Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2012

[fskimospy]

Money buys elections. Corps are definitely not the only source of money, as the data linked in this thread shows. Unions and their ilk are another big source, hollywood celebs and on and on and on. To go around whining that money only benefits republicans is idiotic and naive. Last I checked obummer was sitting on (close to) a billion dollar warchest.

Money from large individual donors helps Republicans. Of course Democrats also get some as well, but not nearly as much. For a good example of how new campaign laws have worked on this, go check out the list of largest superPAC's and see what percentage of that money is going to Republican candidates.

Donations to Democrats tend to be from larger numbers of people who each donate a smaller amount. That's why removing limits on donations helps Republicans.

 

[dank69]

Oh, so there was no whining about corporate money in politics prior to citizens? Good one.



Money buys elections. Corps are definitely not the only source of money, as the data linked in this thread shows. Unions and their ilk are another big source, hollywood celebs and on and on and on. To go around whining that money only benefits republicans is idiotic and naive. Last I checked obummer was sitting on (close to) a billion dollar warchest.

Is the argument that money only benefits Republicans now?

 

[Baptismbyfire]

I'm sure corporate lobbyists are smart enough to give both the Republican and Democrat Party enough $ to have them both do their bidding. Sure, they might give the Republican Party a bit more, but who in the right mind nowadays think that the two parties are much different when it comes to their pro-corporation stance?

 

[1prophet]

Why would a Union in their right mind go Repuglicant?

If Unions had a right mind they would have formed their own political party years ago, the only difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Democrats shower them with gifts and kisses first.:whiste:

 

[BoomerD]

Why would a Union in their right mind go Repuglicant?

A working man who votes for a Republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders...

 

[umbrella39]

Fail thread and knee jerk echo chamber responses... keep standing on the outside looking in fools...

 

[sandorski]

Neither Unions or Corproations should be allowed to spend 1 red cent on Political Campaigns.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Donations to Democrats tend to be from larger numbers of people who each donate a smaller amount. That's why removing limits on donations helps Republicans.

Obama's donations: 53% under $200, 19% $2500.
Romney's donations: 13% under $200, 57% $2500.

This is how Romney won the primaries too, by the way.

Source.

 

[Ketchup]

This is how Romney won the primaries too, by the way.

Very well could be, the guy honestly annoys me. The only other thing I would add to that is all the mud slinging that went to his opponents that had a chance. Either way, we could all see pretty early on that he was going to win the thing.

 

[blankslate]

Selectively selecting one link that represents one category of donors from a site that doesn't really represent all the data available on the site is pretty convenient.

The list of the heavy hitters who have contributed the greatest amounts individually seems to be compelling. A person should really look at more of the data available on the site, otherwise you may be misled.

Sure the individual people or organizations/corporations that have donated the greatest amounts collectively have donated about $1,371,258,790 to Democratic campaigns and $897,192,148 to Republican campaigns.

calculated using data the page linked in this thread's original post...
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A

This translates to a ratio of about 59.07% to 38.63%. This favors Democrats, however, just taking a quick look at the chart can give the impression that Republicans have not recieved a noticable portion of the money laid out by the "Heavy Hitters" when they actually have.

If you look at other information in on other pages within this site that give a more complete picture of the total amount of monies donated by the majority of interest groups instead of just the individuals or organizations who donated the largest amounts for an organization....

It's easy to see that money from most of the categorized interest groups are more evenly split than what the narrow slice of data from the heavy hitters suggests.


The heavy hitters have contributed about $2.335 billion dollars to Republicans, Democrats and independents or perhaps 3rd parties from 1989 to 2012.


In contrast the largest interest group consisting of Finance, Insurance and Real Estate groups donated about $2.757 billion from 1990 to 2012 (pretty much the same time period).
As you can see that is more than what the so called heavy hitters have contributed in approximately the same time period.

If the total money contributed by all of the interest groups listed on this site from that approximate time period are taken as a whole it comes to approximately $14.24 billion overall. That amount about nearly 5 times the amount attributed by the heavy hitters. In short the heavy hitters account for about 20% of the donations. While they have contributed more to democratic candidates. This advantage is largely mitigated when all of the donations are taken into account.

44% the money from the Financial/Insurance/Real Estate interest group went to Democratic candidates and 56% went to Republican candidates... or about $$1,251,855,736 and $1,561,895,768 respectively

sourced here http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2012&ind=F


Links for other interest groups measured by the same criteria (years 1990 to 2012) as follows:

Other: Mostly retirees, but includes groups that don't fall into other categories:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2012&ind=W

Misc. Businesses:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2012&ind=N

Lawyers and Lobbyists:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2012&ind=K

Health - including physicians and other health related professions:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2012&ind=H

Communications and Technology:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2012&ind=B

Ideology and single issue interest groups
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2012&ind=Q

Energy and Natural Resources:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2012&ind=E

Construction:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2012&ind=C

Labor:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2012&ind=P

Agribusiness:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2012&ind=A

Transportation:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2012&ind=M

Defense:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2012&ind=D


Add all of those up and contributions to democratic campaigns do edge out the contributions to republican campaigns.

However the percentages are very close.
So much closer that basing an argument only on the list of heavy hitters is pretty much posting misleading information.

In total the contributions from all of the interest groups turn out as...

about 50.72% to democrats vs. 49.28% to republicans.

8 out of the 13 groups gave more to republican candidates than democratic candidates. The Communications and Technology, the Ideology and single issue and the Labor categories are the ones that skew heavily toward the democratic candidates.

This shows that a majority of interest groups donate noticeably more to republican candidates. And that the ones who donate much more to democratic candidates donate enough to bring the percentages for total donations very close.



The total amounts from all the interest groups in the time period adds up to about $14.24 billion dollars. Way more than what the heavy hitters (who are in this total number) have contributed by themselves.

It's a pretty even number and democratic politicians do have an edge but it's not the blowout that just looking at the heavy hitters list would lead you to believe it is. I have to seriously doubt the quality of the post that only looks at a narrow slice of data from this site when it's easy to see that you have to wade through pages of links to build picture that puts things into a bigger picture.

Keep in mind, however, that there that during much (if not all) of the time periods covered by the links there were a few "blue dog" democrats who would vote more conservatively on financial issues.

It is harder to find the equivalent of that on the republican side. In fact a republican who crosses the line to vote for the democratic position on a financial bill these days is practically sticking a sign on their back that says "Primary Me." In my opinion it really became a definite rule in the past 5-8 years.

For that reason republican who will vote for a more liberal fiscal position when it comes to financial bill is a much more rare animal.

This shows that a majority of interest groups donate noticeably more to republican candidates. And that the ones who donate much more to democratic candidates donate enough to bring the percentages for total donations very close.

TLDR: The link in the original post doesn't give you a complete picture of the issue of campaign finance at all. It's such a narrow slice of the data available on the site that it will lead you to an erroneous conclusion if you don't look at other pages within the site

Fuck it, simply posting the link to that one page out of context is posting misinformation because of the omission of other relevant data found on the same site. If a person is aware of the other data before posting just that one link that post would be an outright lie.

Yeah you can complain about labor but that category is one of the few with an outright bias toward democratic candidates. Most of the other categories are equal opportunists or favor republican candidates.

Given the fact that Labor donates about 92% to democratic candidates if you leave out that group you can expect that the total donations would go to the republican candidates by a slightly larger margin than the totals now favor democratic candidates.

 

[Ausm]

So that the union can maybe not piss off 57% of the country?

Now be the predictable drone you are and blame the money.

Keep drinking that Repuglican Kool-aid bro....


No personal attacks or insults in P&N.

Administrator Idontcare

 

[BoberFett]

Keep drinking that Repuglican Kool-aid bro....

Still feeling the pain from yesterday, huh?

 

[Ninjahedge]

The wink alone is enough to make you throw things at the TV.


"You betcha"
/wink
*chk chk*

 

[SirStev0]

Democracy in Action!!

 

[nageov3t]

Keep drinking that Repuglican Kool-aid bro....

is it some kind of a crossbreed between a Pug and a Pelican? because that sounds awesome.

 

[Rainsford]

I think a big reason we don't have better campaign finance laws is that the OP looked at the numbers and thought the issue worth commenting on was that corporations donate a ton to Democrats too, rather than the fact that corporations donate billions to both parties in a way that corrupts our democracy. Or in other words, some people are so concerned with "winning" the argument for their side that they're not paying attention to the bigger picture.

The really interesting thing about that table isn't the number of elephants or donkeys that show up, despite the partisan comments otherwise. It's the number of "fence" icons or otherwise close donation percentages showing companies that donate huge amounts of money to BOTH parties. I don't buy the argument that money is ever speech, but it's definitely not when a giant corporation is donating equally to both sides. At least you can argue that ActBlue is making a statement in favor of Democrats or Amway is saying they like Republicans, but what is Citigroup saying with their perfectly balanced donations? "Here, have a bribe"?

 

[werepossum]

Only if you're innumerate. It doesn't matter who the top donors are, it matters what the totals are.

And using figures over the last 25 years is a red herring, because everything has changed sinced Citizens United, and that's what most people are really complaining about.

But, of course, none of you really want a rational discussion on the matter. You think you've found a "gotcha", and strutting around about it is a lot easier than looking at things in a reasonable way.

If you don't think corporations buy elections, talk to Rick Santorum.

Well, that's what most of the LEFT is really complaining about anyway. It's pretty safe to say that the side that previously enjoyed only a slight advantage from one of the top twenty donors is not nearly so upset about Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission as is the side that previously enjoyed a big to huge advantage from fourteen of the top twenty donors. Or perhaps your point was that Citizens is what everyone who matters is complaining about?

But obviously the side that previously enjoyed only a slight advantage from one of the top twenty donors is reacting from pure base greed and evil whereas the side that previously enjoyed a big to huge advantage from fourteen of the top twenty donors is reacting from pure concern about the country, right?

 

[blankslate]

I think a big reason we don't have better campaign finance laws is that the OP looked at the numbers and thought the issue worth commenting on was that corporations donate a ton to Democrats too, rather than the fact that corporations donate billions to both parties in a way that corrupts our democracy. Or in other words, some people are so concerned with "winning" the argument for their side that they're not paying attention to the bigger picture.

The problem is that the link he brought up only showed part of the data. A little browsing around yields more interesting information about which groups contribute to who.

Looking at the other data reveals rather interesting items as well.

For example, I would've told you that Labor is probably the group with the lowest amount contributed if I had not seen the data. That of course is not the case.

Although it is true as everyone would expect that they are very biased toward democratic candidates. Overall though they drag the contributions to almost an even split.

The highest contributing group, however, I don't think would surprise anyone. I'm of the believe that just about everyone in this forums would have their belief that politicians in general would gladly be bought off by the financial sector just by looking at the fairly even way they spread their contributions.

Getting back to the point of your post...the fact that the OP only shows the biggest contributors and that it's interesting that they have a heavy bias toward democratic candidates is indicative that he is himself one of those people who are....

so concerned with "winning" the argument for their side that they're not paying attention to the bigger picture.

The more more complete picture that comes to light as you look at all the interest groups is that there is, in my opinion, a real need for everyone to sit back and consider a different way of financing elections.

Of course if the candidates you like are benefiting from campaign contributions more than the ones you don't like so much it's tempting to not speak up about the issue. Isn't it?

 

[werepossum]

I think a big reason we don't have better campaign finance laws is that the OP looked at the numbers and thought the issue worth commenting on was that corporations donate a ton to Democrats too, rather than the fact that corporations donate billions to both parties in a way that corrupts our democracy. Or in other words, some people are so concerned with "winning" the argument for their side that they're not paying attention to the bigger picture.

The really interesting thing about that table isn't the number of elephants or donkeys that show up, despite the partisan comments otherwise. It's the number of "fence" icons or otherwise close donation percentages showing companies that donate huge amounts of money to BOTH parties. I don't buy the argument that money is ever speech, but it's definitely not when a giant corporation is donating equally to both sides. At least you can argue that ActBlue is making a statement in favor of Democrats or Amway is saying they like Republicans, but what is Citigroup saying with their perfectly balanced donations? "Here, have a bribe"?

Of course it's speech. It's Citigroup saying "Don't hurt us! Don't hurt us!"

Seriously, you have a good point, or rather, you would have a good point if you could explain why corporations donating money is evil corruption of the system whereas unions donating money is simply good government. Or why government funding both sides equally would be a Good Thing but a corporation funding both sides equally is a Bad Thing. Is it like stimulus dollars, where government handling adds in the magic smoke?

 

[blankslate]

Seriously, you have a good point, or rather, you would have a good point if you could explain why corporations donating money is evil corruption of the system whereas unions donating money is simply good government. Or why government funding both sides equally would be a Good Thing but a corporation funding both sides equally is a Bad Thing.

Only the naive would think that any corporate or union contributors aren't expecting the candidate to be favorable to what they want when they give to a candidate.

The hope is that public funding would take away that "quid pro quo" aspect to campaign contributions.

 

[werepossum]

Only the naive would think that any corporate or union contributors aren't expecting the candidate to be favorable to what they want when they give to a candidate.

The hope is that public funding would take away that "quid pro quo" aspect to campaign contributions.

True, but the federal government would remain a massive, intrusive instrument capable of making or utterly destroying any industry or individual company. No major corporation or union would dare ignore this possibility; they would only seek other forms of wielding influence. Already unions provide very valuable organizational and labor assistance to the Democrats and corporations provide jobs and contracts to politicians and relatives. You simply cannot build something so powerful and expect people to ignore it.

 

[blankslate]

True, but the federal government would remain a massive, intrusive instrument capable of making or utterly destroying any industry or individual company.

Some companies in the Financial sector have done extreme damage to our economy.

Ideally government would be made up of individuals elected by an informed populace who choose people who won't enact policies that harm companies or their employees without care for the consequences.

I know that's a remote possibility these days and it's easy to point out how difficult it would be find some system where candidates aren't influenced by corporations or unions or very wealthy individuals.

However, I think the issue is going to become dire enough that it will have to be seriously discussed.

 

[Incorruptible]

Some companies in the Financial sector have done extreme damage to our economy.

Ideally government would be made up of individuals elected by an informed populace who choose people who won't enact policies that harm companies or their employees without care for the consequences.

I know that's a remote possibility these days and it's easy to point out how difficult it would be find some system where candidates aren't influenced by corporations or unions or very wealthy individuals.

However, I think the issue is going to become dire enough that it will have to be seriously discussed.

There was a guy who didn't take money from unions or corporations but many idiots in the US and this forum think corruption is a good thing

 

[piasabird]

Didnt the Whitehouse just threaten to roll back all of the temp Bush Tax Cuts? Some Union members make lots of money and then invest it. Union Members are not stupid.

People want to see stability in their financial situations. So let just end this insanity.

 

[DCal430]

Neither Union or Corporations are people, and neither should be able to donate anything for political purposes.