Democrats.

Is this a problem? Does it tell us anything new about the power structure in Washington?

2

Why does that link (the one I quoted) say Microsoft Corp. Individual Contributors when I click it? I mean, it looks (from the way you constructed the paragraph) like you’re inviting us to believe that these ten people on that list are the top ten biggest individual contributors in 2010 in THE WHOLE COUNTRY. And yet, they all seem to have some relationship to Microsoft Corp. Admittedly, 2010 is pretty young; maybe the top ten in the country are affiliated with Microsoft in some way.

And why does the chart headed with

have someone on it who’s recorded as giving $25,500 (which, at least counting with non-metric Amurrikin numbers) is less than $50,000?

Gotta tell ya, as a research tool, that site is dang hard to figure out.

3

Contrary to your assertion, I’m of the opinion that Republicans are “the party of big business” due mostly to their business friendly ideology (e.g., unrelenting deregulation), not specifically because of their donors. And one usually doesn’t consider unions – taking up a large number of top spots on that list – among “corporate friendly” entities. Clearly, that’s not quite accurate…but again, unions are not what jumps to mind when thinking of “corporation”.

Also, AFAIK, the “overwhelmingly small donor” thing for Democrats – again, not including unions – is mostly due to the Obama campaign. I sure don’t recall it being a notable claim for Gore, Clinton, etc. In fact, I recall it being much more notable coming from the religious right. Perhaps my memory is bad…and I have to disclaim that I didn’t follow politics much pre-2000.

Yes, it’s a problem. No, it doesn’t tell us anything new. For instance, a big issue I have with Democrats is that they’re so cozy with the entertainment industry. I think the IP laws need reform, but it’ll never happen with the Democrats at the helm.

Not that I think Republicans would be any better, which is why it doesn’t tell us anything new – for the most part, I think that monied interests rule both parties, which generally means “corporations”.

4

Sorry, I screwup and copied a link too far in.

Here’s the List of top Individual Contributors. Unfortunately, you have to click on each one to see what party they gave to.

Democrats have a huge edge - almost 2:1 - in PAC money as well. Democratic 527’s spent almost twice as much money in the last five years.

5

Sam Stone, are you sure you’re linking to the correct list, still? The revised list in your previous post doesn’t seem to match the contents of your OP. For instance, I’ve clicked on 5 different names now, and though admittedly they’ve all contributed to the Democrats, the split has been around 90:10 for Republican contributions.

For instance here and here.

6

My results were the opposite. I guess it depends on who you click on. The individual list is annoying, because it’s alphabetical and not ordered by size of contribution. So the only way you could really tell who got the most money is by clicking on every name and adding up the numbers.

The organization list is much easier to use.

7

Some facinating numbers although I agree, there’s some funny numbers here.

Check out the National Beer Wholesalers Assn. They were pretty solid Republican until 2008. Now they are about 50/50. Could it be that businesses grease the palms of the people in power rather than donate to the people they want in power?

AT&T is clearly playing both sides of the fence in their donations. This, more than the partisan donors, suggests to me that you can outright buy power in Washington.

8

Sure. That part I knew - I said in the OP that I had assumed that the big money is distributed pretty evenly between Democrats and Republicans. When you see a company like AT&T giving 50/50 to Republicans and Democrats, you know they’re just buying favor, period. They’re not partisan - they just want to make sure the correct wheels are greased, and that politicians know who did the greasing.

But what surprised was that as a whole, the very biggest moneyed interests give overwhelmingly to Democrats, which contradicts the meme that Republicans are controlled by big money while the Democrats are more grassroots.

9

Not just who is in power, but who they think will be in power. I think it’s safe to say that many large corporations hedge their bets by adjusting donations according to expected results or shifts in power being projected prior to elections.

10

That depends on how you define “big player” and “leans”. The site you linked to considers that a donor doesn’t “lean” either way as long as it gives between 40% and 59% of donations to both parties.

But even a point spread within that range can represent a fairly substantial amount of “leaning”. For instance, if a donor gives 40% of its donations to Party A and 59% to Party B, then Party B is getting nearly 50% more money, as a dollar amount, than Party A.

Here are some examples of donation percentages for some of the top donors that you apparently passed over as being either “not leaning” or “not big players” (:confused: Pfizer’s not a big player??):

#1. AT&T: 44% D, 55% R

#18. National Auto Dealers Assn: 32% D, 67% R

#19. United Parcel Service: 36% D, 63% R

#21. American Bankers Association: 41% D, 58% R

#29. Verizon: 40% D, 58% R

#30. Morgan Stanley: 45% D, 53% R

#31. Lockheed Martin: 43% D, 56% R

#32. Pfizer Inc : 29% D, 70% R

This statement is only valid if you ignore the fact that the very biggest donor of all, AT&T, gave substantially more to Republicans.

11

Or the fact that after AT&T, you had to go down to #18 to find the next one…

12

Which is due to the fact that eleven of the ones in between are unions. We’ve always known that Democrats are the party of Big Labor, as you yourself admitted in the OP.

13

Yes, but I didn’t realize quite how much money they got from them. Special interest money to Democrats dwarfs the amount that goes to Republicans.

14

Unions represent actual working class people, though, not rich people or corporate interests. Republicans are by far the party of corporations. Labor unions are a bane to corporate interests, that’s why the Republicans revile and demonize them. You couldn’t find a better illustration of Dems trending towards the working class and Republicans towards soulless corporatocracy.

Ironically, Ronald Reagan was once the boss of the most liberal union in the United States.

15

The working class are not a “special interest,” by the way. They’re what those guys are supposed to be representing.

16

It’s not ‘the working class’. It’s about 12% of employees. And a large percentage of them are not in the working class anyway. They are white collar employees who earn far more than the national average. Teachers, nurses, government bureaucrats, etc. There are most decidedly a special interest. The public unions have their salaries paid for with taxpayer dollars, and get much higher benefits and higher salaries than the average person paying for them.

Rules like the Davis Bacon act freeze out non-union workers and hurt them. They’re the real working class - the lower middle classes trying to find work wherever they can get it, and being increasingly stymied because the powerful unions set up the rules against them.

17

It doesn’t matter what percentage of all emplyees it is. The vast majority of all union members are working class (I only exclude things like unions for professional athletes and the Screenactors’ Guild). White collar is still working class. Having been a teacher, I can tell you, I wasn’t farting through silk, and if you don’t think nurses are working class, then I don’t know what to tell you. So are those “government bureaucrats” that conservatives think they’re supposed to hate so much. Working at the DMV is a job, dude. I’m not losing sleep because some corporate billionaire swine is being forced to pay living wages and benfits, but be that as it may, you can’t say that unions are a corporate interest, so they don’t belong on your list.

18

Sorry, for some strange reason I transposed “Working Class” with “Blue Collar” in my head. You’re right - those are all working class jobs. But they’re not all blue collar jobs, and they’re not just earning people a living wage - they’re earning them a wage that’s significantly higher than their non-union counterparts.

If it’s a voluntary union in the private sector, I have no problem with that. When it’s a public union, being paid for with tax dollars from the government, do you really think they should have that much influence over the government that pays them?

In California, public unions have hijacked the government and are essentially voting themselves largesse from the public trough, and forcing people to pay for it who are not nearly as wealthy as they are. I would think even liberals would have a problem with that.

19

In light of your statement, I suggest in a future thread you should ask the question if liberals have a problem with that.

20

Putting babies in a wine press, I would think even a Republican would have a problem with that…

A Scrabble event in the Special Olympics, I would think even a Canadian would find that pretty boring…