Easily the most thrown accusation that landed at George Bush's feet was the fact that he was a patsy of the Oil & Gas companies. It is not beyond doubt that the oil industry pumped millions into George W. Bush's campaigns and nobody is naive enough to think that they just handed it over because they thought he was a decent guy, they paid it to gain influence when he was elected president.
With the present incumbent in the finishing straight, Industries are once again lining up behind candidates hoping to get a big thank you for their largess should they gain the keys for 1600, Pennsylvania Ave.
The Center for Responsive Politics has a break down of which industry has contributed how much to which candidate taken from selected Industries. The data is from the Federal Election Commission released on Monday, October 29, 2007.
The Republican nominee Rudy Giuliani is the main recipient of funds from the Oil & Gas companies ($545,058) as well as giving thanks as the leading receiver of donations from the Casinos/Gambling ($177,850), Private Equity ($1,157,900) and Tobacco companies ($77,400).
Democrat Hillary Clinton is the main benefactor from Commercial Banks ($935,658), Health Professionals ($1,695,830) Law Firms ($9,596,748) Pharmaceutical (269,436), Real Estate (3,939,008) and Security & Investment (4,735,730) companies.
Barack Obama's campaign has been funded primarily by Technology Companies ($940,459), Education ($2,112,520) and the Entertainment industry ($2,203,317)
Maybe we are being cynical and the candidates, if elected, will not spend a disproportionate amount of time and energy scratching the back of the industries who scratched theirs on the way to the Presidency. Then again, maybe it is extremely naive of us to think that they won't.
5 comments:
It seems to me that money in politics is like the drug trade, the money/drugs will find their way into the end user's hands regardless of what laws are put into place. Instead of putting regulations into place to stop the money, thereby having it go in a PAC, or a national party donation, why not just repeal the laws except for one, FULL DISCLOSURE. Newspapers, Internet, television, etc. Let me know EXACTLY who is taking from who, and how much. Lucy, I would say that your figures are only what has been reported as to individual donations. There is a great deal more out there that we don't know about, probably at a factor of 100.
Full disclosure would be great, Cody, except that the electorate would still likely pay little attention (and the MSM would shine but a cursory spotlight) to the numbers. I just can't see campaigns being such huge fundraising situations for any other reason than influence, and that being practically exclusive to large donors.
The U.S. is becoming a nation still ostensibly OF the people but governed BY the rich few FOR the(ir) corporations. Take the recent icing out of Dennis Kucinich in Las Vegas. OK, so he's not a "front-runner," but he's still a legitimate candidate (a congressman, FFS). How dichotomous that the U.S. Supreme Court can rule that campaign contributions are a form of protected free speech but the two dominant political parties can conspire with the dominant corporatist media to shut out a dissenting voice from the free exchange of ideas?
I know you'll cringe, Cody, but I'll say it anyway - public financing of campaigns is the cure for this ill.
I'm cringing as we speak
Politicians are like whores: the service they provide depends on how much the customer is willing to pay!
But, unlike certain politicians, even prostitutes won't do some things!
The reason i went looking for who is funding who is because Bush was always depicted as in the pocket of the oil industry and i was interested to see who they were backing now. Also we had quite a furore here about individuals handing money to political parties and gaining honours in return.
I back o'tims call for public financing because otherwise there is always going to be a grey area.
Post a Comment