July 08, 2003
Campaign Donations
Who gets the big money in campaign donations? Who gets the chump change? According to yesterday’s Washington Times editorial:
“The Nine Dwarfs” pursuing the Democratic Party presidential nomination have been relentlessly asserting that the Republican Party is beholden to the wealthy. It turns out, however, that it is the Democratic Party that has been addicted to the million-dollar contributions from the nation’s fat cats. A recent study by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), a nonpartisan campaign-finance research organization, reveals that the Democratic Party gobbled up an astounding 92 percent of all individual contributions totaling $1 million or more during the 2001-02 election cycle. Meanwhile, it was the Republican Party that received 64 percent of all individual contributions less than $200 per donor.
92%! It’s hard to get 92% of anything out of the body politic. I wonder why so many rich people prefer the Democrats and so many working people prefer the Republicans.
Next time someone calls the Republicans the party of the rich, mention the number 92%. You might also wish to remind them that 8 of the 10 wealthiest Senators are Democrats. (To be fair, of the 40 millionaries in the Senate only 18 are Democrats; the other 22 are Republicans. This is close to the overall parity between the parties in that body.)
Posted by Deleted User at July 8, 2003 02:42 PMIt may have something to do with business, market and job growth. All historically have grown faster over the last 100 years when a Dem is in the White House.
Also, you might note, maybe if the GOP stopped giving tax favors to the wealthy, the perception would change?
Posted by: Robbie D at July 8, 2003 03:13 PMJust picking nits here, but as long as the federal income tax remains progressive, any attempt to reduce taxes will be spun by the Democrats as “giving tax favors to the wealthy.”
Posted by: Greg at July 8, 2003 04:24 PMYou talk about the 2004 race and claim that 92% of THEIR money comes from rich people based on a Washington Times editorial about the 2002 election cycle.
See how statistics are turned into lies, boys and girls?
Posted by: Dana Blankenhorn at July 8, 2003 05:20 PMWe talked about this last week. On this blog. The truth is that 23 people donated over 1 million. 21 were democrats and 2 were republicans. Why is everyone going ape$*@# about the donations of 23 people out of how many million who live in the US? These outliers provide a lot of money but are completely useless regarding any REAL statistical analysis. It’s like looking at the neighborhood that Bill Gates lives in and saying “The average income here is $923,000,000 per year!!!” Gate’s income averaged in with everyone elses would make his neighborhood look more impressive than it already is. Yes, the numbers are true, but in the article I am commenting on the percentages (like the raw numbers in the Gates example) are garbage information.
Posted by: ape lad at July 8, 2003 11:02 PMOf course, since McCain Feingold passed, hard money is outlawed and people CAN’T cut those million-dollar checks to political parties anymore - small donations are now more critical.
Posted by: Chad Williams at July 9, 2003 01:57 AMFigures lie and liars figure. The problem with statistics are they can be massaged to fit any message.
The most informative site I’ve found on campaign financing is http://www.opensecrets.org/
Posted by: Rick at July 9, 2003 12:18 PMThis kind of ranting is a huge problem in politics and media these days. Inadequetly explained figures are tossed out and people infer all sorts of things from them. The problem, simply put, is that we’re unwilling to think anymore…or at least the half of the population that votes.
This isn’t a democratic vs. republican thing, either…I don’t think.
Recently in MN, we have a new conceal and carry law. The republicans were stating that in states that passed these laws, violent crime went down 3%. This sounds significant.
However, I was told that the source of these stats also found that of the states that did no pass conceal and carry laws, violent crime went down 4%.
Now, in neither case can one assume that the laws have ANYTHING to do with the crime rate. There probably is a connection, but you need a lot more to go on. The problem is we’re accustomed to cause and effect statements and just assume the speaker is correct.
Posted by: Randomdude at July 9, 2003 06:19 PMWhere did the $20 million Bush raised in the past few weeks come from?
Posted by: gideon at July 9, 2003 06:25 PMThe $20 million came from the US Treasury via the tax cut.
Posted by: Rick at July 9, 2003 08:26 PMMost of Bush’s money comes from donations of less than $200 from average, middle-class Americans. Democratic money comes from people like Steve Kirsch, a flim-flam artist who fleeced stockholders out of multiple millions on a web portal and defective search engine (Infoseek) in the Great Internet Scam. See his web site for his explanations about why he was the Democrats’ number one contributor in 2000:
http://www.skirsch.com/politics/political_home.htm
Unions give a lot of money to the Democratic Party, like the California prison guards who get paid nearly twice as much as school teachers, thanks to the politicians they have in their pockets and their Three Strikes law.
Posted by: Richard Bennett at July 10, 2003 06:23 AMClearly, Richard, you have no seat in this debate.
You are blinded by Bush. Bush is a union breaker (and a darn good one) so you are anti-Union.
Blah, blah, blah. Bush says it. It is right. Why? Bush said it.
If you hate unions so much, move to China. I am sure your power of knowledge will be welcome.
Until then, I challenge you to stop spouting the neo-con platform and provide some insight for me to the actual benefits of the GOP.
Please.
I am open to the discussion. Same rules as above. No mention of Deocrants, Liberals or the Clintons.
Just GOP = good and why.
Posted by: Robbie D at July 10, 2003 03:43 PMYo, Robbie D: who died and made you god?
I was bashing the California prison guards union before Bush was elected president, and so what everybody else, Reep or Dem, who knows the first thing about California politics.
If this isn’t your cup of tea, maybe you’re the one who should move on.
Posted by: Richard Bennett at July 11, 2003 05:58 AMMost of Bush’s money comes from…average, middle-class Americans.
Unions give a lot of money to the Democratic Party
Umm…so unions aren’t typically made up of average, middle-class Americans?
Richard…I’m glad you’re in here posting, but really, you need to approach your debates with a bit more perspective.
Posted by: Randomedude at July 11, 2003 06:29 PMCorporations are made up of average, middle-class Americans, but for some reason we read that “Big Tobacco” gives money to politicians, not “average, middle-class Americans who happen to work for the Phillip Morris company” give money to politicians. See the distinction?
When an organization representing a special interest gives money to a politican or a party, there’s a very different message being sent than when unrelated individuals give money.
Posted by: Richard Bennett at July 14, 2003 09:12 AM
Respected sir,
Is there anyone who can help out to continue my studies in Acounting which I’m uanble to continue because of my poor financial back ground. I’m planning to take my course from Thomson Education Direct from which I’ve already been enrolled for the programm. So I need very urgently $500 as my initial fees.
My address is
Bernard francis,
Pestle Weed College,
Oak hill estate,
Mussoorie diversion road,
Dehradun,
Uttranchal state,
India-248009.
http://www.mycause.com/election/byamountgraph.html
Looks like most of that money is from the $1k-2k donation group to me.
Posted by: Jim Ausman at August 29, 2003 12:58 PMFor me, both Democrats and Republicans serve the interests of the rich. How are any of the millionaires in Congress supposed to represent average Americans or share their worries about employment, education, healthcare…? (eg. Congress has one of the best healthcare programs in the world while Americans as a whole have one of the worst out of all the industrialized nations)
Posted by: Julien L at October 22, 2003 09:38 PMYou are just out and out wrong Richard.
Look at the URL:
http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/donordems.asp
66% of Bush’s money comes from donations of $2,000 or more. Only 17% comes from donations of $200 or less.
Posted by: Jim Ausman at March 26, 2004 05:02 PM What most American voters don’t know about the AFL/CIO which backs the Democratic parties
at elections. The top ten in the AFL/CIO are
rich Democrats who make the decisions to back the Democratic party. That the unions members
are 50% Democrat and that the other half which have no say are 50% Republican. The Unions do not want the American public to know this fact.
