The WSJ reports corporations have given substantially more money to the Democrats for their just-concluded convention than to the Republicans for theirs.
A list of Democratic convention events compiled by the Washington lobbying firm Quinn Gillespie & Associates LLC is three times as long as one it compiled for the Republican convention.
A separate study by the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute shows that 141 companies have donated $160 million to the host committee for the Democratic convention, compared with 80 companies and $100 million for the Republican convention.
Precise figures are impossible to produce because companies aren't required to disclose all of their spending at conventions, and host committees may report spending at a later date. But nonpartisan watchdogs have been monitoring spending by special interests in Denver. "There certainly seems to be more parties at the Democratic convention than [planned for] the Republican convention," said Nancy Watzman with the Sunlight Foundation.
The story also notes that this shift mirrors broader trends in corporate support for the two parties.
he attention that businesses are devoting to Democrats at the convention underscores a broader shift in political spending as the Democratic Party increases its power in Washington.
For the first time in at least a decade, corporations are spending more money to elect Democrats this fall than they are on Republicans. Data compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics show that corporations and their political action committees have contributed $115.9 million to Democratic candidates, the Democratic Party and outside political organizations this election cycle, compared with $111.5 million for Republicans. The data don't include donations from individuals.
That gives Democrats a 51% to 49% advantage over Republicans in corporate money.
One likely explanation is that corporate money follows those that are (or that corporations believe will be) in power. With Democrats in control of Congress, and Senator Obama expected to win in November, corporations are trying to ensure that they have a "place at the table." Another factor is that corporate donations are often influenced by the preferences of their Washington representatives, even if this is not in line with corporate interests. A third factor is that Democratic policies are better for some firms and some industries, particularly those that rely upon or benefit from increased government intervention in the economy. Whatever the ultimate reasons, however, the bottom line is the same: The GOP is not the exclusive party of big business.
Well, duh :)
"Yet another possibility is simply that corporate donors overwhelming believe that an Obama administration will prove a better steward of this troubled economy than will a McCain administration, with or without increased government intervention."
Yeah, I'm sure the economy will be in excellent shape when it's run according to Shariah law...
Step 1: Barack Obama, a Christian, gets elected President of a country that is 95% or so Christian and has a First Amendment, the world's most powerful army, a judiciary, and a Congress that is also 95% or so Christian.
Step 2: ______________
Step 3: Sharia law for everyone!
Hypocrits as usual.
Howard Industries.) Large companies are also in favor of racial preferences (Ford under Jacques Nasser, ATT, Toyota.)
Thus it is logical they would support the Democrats who
are much more uniformly in favor of these policies than Republicans.
I wouldn't read to much into this.
Spending money on a convention is partly an act of advertising - your brand to the attendees, your special interests to the power holders.
It's been no secret that the Democratic convention was going to be a much bigger affair than the low key event the Republicans have planned.
Why do corporations spend so much more money on the Super Bowl, than say an Arizona Cardinals regular season game? Is it because they prefer the Super Bowl teams or do they simply know the setting and audience will give them a lot more bang for their buck?
Yes, I know, the post also mentioned a shift in general spending, but I suspect this is mild as it is a myth that Republicans are the party of corporate donations. Democrats have always taken their share of corporate cash.
I would be more curious to see trends in total spending compared to past elections. I can't imagine corporate interests are very thrilled about either candidate, given that one is the posterboy for for eliminating special interest influence in Washington and the other is a staunch supporter of policies that corporations typically recoil from (unions, tax increases, reversal of tort reforms, etc...).
Yet another factor is that Republicans have in recent years in practice intervened in the economy in particularly senseless, wasteful and cronyistic ways, while continuing to crush future generations with a pile of debt, despite party rhetoric to the contrary of each of these things. Perhaps many firms and many industries see the damage and want to be governed more sensibly in the future, to the extent they are not just jockeying for position or a handout (which is by far the most likely explanation of this behavior).
It would be nice if we had an actual two (or more) party system, instead of just the illusion of one (and I think a lot of people feel the same way, which is why Perots and Pauls keep popping up). But I still find that the D subsidiary of Republocrat Inc. is less offensive than the R one.
There are some distinctions. Although both parties get lots of corporate cash, rich people strongly supported Bush. In 2004, 3% of voters earned $200k or more. 63% of this group voted for Bush. Is the GOP the party of the rich? Sure looks like it.
Don't be silly. Cheney said "deficits don't matter."
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.