Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1.    #1  
    Here is an article that is in the opinion section and the aurthor is from National Review is obviously slanted, but the numbers nonetheless I found interesting.....especially when you take into account that with these numbers below, I have only seen reports that the Rep have more money to spend on the elections than the the Dems.


    The GOP has historically been the party of both Main Street and Wall Street. But over the past decade, the plutocrats have increasingly become Democrats. Billionaires for Bush are increasingly outnumbered by billionaires who hate Bush. And Republicans in limousines are being outpaced by Democrats in Lear Jets.

    --------------------

    With soft-money contributions banned, the super rich can now hope to sway elections with large checks to 527 advocacy groups such as MoveOn.org, Americans Coming Together, and the Media Fund, and by bundling contributions to candidates. Over the last four elections, the Democrats have dominated on both accounts. Consider these numbers, from the nonpartisan, non-profit Center for Responsive Politics (CRP): Thus far in 2006, 17 of the top 25 contributors to 527 advocacy groups are funding liberal/Democratic causes, including liberal billionaires George Soros, and Peter Lewis.

    In 2004, Democrats made up 15 of the 25 individuals who gave more than $2 million to 527 groups. Of the Senate and House candidates who received “bundled” contributions that year, 9 out of the top 10 in the Senate and 8 out of 10 in the House were Democrats.

    In 2002, those who gave a million dollars or more gave $36 million to the Democrats and only $3 million to Republicans, a 12:1 ratio. Those who gave $10,000 or more gave $140 million to the Democrats and just $111 million to Republicans. Of the top 10 individual contributors to candidates that year, only one gave to Republicans.

    In 2000, Bush’s “Pioneers” received considerable press for their efforts to raise $100,000 each for the campaign. But the really big donors that year were Democrats. According to the lefty Mother Jones magazine, 18 of the top 25 individual donors to political campaigns were Democrats. In recent years, the Left has been obsessed with the role that the oil and natural-gas industry plays in funding the Republican candidates. Republicans are “in oil companies’ pockets,” says the DNC in one press release. In 2004, according to the CRP, the oil and gas industry pumped $25 million into campaigns, 80 percent of it to the GOP.

    But that pales in comparison to industries and interests that fund the Democratic Party. That same year lawyers gave $182 million (75 percent to Democrats) and Hollywood donated $32 million (70 percent to Democrats).

    Despite all of the rhetoric about rich Republicans, the GOP today is largely a party funded by middle-class voters. The average contribution to the GOP hovers around $50, almost identical with the much ballyhooed Internet “grassroots” presidential campaign of Howard Dean in 2004. The Democrats for some reason won’t release comparable figures.

    FULL STORY: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n2136401.shtml
  2. #2  
    Don't know what all the sources are, but just the other day local news outlets were reporting that Republicans have outspent Democrats in this years House/Senate races. Not by as large a margin as before, but still outspent.

    Some of the statistics quoted above are hard to interpret. For example, 17 of the top 25 contributers to 527 funds were for liberal/democratic causes. That's nice, but it doesn't tell me much. How much did the 8 other contributers give, in total, compared to the top 17? We don't know. (For all I know, the top 1 contributor could have given more money to republicans than all 17 of the others gave to democrats.) How much money was given to left vs. right by the top 50, or 100, or 1000? It doesn't say, but it's money that counts, not numbers.

    I'm not trying to make this a republican vs. democratic issue. The sad truth is that money plays way too big a role in politics and no one, from either party, can get elected any more without taking tons of money from "special interests." As far as I'm concerned, the political contribution process is nothing more than legalized bribery, and most politicians are borderline crooks. And more and more seem willing to put a toe or two over that border.
    Bob Meyer
    I'm out of my mind. But feel free to leave a message.
  3.    #3  
    I agree with everything you said.....especially:

    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb
    The sad truth is that money plays way too big a role in politics and no one, from either party, can get elected any more without taking tons of money from "special interests." As far as I'm concerned, the political contribution process is nothing more than legalized bribery, and most politicians are borderline crooks. And more and more seem willing to put a toe or two over that border.
    I also noted that even though the Dems have people paying the highest donations, the Rep still have more money. Could it be that the Dems get more money from fewer people with more money and the Rep get donations from more people with lower donations? Since Dean won't release their numbers, it is hard to say.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 10/31/2006 at 03:42 PM.
  4. PSB22's Avatar
    Posts
    192 Posts
    Global Posts
    203 Global Posts
    #4  
    Sorry, but I call BS on those CRP numbers....

    You're seriously telling me that "the oil and gas industry" pumped only $25m into campaigns? Get real! These are individual companies that make profits in the BILLIONS, and combined, between all of them, they only contributed $25m in one year? That just doesn't make sense when the stakes (i.e. their ability to continue operating in this country) are VERY high indeed.
  5.    #5  
    No....I think that is correct. Don't confuse lobbying with campaign contributions. Lobbying is a totally corrupt system and we should have the politicians that are getting rich off it put a stop it.... ( maybe we will see that happen the week after a Treo with 128 mb mem, VGA screen, Wifi, and Rev A is released )...and it is worthy of it's own thread.

    Here is some info on the Oil campaign contributions you were questioning:

    Oil and gas companies overwhelmingly favored Republicans over Democrats in their campaign giving, the study found. Just over 73 percent of the industry's campaign contributions have gone to Republican candidates and organizations.

    ----------------

    When it came to tapping the oil industry for campaign dollars, no one has come close to former Texas oilman George W. Bush. The president has received $1.7 million in campaign cash from the oil and gas industry.

    That was more than three times the amount given to the next biggest recipient of the industry's largesse, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman and fellow Texan Joe Barton, who collected $574,000. Next came another Texas Republican, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who took in just under $500,000.

    Only three Democrats were able to crack into the top 20 recipients of oil and gas campaign contributions since 1998. All three came from oil-rich Louisiana.

    They were Sen. Mary Landrieu, Sen. John Breaux and Rep. Christopher John.

    The two national parties each took in more than any individual candidate, national Republican committees getting $24 million and Democrats a bit under $8 million.

    http://www.publicintegrity.org/oil/report.aspx?aid=345
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 10/31/2006 at 03:44 PM.

Posting Permissions