The Panderer-In-Chief

[UncleBeer]

Second only": how close or distant a second, may I ask?

I dunno. You can read the news article from which I gleaned my numbers here, though: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20040130-9999_1n30kerry.html Anyway, your implication is, that business leaders - CEOs and such through their corporate PACs- are donating a greater percentage of their overall contributions to Republicans than they have in the past. This, by extension, means they are donating a lesser percentage of their overall contributions to the Democrats. Of course Kerry isn’t the only Democrat who has received these special interest monies in this election cycle. In order for your statement to be true, we need to know the totals donated to each party, both currently and through some past period. Then we could make statements about the trend you say has been widely reported. But surely we can conclude that this is not true, since the amount of money spent by candidates, running for any office, and of any political stripe, shows an increasing trend. That money is coming from somewhere. And it ain’t from the $1000 maximum that private citizens are permitted to donate.

If you wanna try to dig all that out of the FEC filings, here’s the place to start: Welcome to the US Petabox-Hotels in Lido di Jesolo buchen This is a list of all registered PACs. Clicking the link on the left, their FEC ID number, takes you to a page where you may view their detailed filings for the past ten years, or so. It’s a friggin’ maze of individual donations, of PACs all giving each other money, and even a surprising number of bank loans. What a mess.

Here’s the page for Kerry’s principal PAC for this presidential election; there are very likely others that he’s notified the FEC as eligble to receive and disburse funds on his behalf - that appears to be a pretty standard procedure. His latest filing, the required Feb 2004 report, runs to 3342 pages in two sections. I note from the cover page that Kerry, on 2/20/04 had accepted to date during this election cycle $23,354,534.78 from sources other than loans.
http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C00383653

Here’s Bush’s principal (which I note with irony, is named “BUSH-CHENEY '04 INC”):
Welcome to the US Petabox-Hotels in Lido di Jesolo buchen His Feb 04 filing is 4277 pages. The cover sheet says he’s accepted a whopping $143,561,342.17 to date during this election cycle.

I’ll leave it you to dig the rest of that stuff outta there, since it’s your contention, not mine, that the trend points ot the Democrats getting less, as a percentage, than the Pubbies.

Although I gotta make mention of this PAC: CLEON’S MOM FOR PRESIDENT '2004 I don’t think Cleon’s mother is a serious contender though. She appears to have never advanced past the stage of filing the Statement of Organization.

[UncleBeer]

And how about this one: EVERYBODY ON EARTH HAS A RIGHT TO BE HEARD PARTY PARTY ON I COMMAND IT THANK YOU.

[Cervaise]

@rjung

pandering for votes is part and parcel of any politician

For example, look at the rhetoric offered by Kerry and Edwards on NAFTA and free trade in general. They’re taking broad shots at the treaty because it scores points with disgruntled blue-collar types and lefty environmentalist types, which is a marvelous two-for-one. Despite that, I guarantee that they have no intention whatever of actually withdrawing from or upending the treaties completely; the actual policy, presuming they get elected, will be limited to minor tweaks to the existing document, if they go even that far. You couldn’t tell from the fierce rhetoric, though. Ergo, pandering. Business as usual. The only substantive difference in Bush’s approach is how thickly he’s piling it on across a broad variety of issues, including some that risk alienating his base. Compare how Reagan gave lip service mostly to the religious right but then did very little practically to follow up on his words; Bush is firing wildly in all directions.

[RTFirefly]

@UncleBeer

@RTFirefly

Actually, the current state of GOP dominance has caused the fat cats to become much closer to being one-party givers - in part because the GOP told them that if they played both sides of the street, they’d be cut out of the action. Pure power politics.

That’s a pretty sweeping statement there, RT.

I haven’t been able to find the primary story that I’m looking for, but here’s what I’ve been able to find:

Paul Krugman, 1-16-04 column:

the Democratic candidate, no matter how business-friendly, will not be able to get lots of corporate contributions, as Clinton did. In the Clinton era, a Democrat could still raise a lot of money from business, partly because there really are liberal businessmen, partly because donors wanted to hedge their bets. But these days the Republicans control all three branches of government and exercise that control ruthlessly. Even corporate types who have grave misgivings about the Bush administration — a much larger group than you might think — are afraid to give money to Democrats.

Stories from the Washington Post, with no links, since they’re more than 2 weeks old, so I can only get to them via a database my library subscribes to:

“Bush’s Strong Arm Can Club Allies Too: Lawmakers, Activists Say Tactics for Enforcing Loyalty Are Tough and Sometimes Vindictive”, 3-21-03, page A6:

Corporations are coming under increasing pressure not just to back Bush, but to hire his allies to represent them in meetings with Republicans. As part of the “K Street Project,” top GOP officials, lawmakers and lobbyists track the political affiliation and contributions of people seeking lobbying jobs.

In a private meeting last week, chief executives from several leading technology firms told Rep. Calvin M. Dooley (Calif.) and other moderate Democrats that they were under heavy pressure to back the Bush tax plan, even though many of them had reservations about it. “There is a perception among some business interests there could be retribution if you don’t play ball on almost every issue that comes up,” Dooley said.

“Democrats Court Business Owners, Party Seeks Increase in Contributions”, 6-15-03, page A4:

Only a decade ago, politically active business groups and executives gave 60 percent of their U.S. House campaign contributions to Democrats, and 40 percent to Republicans. Now the numbers are reversed, and Democrats are scrambling to find ways to repair their relations with business groups that give millions of dollars to federal candidates.
The shift in dollars represents an enormous blow for Democrats. In 1992, House Democrats had a $30 million edge over Republicans in contributions from corporate groups and individuals, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In the past election, Republicans enjoyed a $42 million advantage. Several campaign finance experts said that barring a dramatic political development or switch in Democratic tactics, this gap will widen.

“With Republicans in charge of the White House and both houses of Congress, [corporate giving] is understandably skewed highly Republican,” said Thomas E. Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
<snip>
Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.), who heads the new Democratic Business Council, said party leaders hope to build a “long-term relationship” by involving lobbyists in policymaking. “They bring a certain expertise to the table,” Thompson said. <snip>
Hoyer has begun holding the same kind of meetings with executives in his office that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) started when he served as GOP whip. Hoyer has invited some trade groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, that are seen as Republican allies. “Clearly, this is an effort to make sure people in the business community know there are two parties, the parties are closely divided, and there’s significant reason to maintain relations with both,” Hoyer said.

But some business lobbyists still fear they might alienate House GOP leaders by cultivating Democratic ties. One lobbyist close to the GOP helped orchestrate the Democrats’ recent outreach effort but did not want to be quoted by name. “I don’t want DeLay and those guys to be hammering me,” he said.

Or “”, 6-26-03, page A1:

Nearly a decade after Republicans launched a campaign to oust Democrats from top lobbying jobs in Washington, sometimes through intimidation and private threats, they are seizing a significant number of the most influential positions at trade associations and corporate government affairs offices – and reaping big financial rewards.

Partly because of the “K Street Project” – and partly because of GOP control of Congress and the presidency – virtually every major company or trade association looking for new top-level representation is hiring or seeking to hire a prominent Republican politician or staffer, according to Republicans and Democrats tracking the situation.

This year, General Electric, Comcast, Citigroup and many other Fortune 500 companies have hired Bush administration officials and former GOP congressional advisers for top lobbying posts. A Republican National Committee official recently told a group of GOP lobbyists that 33 of 36 top-level Washington positions he is monitoring went to Republicans, according to someone who attended the meeting.

The trend could deeply influence Washington politics, policy and fundraising for years. Already in control of the White House and Congress, Republicans are tightening their grip on the largely unseen but vital world of big-time lobbying. Lobbyists for major trade groups not only represent clients’ interests but also play key roles in political fundraising and often help shape legislation.
<snip>
Indeed, several top officials at trade associations and corporate offices said privately that Republicans have created a culture in Washington in which companies fear hiring Democrats for top jobs, even if they are the most qualified.

Republicans have done this with a few, well-publicized warnings to companies they felt were too cozy with Democrats. The most famous and ominous warning came in 1998 from then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and then-Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.). The two leaders held up a vote on intellectual property legislation in protest of the Electronics Industry Association’s plan to hire a Democrat to run the group. The House ethics committee admonished DeLay for his tactics in the incident. It was a slap on the wrist by congressional ethics standards, and Republicans say that was a small price to pay for the fear it put in companies thinking about hiring a Democrat.

Late last year, Financial Services Committee Chairman Michael G. Oxley (R-Ohio) and his top aides pressured the Investment Company Institute, a consortium of mutual fund companies, to push aside Julie Domenick as its top lobbyist. Oxley’s staff suggested to industry officials that a congressional probe of the mutual fund industry might ease up if ICI complied.

The article then goes on to discuss how Republican lobbyists hire more Republican lobbyists, who then (a) contribute heavily to Republican campaigns (lobbyists frequently make well into the upper six figures), and of course put their Rolodexes to work, hitting up their corporate contacts to do the same.

This is a lot more effort than I’d planned on putting into backing up an offhand reference on a side point to a story I’d seen repeated references to over many months, but there you go.

[RTFirefly]

I omitted the title of that last article. It was “Targeting Lobbyists Pays Off For GOP: Party Earns More Funds, Influence”.

[UncleBeer]

This is a lot more effort than I’d planned on putting into backing up an offhand reference on a side point to a story I’d seen repeated references to over many months, but there you go.

Sorry to put ya out. But maybe next time you won’t be so quick to make flip unsupported allegations. Thanks anyway.

Speaking of that support, I’m not sure how well any of that supports your case. There’s the couple lines about the percentages of donations to congressional candidates reversing themselves from 60/40 Democrat to 60/40 Republican, but the rest of is says nothing about actual dollar figures. And even that’s not much of a swing. It only reflects the changed situation in Congress. The House is controlled by Republicans now and they’re getting more money, but when the House was controlled by Democrats, **they[/y] were the guys getting more PAC money. That’s pretty equivocal; it sounds like a normal state of affairs. If this all the evidence you can muster, in support of your statement, “Actually, the current state of GOP dominance has caused the fat cats to become much closer to being one-party givers . . .” it’s damned thin.

[RTFirefly]

@UncleBeer

Sorry to put ya out. But maybe next time you won’t be so quick to make flip unsupported allegations. Thanks anyway.

The problem, of course, is the differing perceptions on what one expects to be common knowledge. The Washington Post’s been developing this story for most of the past year, as you can see by the dates. There’s some more recent stories that I can’t seem to locate, but that I have read, that bring the effect of GOP control of all three branches into the mix. (In early 2003, there was no way to document the effect of that, since it hadn’t had much time to come into play.) Having seen each story in turn in my daily paper, with several stories dealing with this issue over the course of many months, plus references to those stories in op-ed columns, I assumed this was an instance of information that was by now common knowledge that I would hardly need to cite: you see references to something often enough, and after awhile you assume everybody’s seen them at least once. But apparently not.

Given that Krugman’s evidently read the same stories I have, I feel like it was a semi-reasonable assumption, at least.

I really can’t take away any lessons for the future from this. There’s always going to be a blurry region populated with facts that seem to one person to have been mentioned so frequently in the press that they need no cite, but the next person has seen none of those references. What do you do about it? Damned if I know. But I hardly think it’s ‘flip’ for the first person to assume that what his eyes tell him happens to be true.

[UncleBeer]

That sounds fair (and balanced, heh) enough, Rufus. I accept your explanation. Perhaps not the conclusions drawn by Klugman and yourself, because that minor 20% shift in the campaign contributions to U.S Reps that appears to accrue to the majority party would seem a natural thing, (Haven’t imcumbents always attracted more PAC dollars than the challengers?) but your explanation of the nature of your “flip” remark makes sense.

But I hardly think it’s ‘flip’ for the first person to assume that what his eyes tell him happens to be true.

Well, I can think of lots of cases where this would be wrong. It’s the very foundation of skeptical outlook to question “facts,” rather than simply assume that what one perceives is a true explanation.

Anyway, I think we’re done with this. I’ve not really disagreed with your OP.