FRIHOST • FORUMS • SEARCH • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Are Democrats or Republicans the party of big business?





Voodoocat
The popular myth is that the Republican party is the party of big business. Unfortunately, this appears apocryphal. According to USNews.com, only three of the top twenty political contribution recipients were Republicans! What businesses preferred to support Democrats instead of Republicans? How about Lawyers, Investors, Health professionals, Insurance companies, and of course, unions.

http://politics.usnews.com/congress/industries

Interesting, isn't it. Over the last two years, banks have been bailed out, insurance companies have been bailed out, auto manufacturers (and their associanted unions) have been bailed out, and a two thousand page healthcare bill was passed forcing all Americans to purchase Health insurance or be fined.

I guess the contributions paid off.
deanhills
Wow Voodoocat. This IS interesting information. Amazing how the Democrats seem to have so much funding from everywhere. And interesting that the Republicans of course receive the majority of contributions from the oil and gas industry and also the automotive industry. No wonder then that Obama did not want to bail out the automotive industry, whilst he did the financial large banks. Also interesting to see how low the Republicans score percentage wise on contributions from the Unions, which of course makes a lot of sense too. But am surprised that they have such a small percentage contributions from the publishing industry.
Bikerman
I think you have misread the article Voodocat.
What it actually says is that the businesses quoted support both parties, but to different degrees.
Health professionals, for example, gave a total of $30,439,743. Of that just over $17 million went to the Democratic party and just over $13 million went to the Republican party.
(That doesn't include the millions spent lobbying AGAINST the healthcare reforms by those same healthcare professionals - a much larger figure, estimated at about $380 million.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/01/lobbyists-millions-obama-healthcare-reform )
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
I think you have misread the article Voodocat.
What it actually says is that the businesses quoted support both parties, but to different degrees.
Health professionals, for example, gave a total of $30,439,743. Of that just over $17 million went to the Democratic party and just over $13 million went to the Republican party.
How did I misread the article Bikerman? If Industry X contributes 30 percent to the Democratic Party and 70 percent to the Republican Party, surely that industry is supporting the Republican Party much more than it does the Democratic Party? Or did you perhaps misunderstand my posting?
Bikerman
I didn't say you did - I realised my post was ambiguous and went back and changed it to remove the ambiguity just before you replied - you will notice it was addressed to Voodocat, not you.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
I didn't say you did - I realised my post was ambiguous and went back and changed it to remove the ambiguity just before you replied - you will notice it was addressed to Voodocat, not you.
OK thanks Bikerman, I now understand where you are coming from, and you're obviously right. I still wonder how much of the lobbying funds that have been spent on the Healthcare Legislation came from Government funds. Obama's time for example to start off with, when translated into all of the hours that he spent on lobbying, when other matters of Government had to take a backseat. Then the time of the White House staff, etc. etc. Anyway, all of that is moot now. The legislation has been passed and we are now in its next chapter. Smile
Bikerman
Well it was a central plank of Obama's campaign for the Presidency so nobody can possibly criticise him for spending time on it. Neither was it improper for him to use all the resources at his disposal to get it passed - he was elected on a pledge to do exactly that.
liljp617
"We're in the midst of a serious financial crisis, and the federal government is responding with decisive actions."

Responding with a $700 billion bailout proposal.

Wonder who did that... Rolling Eyes

Both parties suck, get over it.
Voodoocat
The top ten contributors spent approximately 168.1 million on Democrats and only 72 million to Republicans. (I only did a quick count using three sig figs and Windows calculator, so I apologize for any errors). Based on these numbers, it is obvious who is favored.
Bikerman
But the reason is obvious - it's the same reason that businesses here gave more money to the Labour party than to the Tory party for many years - they aren't interested in giving money to people who are not in power. They give money to those in power to buy influence and give some to the other party as a hedge against future election results....it was ever thus...
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
Both parties suck, get over it.
Excellent point liljp617. How do people however get over it if it is having a serious effect on the economy of the US as a whole, and specifically its middle class and the poor?
Bikerman wrote:
But the reason is obvious - it's the same reason that businesses here gave more money to the Labour party than to the Tory party for many years - they aren't interested in giving money to people who are not in power. They give money to those in power to buy influence and give some to the other party as a hedge against future election results....it was ever thus...
Isn't the US a bit different than the UK however with regard to funding? Perhaps we need to have a breakdown of contributions during Bush's re-election to be able to compare the two before we arrive at a final verdict? I would say that there is as strong a chance that the Unions who were supporting the Dems with campaign funds did it to satisfy the Union members as a vote against the Republicans who are against the Unions. Rather than supporting a prospective winning party. Why did the auto industry for example support the Republicans, when it would have been clearly in their interest to have supported Obama in the hope that he could have bailed them out as well?
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
But the reason is obvious - it's the same reason that businesses here gave more money to the Labour party than to the Tory party for many years - they aren't interested in giving money to people who are not in power. They give money to those in power to buy influence and give some to the other party as a hedge against future election results....it was ever thus...

An excellent point.

Both parties are 99% owned by corporate interests. Of course, the companies donate more to the party in power... Why buy politicians who aren't in power, and therefore can't help you?

Without extreme lobbying reform and campaign finance reform, our form of government is in big trouble.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Both parties are 99% owned by corporate interests. Of course, the companies donate more to the party in power... Why buy politicians who aren't in power, and therefore can't help you?

Without extreme lobbying reform and campaign finance reform, our form of government is in big trouble.
But if you look at the campaign contributions percentages Ocalhoun you will note that some are more in favour of the Republicans. Also, if the Republicans were in power, I"m sure the Unions would still be contributing most of their campaign budget allocation to the Democratic Party, not the Republicans. Some of what Bikerman said is correct, but it can't be universally applied to all the contributions however.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Some of what Bikerman said is correct, but it can't be universally applied to all the contributions however.

Yes, some interests are more aligned to certain political viewpoints, and so, are more loyal to certain parties that hold those viewpoints.

That's another factor that goes into corporate politician-buying considerations-
There's no point in buying a politician who will disagree with most of what you want him to do. It's cheaper and more effective to buy politicians already amenable to your viewpoint.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
There's no point in buying a politician who will disagree with most of what you want him to do. It's cheaper and more effective to buy politicians already amenable to your viewpoint.
Is there then a general understanding that those who receive campaign contributions always do what their sponsors want them to do? Smile
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
There's no point in buying a politician who will disagree with most of what you want him to do. It's cheaper and more effective to buy politicians already amenable to your viewpoint.
Is there then a general understanding that those who receive campaign contributions always do what their sponsors want them to do? Smile

The sponsors are mostly corporations - interested only in profit.
They're not making donations, they're making investments... and those investments pay off big.

For donating $100,000 to a politician, a company might get a special tax loophole just for them, saving them $10,000,000.
When you look at a few of the deals that have been exposed, the profit for the corporation/industry is enormous.
The politician doesn't care, of course, that's not his $10M. He absolutely must raise more funds than the other candidates, just to get the nomination, since fund-raising ability is often factored into the decision of whom to nominate.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
The sponsors are mostly corporations - interested only in profit.
They're not making donations, they're making investments... and those investments pay off big.

For donating $100,000 to a politician, a company might get a special tax loophole just for them, saving them $10,000,000.
When you look at a few of the deals that have been exposed, the profit for the corporation/industry is enormous.
The politician doesn't care, of course, that's not his $10M. He absolutely must raise more funds than the other candidates, just to get the nomination, since fund-raising ability is often factored into the decision of whom to nominate.
Thanks for the interesting information. Are those funds also invested in lobbyists? Or are the sources of funds for lobbyists those businesses or Parties that have a vested interest in the Bill that is being promoted? For example if we take the new Health Care Bill that Obama promoted very heavily, how would the lobbyists have been funded? From the Democratic Party?
bojanmilojkovic77
Interesting place to talk about wiki leaks
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
The sponsors are mostly corporations - interested only in profit.
They're not making donations, they're making investments... and those investments pay off big.

For donating $100,000 to a politician, a company might get a special tax loophole just for them, saving them $10,000,000.
When you look at a few of the deals that have been exposed, the profit for the corporation/industry is enormous.
The politician doesn't care, of course, that's not his $10M. He absolutely must raise more funds than the other candidates, just to get the nomination, since fund-raising ability is often factored into the decision of whom to nominate.
Thanks for the interesting information. Are those funds also invested in lobbyists? Or are the sources of funds for lobbyists those businesses or Parties that have a vested interest in the Bill that is being promoted? For example if we take the new Health Care Bill that Obama promoted very heavily, how would the lobbyists have been funded? From the Democratic Party?

Well, there were plenty of vested (corporate/industry) interests lobbying...
But when politicians want to push something, they'll usually do it themselves. Why hire a former-politician lobbyist when you are a politician?
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:

Well, there were plenty of vested (corporate/industry) interests lobbying...
But when politicians want to push something, they'll usually do it themselves. Why hire a former-politician lobbyist when you are a politician?
yes, but obviously someone like Obama would have needed funds for his media campaigns. Where would he have sources those from?
Related topics
Conservative Christian Dictionary.
CON-serve-va-tives and LIE-ber-alls are essentially the same
Is big business sucking you dry
President Bush talks w/ Matt Lauer on Torture
Republican Name Hypocritical?
McCain Aide’s Firm Was Paid by Freddie Mac
Americans want universal health care. Why can't we get it?
Obama down in polls
Things only a Republican could believe
Our One-Party Democracy?
Is the Tea Party a Political Party?
US health care changes take effect today. SUPER
Wingnut Deputy Att. General fired for anti-protester comment
Coming out and the people that come with it
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.