Bailing Out Rich Financial Firms Doesn't Make Sense, So Follow The Money

"Follow the money" has almost become a cliché in Washington and for how business is done in our capitol. The reason is because like most clichés, there is a fundamental truth between money and politics and the outcome of legislation when the two are added together. Take yesterday's bailout bill for example, it was a close vote and not political party had little to do with whether one Congresscritter voted for it or didn't. If anything, it was the leadership of both majority and minority that were for it and the legislators lower down the totem poll voted nay.

Answering why that may be, OpenSecrets has an idea:

WASHINGTON -- Members of the House of Representatives who supported bailing out the financial sector with $700 billion in taxpayer money have received 51 percent more in campaign contributions from the finance, insurance and real estate sector in their congressional careers than those who opposed the emergency legislation, the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics calculated following the 228-205 vote on Monday that defeated the House bill.

Examining campaign contributions from the industries that were most eager to see the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 passed, the Center found that the gap between lawmakers who supported the bailout and those who successfully opposed it was especially wide among House Democrats.

In this election cycle, Democrats backing Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's proposal have collected 78 percent more from the finance, insurance and real estate (or FIRE) sector than those in their caucus who opposed it and, over time, 88 percent more. In dollar figures, the 140 Democrats who supported the bailout proposal have received $792,744 over their careers from the FIRE sector and $188,572 in this cycle, on average. The 95 Democrats who voted against the bill have received $420,686 over their careers and $105,878 in the 2007-2008 cycle. (CRP's campaign finance data goes back to the 1990 election cycle, or the calendar year 1989.)

The 65 Republicans who backed the bill have collected $1,078,533 from the finance sector in their careers and an average of $185,461 toward this election. The 133 Republicans who led the opposition to the bailout have collected, on average, $705,297 over their careers in Congress and $150,381 in this election cycle alone. That translates into a difference of about 23 percent in this cycle and 53 percent over time.

If you head over there to the full article, the nifty graphs show that Republicans got more whether they voted yea or nay based on the natural affinity for Wall Street over in the GOP. Yet the strongest correlation is the money, not partisan identification. The true problem in Washington is the money, hands down. The Center for Responsive Politics does an excellent job of highlighting the discrepancies and should elicit the public to question their representatives on their vote and why they received so much money from the financial sector.

Now while persuadable politicians are a problem, they are merely a symptom of the much larger systemic ailment we endure. If we were able to clean up the system so that money were given from a public account, politicians would be held more accountable by the people and not the industries that fuel their campaigns and cushy retirement gigs. If you live in Arizona or Maine you know what I'm talking about at the state and local level, imagine how much better things would get if we could develop a similar system nation-wide. There are plans in development to go Federal, but they need all of our support, if we do not push our legislators to action, it'll never happen, because it is in their interest to stay elected and ultimately an informed citizenry (with clean elections) wrests power from corporate America and gives it back to the people.

Military Shows Their Support For Obama Over McCain With $$

Money talks and bullshit walks, isn't that how the saying goes? Well if that is true, it is McCain spewing all the bullshit and the military is taking notice. McCain is full of it when it comes to our nation's veterans, paying them lip service without voting for the programs they truly need and deserve. Barack Obama is ready to deliver for our nation's troops and veterans and the military is putting their faith in him and in the only way that can be truly shown before casting their ballots.

From OpenSecrets:

According to an analysis of campaign contributions by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Democrat Barack Obama has received nearly six times as much money from troops deployed overseas at the time of their contributions than has Republican John McCain, and the fiercely anti-war Ron Paul, though he suspended his campaign for the Republican nomination months ago, has received more than four times McCain's haul.

Despite McCain's status as a decorated veteran and a historically Republican bent among the military, members of the armed services overall -- whether stationed overseas or at home -- are also favoring Obama with their campaign contributions in 2008, by a $55,000 margin. Although 59 percent of federal contributions by military personnel has gone to Republicans this cycle, of money from the military to the presumed presidential nominees, 57 percent has gone to Obama.

Are you shocked to see this, well, some of the experts are:

"That's shocking. The academic debate is between some who say that junior enlisted ranks lean slightly Republican and some who say it's about equal, but no one would point to six-to-one" in Democrats' favor, said Aaron Belkin, a professor of political science at the University of California who studies the military. "That represents a tremendous shift from 2000, when the military vote almost certainly was decisive in Florida and elsewhere, and leaned heavily towards the Republicans."

The shift may be dramatic from past elections, but injecting a little commons sense into the discussion solves this. The troops are, by and large sick of being in Iraq where they do their very best yet it isn't enough because they shouldn't be there in the first place. Our soldiers want out and they see which nominee wants them to stay for a hundred years and which wants them home in sixteen months.

Landlords Start Hedging Their Bets In Albany

The times, they are a'changin in Albany. Senate Democrats are looking to take the Majority back from Bruno Skelos and complete the trifecta for control of the State Legislature. For decades much needed legislation has been stymied by the partisan logjam, so with the possibility of the dam bursting, developers/landlords are putting their contributions in a place where they never thought imaginable, Democratic coffers.

From The NY Times:

Looking to block or water down an array of pro-tenant measures, including the repeal of vacancy decontrol, that have won support in the Democratic-controlled Assembly, real estate industry executives have stepped up their campaign donations to the Senate Democratic leadership, a review of campaign-contribution records shows. They are also continuing to contribute to Republicans.

The review, made by the New York Public Interest Research Group at the request of The New York Times, found that a selection of major real estate developers, lobbyists and limited liability corporations gave more than $750,000 to the Senate Democratic leadership last year and this year. That is 15 times more than the roughly $48,000 that the same developers and companies gave to the Democratic leadership from 2005 to 2006.[...]

Industry officials are particularly worried about a measure strongly supported by rank-and-file Senate Democrats that would abolish vacancy decontrol, a law under which rent stabilized apartments are decontrolled and revert to market rents when the occupants move out, if the regulated rent exceeds $2,000 a month. The Assembly approved legislation to abolish vacancy decontrol as part of a package of pro-tenant bills it passed in May. Tenant groups have said that should the Democrats win the Senate this fall, abolishing vacancy decontrol will be among the first issues they and their Democratic allies will push for in the Senate next year.

The powerful realty groups are sickened by the fact that tenants might get a few rights at the expense of their own bottom lines. Rent and real estate in general has spiraled out of control, forcing many longtime residents to leave the city. Meanwhile wealthy developers that can afford to give hundreds of thousands millions in contributions have been laughing all the way to the bank (who they get to charge exorbitant amounts by renting commercial space in the city). That type of money is very addictive for executives at these corporations and as Dan Cantor of the WFP points out, they hope it goes both ways:

“Campaign cash is like a drug, and the real estate industry are like heroin dealers,” said Dan Cantor, executive director of the Working Families Party, which is leaning on Democrats to support a broad expansion of rent laws. “They have fed the Republicans’ habit for decades, and now they are trying to hook the Senate Democrats.”

We'll be ready for the intervention if necessary.

McCain Donors Raise Serious Suspicions

In the last few months, John McCain and the Republican National Committee have raised a hefty amount of money for his campaign efforts. Thanks to the RNC's ability to take in $28,500 per person, the Republican machine has largely caught up with Barack Obama's fund-raising prowess. However, there are some questions about where all that money is coming...and most importantly, how it is rolling in.

From The Washington Post:

The bundle of $2,300 and $4,600 checks that poured into Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign on March 12 came from an unlikely group of California donors: a mechanic from D&D Auto Repair in Whittier, the manager of Rite Aid Pharmacy No. 5727, the 30-something owners of the Twilight Hookah Lounge in Fullerton.

But the man who gathered checks from them is no stranger to McCain -- he shuttled the Republican on his private plane and held a fundraising event for the candidate at his house in Delray Beach, Fla.

Harry Sargeant III, a former naval officer and the owner of an oil-trading company that recently inked defense contracts potentially worth more than $1 billion, is the archetype of a modern presidential money man. The law forbids high-level supporters from writing huge checks, but with help from friends in the Middle East and the former chief of the CIA's bin Laden unit -- who now serves as a consultant to his company -- Sargeant has raised more than $100,000 for three presidential candidates from a collection of ordinary people, several of whom professed little interest in the outcome of the election.

It is possible that these people skimped and saved in order to give thousands of dollars to John McCain. The problems with that idea arise when common sense is interjected into the issue. Common sense says that something doesn't smell quite right. That is where the FEC should come in and investigate how people like Sargeant can convince a Hookah lounge owner to fork over the maximum donation allowed to John McCain.

McCain Says Anything To Big Oil For Big Contributions

Despite the McCain's desperate attempts to still have their candidate labeled as a maverick, more and more people (including some in the press) are realizing that the Straight Talk Express had derailed a long time ago. One item he was adored for previously was his tough talk against special interests and for campaign finance reform. Now, in regards to the oil industry, he'll do and say anything to get the big petro-contributions....and boy are they coming in.

From ThinkProgress:

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has made his complete reversal on offshore drilling a centerpiece of his presidential campaign, insisting that expanding offshore drilling into protected areas would lead to more oil supply on the market “within a matter of months” — regardless of the Energy Information Agency’s projection that oil would not reach the market for nearly a decade and “would not have a significant impact” on oil prices.

Though more drilling won’t help Americans save money at the gas pump, it has certainly helped McCain win massive campaign donations from Big Oil. A new report by Campaign Money Watch shows that contributions to McCain from Big Oil skyrocketed directly following his June speech in Houston, when he pledged his support of offshore drilling before an audience oil executives. The report notes:

In Texas alone, June oil and gas-connected donations to McCain’s Victory ’08 Fund, his hybrid fundraising venture with the RNC and state committees, reached $1,214,100.

Of that total, $881,450, or 73 percent, came after June 15. McCain announced his position in favor of offshore drilling on June 16.

Now that my friends, is the way old Washington works. With record profits being recorded by ExxonMobil, Chevron and others, a few hundred thousand in "investments" is nothing compared to the ridiculous profits they are and will continue to make as long as George Bush's third term commences under John McCain.

Silver Rakes In Nearly $20K From Congestion-Pricing Opponents

Congestion pricing was a controversial measure, depending on how close you were located to the center of Manhattan as well as how you got to work, people either loved it or hated it. Big personalities dominated on either side, Bloomberg was for it, Assembly Speaker Shelly Silver destroyed it. Oh wait, but he said he supported it (being that his district makes up most of Lower Manhattan) though reportedly not enough Democrats supported it in the Assembly and Silver didn't even let it come to a vote.

The no-vote pissed Bloomie and others off in Manhattan, while Shelly managed to thwart another proposal to fix one aspect of New York like he has so many times in the last decade or two. So now as the primary season heats up and Sheldon is being challenged by Paul Newell and Luke Henry, he needs his friends to come to bat for him and write big checks to put distance between him and them. Want to see who some of those contributors are?

From Streetsblog:

Here's a rundown of major donations to his campaign from groups who sided against pricing or influenced the proposed legislation.

Note that most of the contributions were given before the Assembly's Democratic conference scuttled the pricing bill in a closed-door session. (Groups are located within the state of New York unless otherwise noted.)

• GREATER NY AUTO DEALERS ASSOC.: $3800, March 19
• BLACK CAR PAC: $2500, March 19
• UNITED BUS CORPORATION: $2500, March 14
• HUNTINGTON COACH, LLC: $2500, March 14
• KENSINGTON ENTERPRISES LLC (parking garage): $2000, March 19
• VANGUARD CAR RENTAL USA INC. (Tulsa, OK): $1500, May 16
• SYLVAN FORESTER GARAGE, LLC: $1000, March 19
• CHAMPION PARKING 36 LLC: $1000, March 19
• ENTERPRISE RENT A CAR NY PAC: $1000, March 19

Source: New York State Board of Elections

So not only did the anti-congestion pricing forces come to Shelly's aid, they came right before that important bill wanted to come to the floor. Instead, Silver got his campaign account bulked up and the bill never saw the light of day. In Albany (and many other legislatures) that is how things work when those with power and a lust for large contributions get their way. That is why we must fight bad Democrats like Shelly, and put in better, more progressive ones like Paul Newell or Luke Henry.

Boston Globe Kisses McCain's Ass

McCain certainly does a good job of courting the media. He lets them ask all the questions they want, invites them to barbecues and as Chris Matthews exclaims, they're practically his base. So that is why the latest piece from the Boston Globe shows how a story can be construed into favoring McCain when all the facts point the other way. Printing spin as is without framing it isn't journalism, it is just pathetic. The story below is about campaign financing and McCain's decision to return checks.

Let's take a look:

In another sign that John McCain is moving toward accepting public financing this fall, the Republican's campaign is returning about $3 million in checks to contributors who have given money for his general election campaign, funds he could not use if he opts into the public system.

McCain's campaign, in letters to contributors, is asking supporters to write new checks to a special fund created to help the Arizona senator pay legal and accounting expenses related to compliance with the public funding system.

Can you see the two problems in these paragraphs? First of all, he already opted into the public system. That directly contradicts their statement that implies he hasn't made a decision already. And no, you can not simply opt in and out as you please, it doesn't work that way. Perhaps if these journalists would have spent less time on the StraightTalk Express bus, they could have researched that little fact.

In the second paragraph, that special fund to pay legal and accounting expenses in order to comply with the system is a clever way of getting around the fact that the FEC is looking into McCain's campaign violating the rules he vowed to oblige when he opted into the system months ago. Recently the DNC filed a complaint against McCain, but this article conveniently forgets to mention it.

Then there is this:

The move is largely procedural, and McCain's campaign said yesterday that it has not yet decided whether to accept public funding or to raise money on its own for the November presidential election. But the decision to return checks - which was made as the Democratic candidates announced raising $60 million combined in March, nearly as much as McCain had raised for the entire campaign through February - indicates that McCain is laying the groundwork for doing so.

"Senator McCain has made it clear that he expects to participate in the general election public financing system, and he hopes the Democratic nominee will do so as well," Brian Rogers, McCain spokesman, said in a statement. "The campaign reserves the right to change course, but these developments reflect our current plans."

Moving that money around is not simply procedural, how does one swallow crap like that so readily. Without even a trace of journalistic ability, the article allows McCain's spokesman to get away with calling on the Democratic nominee to opt in (only because the Democratic side is humiliating McCain when it comes to fundraising numbers) yet it says in bold black ink that they haven't made a decision to opt in or not, despite having opted in already!! And again, there is no changing course unless the FEC allows you and they haven't granted McCain an out so far.

The article also mentions that candidates who opt in have to abide by spending limits. If they would have noted that McCain is already in the system, they might have been able to show the data that proves he has already gone over the limit for the primary season (that leads up to the convention). Of course, that is conveniently missing as well.

Score on this one, McCain 1, reality 0.

Clinton Donors Unhappy

Hillary may have gotten a couple positive marks from last night's match down in Austin, but the negative stories continue to flow like a broken hydrant on a hot summer day. These things keep flooding the wires as things get worse and worse for her failing campaign. After the story about the $5 million loan everyone had questions about her money situation. Why was she broke? What happened? How could the "most prolific fundraiser ever" have financial woes?

This is how:

Nearly $100,000 went for party platters and groceries before the Iowa caucuses, even though the partying mood evaporated quickly. Rooms at the Bellagio luxury hotel in Las Vegas consumed more than $25,000; the Four Seasons, another $5,000. And top consultants collected about $5 million in January, a month of crucial expenses and tough fund-raising.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s latest campaign finance report, published Wednesday night, appeared even to her most stalwart supporters and donors to be a road map of her political and management failings. Several of them, echoing political analysts, expressed concerns that Mrs. Clinton’s spending priorities amounted to costly errors in judgment that have hamstrung her competitiveness against Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

“We didn’t raise all of this money to keep paying consultants who have pursued basically the wrong strategy for a year now,” said a prominent New York donor. “So much about her campaign needs to change — but it may be too late.”

If she can't keep her finances straight on the campaign, how do we expect her to do so for the country? I feel really bad for her contributors who unwittingly sent their hard earned dollars to staying in nice hotels and paying consultants $15 million in January alone. I would feel much, much worse if that kind of flagrant expenditures became continued with the next administration.

Holy Money Starts Rolling To Democrats

The men and women of the cloth have political as well as religious views, particularly about the upcoming Presidential election. Conventional wisdom from Washington has long seen the clergy as giving more to Republicans. Supposedly the social conservative "values" have been drawing them to the side of the elephant. Now in the 2007-08 cycle, things are beginning to change....for the better.

From The Carpetbagger Report:

In three of the last four cycles, clergy have backed Republicans in greater numbers than Democrats. The lone exception, 2004, was practically even.

But this year, clergy contributions are going to the Dems by a wide margin — according to the data from the Center for Responsive Politics, 56% is the strongest percentage Dems have had with clergy donations in two decades.

As for the specific candidates receiving checks from the clergy, the race isn’t even close:

1. Barack Obama: $110,000

2. Mitt Romney: $39,000

3. Mike Huckabee: $23,000

Obviously, as the figures show, clergy aren’t going to compete with oil company executives any time soon when it comes to bundling and/or hosting lucrative fundraisers.

Well of course they can't compete dollar for dollar with big oil, but when people see how they give, that says a lot more to average people than an oil executive. Members of the clergy are beginning to understand that the Republican party is full of false promises, one that lies for your vote and continues to send our troops to a fruitless war in Iraq.