GOP raids Democrats' donor list

[mike r]

Source: Houston Chronicle

Tony Podesta is one of the best-connected rainmakers in the nation's capital, with a web of personal contacts stretching back 42 years and six Democratic presidential candidates. His brother John was Bill Clinton's White House chief of staff and an adviser on President Barack Obama's transition team.

But in an uncharacteristic twist this year, people at Tony Podesta's powerhouse lobbying firm have chosen to donate $32,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee to help its chairman, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, wrest control of the Senate from the Democrats.

Since Obama's election, the political action committees and employees of 126 businesses that had donated money to Senate Democrats in the 2008 campaign have switched all or most of their 2010 contributions to the Republicans, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission reports by the Houston Chronicle. That list is led by prominent Wall Street firms but includes energy companies, manufacturers, lobbying operations and other groups with a monetary stake in Capitol Hill deliberations.

Not only have those 126 organizations decided to hedge their bets, they're placing plenty of distance between themselves and the Democrats who control Capitol Hill. Their donations to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee have dropped 25 percent this year, to $1.67 million. "We're seeing a shift from Democrats to Republicans because Wall Street and corporations see the political environment more conducive to the election of Republicans," says Anthony Corrado Jr., a campaign finance scholar at Colby College in Maine. "These donors are looking at the prospect of Republican majority and hedging their bets."

Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7187927.html

[RandomThoughts]

1. Podesta, thats funny.

LOL, everything going as planned.


It is funny.


I figured the triangle people would do that. They still don't understand, if that story is true it is a great indicator.

[boppers]

2. Lobbyists loosing tons of power under Obama, swinging to the right?

Nah, really?

[notesdev]

4. They're hedging bets

Lobbyists are more powerful than ever under Obama - they've written thousands of pages of law that he has signed.

But they know the tide is going to be overwhelmingly against the Democrats this year, so they want to be in good with the next group to be in control of the purse strings.

Not hard to figure out once you understand that money knows no ideology other than to always be on the winning side.

[boppers]

5. They strike me as "that guy dropping 20's on the rack in a strip club."

They don't care who they pay, they're just trying to find somebody to get in bed with.

[JDPriestly]

6. The lobbyists did not lose power over Congress under Obama.

They just see the way the wind is blowing. Obama did not really have the courage to chase them out of town, so they are moving with the wind in the opposite direction.

Don't worry. After Obama, someone who is really a Democrat will come in to lead the Democratic Party again. Because if Republicans get into power, everything will fall apart. Everything.

I would not normally favor everything falling apart. I am not an anarchist. Far from it.

I am not a Marxist, not at all.

But I do see that the American people have not yet hit rock bottom in terms of believing in the illusions that the far right wing wants them to believe.

[boppers]

7. "The lobbyists did not lose power over Congress"

Sadly, I think you're right. Obama could refuse all lobbyist money, and still get defeated by Congress.

[No Elephants]

9. Which lobbyists lost power under Obama?

[boppers]

21. Some sector examples:

Healthcare got slapped, and told they have a maximum profit cap.
Wall street got slapped, and told that they have to disclose more.
Private business got slapped, and told that they have to pay women equitably.

The lobbyists fighting against that lost power.

[dkf]

3. Depressing

[girl gone mad]

8. They're putting their chips on red..

banking on a Republican sweep.

Is the DLC so naive that they really thought all that lobbyist-friendly, watered down, pro-corporate policy would win them loyalty with the sociopath set? Fools.

[No Elephants]

11. Yes, industry written legislation does tend to be lobbyist-friendly, especially when

you allow the likes of Collins to water it down even further, whether or not she ends up voting for it.



From the most recent Meet the Press:

"SEN. GRAHAM: Yes, they should be talking about replacing the healthcare bill. It's going to lead to a government monopoly in health care. It's going to bend the cost curve up, not down. It's going to increase--it's going to make it harder for private sector people to offer health care to the employees. I talked to Ron Wyden about an opt-out provision where states could opt out of this massive healthcare bill and have more flexibility. The key to this is that no Democrat is talking about healthcare bill, no Democrat is talking about the stimulus bill. You know, President Obama ran in the center as a centrist, and he's governed from the left ditch. He turned his agenda over to the liberals in the House, and here we are a few months before the election and it's all caught up with him."


<snip>



"MR. GREGORY: One of the things you {meaning Plouffe} said back in January of 2009 is that bipartisanship was so important. And this is what you told The Washington Post at the time. "One thing I'm sure of, there's not going to be a Democratic solution to the economy or a Democratic healthcare plan or a Democratic energy plan. It's got to be an American plan and effort, and if that happens, I think we can make progress." The reality is they have all been Democratic plans. You have not had bipartisanship, you have lost tremendous ground with 60 percent disapproval among independent voters. Isn't that problem you, you warned of?

MR. PLOUFFE: Well, first one, bipartisanship, actually, you know, we did get some Republican support for things like the Recovery Act, for financial reform, on healthcare, is right. But the votes might have all been Democratic, but the truth is there were so many Republican ideas in there. And what the--and this is another argument for the election. The Republicans' opposition with the president and a lot of our party has tried to do is less grounded in principle than it is in politics. This country's in--got deep challenges, but opportunities, too. And rather than participate in trying to move this country forward, the Republicans, in a very crave{n} and crass way, are playing short-term politics. And listen, we're going to have a tough election this November. I think it can be better than people think, but I think the long-term damage the Republican Party is doing to themself is profound."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39011239/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts


Yeah, make sure industry AND Republican ideas are in bills passed by Democrats, while Democrats get 100% of the blame for everything in the bills anyway--and for "ramming them through."

:sarcasm:


Bipartisanship works great--for Republicans--gridlock and corporate-oriented legislation suit them just fine. And for incumbents of both Parties, the conventional wisdom being that no one has ever been voted out because of a bill that never got passed, only for bills that pass.

Next time Democrats are in the minority in the Senate, they should push like hell for a change in Senate Rules, despite the short-term pain. The rules cannot be blame for the deficiencies in the "health" bill, as a "bare" majority passed it. But we have to stop gridlock. It suits incumbents--no Party has to take responsibility--but it's bad for the country.

[No Elephants]

10. And, near the end of the article:

"Also playing in Cornyn's favor is financial industry hostility to Democrats' Wall Street bashing after the 2008 economic meltdown and the financial reform legislation approved earlier this year. Wall Street donations to the Democratic Party itself have dropped to barely 2 percent of the $618 million raised by the party this election cycle - the Democrats' lowest share of donations from Wall Street in the last three congressional election cycles.

Still, Senate Democrats retain some key advantages, raising 8 percent more than the NRSC so far and retaining an edge in cash on hand as of July 31. Despite some donors' hedging, Democrats have expanded the number of PACs on their donor list and have raised 30 percent more from PACs than the GOP.

And Democrats have raided the Republican fundraising list, too, persuading 93 GOP-aligned PACs to give to them, too."



Democrats need to tell America that Wall Street recipients of the Paulson-Bush TARP, like Goldman Sachs, are filling Republican coffers. Will they? Probably not. Neither Party wants voters looking into those matters.

[madrchsod]

12. it`s getting to feel like the carter presidency...

[Clear Blue Sky]

13. Party doesn't matter to them

They are after power and influence and will bet on the horse they think will win.

[IndianaGreen]

18. They own Congress. We don't, and we haven't for quite some time.

Keeping the for-profit health insurance system is proof that Congress does not represent the people. Elections are a sham!

[Clear Blue Sky]

20. I think this is an area of true bipartisan frustration.

[rucky]

14. Fine with me. Less dirty money influence. n/t

[rasputin1952]

15. This kind of says it all...

"...led by prominent Wall Street firms but includes energy companies, manufacturers, lobbying operations and other groups with a monetary stake in Capitol Hill deliberations."

It's all about where cash comes from, not jobs or other things that truly make the economy solvent...it's all about greed.

[Maine-ah]

16. the best quote

We're seeing a shift from Democrats to Republicans because Wall Street and corporations see the political environment more conducive to the election of Republicans," says Anthony Corrado Jr., a campaign finance scholar at Colby College in Maine. "These donors are looking at the prospect of Republican majority and hedging their bets."


this is the shit we should be reminding people of. Republicans don't care about the middle class or the poor.

wall street & corporations = the filthy rich.

[drm604]

17. Completely unscientitic. Not enough information.

126 organizations out of how many? How many organizations haven't switched? How many have shifted towards Democrats? For all I can tell the shifts towards Republicans mentioned in this article may just be statistical noise, I can't tell.

In fact, this could easily be a case of the authors being selective with their data. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that it's very likely that that's what is going on here. If there's such a major shift, why aren't they giving overall figures, why concentrate on only 126 businesses, which could easily be cherry-picked?

I find this sentence interesting:

Cornyn's committee has raised $4.4 million from individuals and political action committees affiliated with the securities and investment industries, compared with the Democrats' $4.1 million total.

They present this immediately under the heading "Donations surge to GOP" as if it shows support shifting towards Republicans, but is anybody surprised that securities and investment industries give more to Republicans? That's news? What I find surprising about this statement is that their support for Democrats is so close to that of Republicans. There's only a 10% difference. It can be argued that it's not necessarily good that Democrats are receiving so much from these types of firms, but using these numbers to claim that support is shifting to Republicans seems disingenuous to me.

[karynnj]

19. This article is big on anecdotes, very low on standard statistics

Lobbying firms are rarely ALL Democrats or ALL Republicans. If you think about it that would not make sense. The companies hiring the firm want them able to lobby both parties. That there are people in Podesta's firm giving to Republicans is no surprise.

PACs usually give to both parties, but comparing 2008 to 2010 SHOULD find a more even split than 2008, when 2 years before it when the candidates were not yet chosen, it was clear the Democrats would almost certainly control both Houses and the presidency. Money, to some extent, follows power - not the other way around.

This also ignores that the Democrats have raised more money than the Republicans.