Why Do Democrats Promote Campaign Finance Reform?
Finance/Insurance/Real Estate
OpenSecrets.org says “the financial sector is far and away the largest source of campaign contributions to federal candidates and parties.”
Top 10 corporations in this category include investment banks Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, and financial service companies Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase, all of whose employees contributed well over 50% to Democrats in 2008.
Before BCRA, Republicans saw campaign contributions from this sector more than triple, while Democrats’ receipts more than doubled. After BCRA, Democrats saw their contributions nearly double again, while Republican contributions barely beat inflation.
| Finance/Insurance/Real Estate Campaign Contributions, Presidential Election Cycles | |||
| 1992-2008 | Pre-BCRA (1992-2000) | BCRA (2000-8) | |
| Democrats | 319.1% | 119.5% | 91.0% |
| Republicans | 296.6% | 206.2% | 29.5% |
| Total | 307.7% | 163.4% | 54.8% |
This sector contributed over $476 billion in 2008, with Democrats receiving 50.7%, up from 41.1% in 2000. In 2004, Democrats gained 11.9% over 2000 contributions, compared to Republicans 10.0%, increasing the Democrats’ share to 41.5%. In 2008, Democrats gained another 70.7% over 2004, compared to Republicans’ 17.7%. This may indicate an “Obama effect,” as independent voters’ growing dissatisfaction with the GOP swung them towards the Democrats, but it also shows Democrats’ growing ability to attract corporate employee contributions. Regardless of cause, Democrats’ campaign contributions overtook Republicans after BCRA.
Communications/Electronics
Top 10 corporations in this category include computer software maker Microsoft and media company Time Warner, whose employees contributed over 70% and 80%, respectively, to Democrats in 2008. Comcast employees contributed over 60% to Democrats.
This sector saw most of its campaign spending growth before BCRA, with Republicans benefiting more than Democrats. But after BCRA, Republican contributions decreased, while Democrats saw their share of this sector’s contributions increase from 53.6% in 2000, to 59.5% in 2004, to 70.2% in 2008.
| Communications/Electronics Campaign Contributions, Presidential Election Cycles | |||
| 1992-2008 | Pre-BCRA (1992-2000) | BCRA (2000-8) | |
| Democrats | 357.4% | 228.4% | 39.4% |
| Republicans | 188.5% | 321.7% | -31.6% |
| Total | 289.7% | 266.0% | 6.5% |
Democrats derived an increasing advantage, despite slowing growth in this sector’s campaign spending after BCRA.
Miscellaneous Business
OpenSecrets.org defines the miscellaneous business sector as a “catch-all” category. Major contributors within the sector include retail sales; the food and beverage industry; the beer, wine, and liquor industry; chemical manufacturers; and a wide variety of business services and manufacturing companies.
This sector contributed over $278 million in 2008. It experienced more campaign spending growth before BCRA, with Republicans benefiting more than Democrats. However, after BCRA, Republican contributions lagged inflation, while the Democratic contributions more than doubled. As a result, Democrats saw their share of this sector’s contributions increase from 39.0% in 2000, to 41.4% in 2004, to 52.8% in 2008, showing a possible mix of increasing corporate support of Democrats plus the Obama effect.
| Misc. Business Campaign Contributions, Presidential Election Cycles | |||
| 1992-2008 | Pre-BCRA (1992-2000) | BCRA (2000-8) | |
| Democrats | 388.8% | 130.2% | 112.3% |
| Republicans | 206.4% | 152.3% | 21.5% |
| Total | 281.6% | 143.2% | 56.9% |
Again, Democrats experienced a relative advantage after BCRA.
Since 2000, Democrats received consistently stronger support from the historically Republican sectors of agribusiness and defense, garnering 51.4% of the latter in 2008. In 2004, Democrats garnered a higher percentage of total contributions in 8 of 13 sectors, and in all 13 in 2008.
The Democratic Party has successfully attracted corporate employee contributions and become the party of business in its own right. Therefore, it’s likely that their sudden “concerns” over Citizens United are motivated by the desire to maintain campaign finance restrictions and continue benefiting from “business as usual.”
(For another view of campaign finance and the mystery of the “disappearing” soft money, see: “The fantasy of campaign finance reform.”)
Thank you for this report, but I’m left wondering “why” this would be the case.
Just to make the liberal trolls mad. …and you say the republicans are the fascists.
While the numbers presented here are quite fascinating – although I’m sure they come as no surprise to the political consultants who originally developed this legislation – it’s possibly more instructive to note that this “Bipartisan” Act was anything but. In the Senate, only 10 R’s supported it, including two who have since switched parties (Jeffords in fact jumped ship from ‘R’ to ‘I’ between his two Aye votes), the quisling twins (Snowe and Collins), McCain (duh) and career RINOs Warner and Lugar. The only genuine mystery in that entire group is Fred Thompson, who’s since openly criticized it. Only 12 D’s in the House voted against it. Hardly a “bipartisan” vote.
Similarly, the SCOTUS opinion on this legislation has been a straight partisan affair as well. In December of 2003, the SCOTUS upheld this legislation 5-4. The laws involved haven’t changed in the interim. Neither has the U.S. Constitution. So what makes this legislation unconstitutional today, by 5-4, when it was “acceptable” in 2003 by 5-4? Answer: not the law, not the Constitution, neither facts nor reason, but the composition of the SCOTUS itself.
As usual, legislation like this is about ten years behind the times. For instance, it completely ignores the financial aspect of The Left Wing Media’s enormous soft money contributions to BHO’s campaign in 2008. And the fact is that the Internet pretty much erased any genuine “reform” that might have come from this ill-conceived law. This points to a far more significant electoral issue that has yet to be addressed: bona fide campaign finance fraud.
In 2008, following BHO’s outright lie about accepting public campaign financing if his opponent did, we saw clear evidence of rampant campaign finance fraud in the form of unverified donations made to his campaign via credit card over the Internet. Volumes of evidence showed that this fraud was taking place and even the Old Gray Hag was forced to take notice. But the Fed. Elec. Comm’n never bothered to investigate. There’s no telling how many hundreds – or millions – of dollars found their way into BHO’s campaign using this fraudulent mechanism, but the most troubling aspect is that no one in any position of authority seems interested in finding out. Ironically, if memory serves, McCain’s campaign ended up being the one in potential trouble with the FEC precisely BECAUSE he accepted public funding.
Two words: George Soros
democrats love any rule that they know how to brake.
I hope we get congress back. The house power of investigation is what we need. We need an old fashion right wing witch hunt. I see Alger Hiss everywhere.
As hinted at above, one of the reasons Democrats favor campaign limits is because it limits their opposition, not their friends. The limits don’t apply to the MSM. There is no limit on how many favorable stories the NYT, NBC, WP, etc. can publish about the Democrats, or unfavorable ones about their opponents. The big question ought to be, why do Republicans vote for it?
Control Control Control. Democrats are against democracy the same as Progressives are against progress. If a free and fair election breaks out what could be next constitutional law enforcement? The percent of the DNC on their way to prison if that happened would be the same as the percentage of Illinois Governors who serve prison time.
#1 It helps suppress alternative ,that is conservative political speech; #2 It helps protect the MSM(the Demlibs’main agitprop machine) from destruction at the hands of the new media,and #3 as a crypto-stalinist party,the Demtards,have a visceral hatred for both the first and the second amendments.Scratch a Demlib,find a Stalinist!
Given the the magnitude of the free liberal media bias and the singular candidates, Bush Vs Obama, at the time, I don’t think you can really explain differing campaign contribution amounts between republicans and democrats on the differences or changes in arcane campaign finance laws over time. Curiously, Obama refused to take matching federal funds, because he could raise more money. His timing was right. I think the campaign finance laws function as incumbent retention programs for both parties most of the time. I think changes in money amounts probably reflects ones perceptions of what is happening in “reality” at the time, as apposed to ones location in a trade or interest group. After all, labor and finance capital funded Obama’s campaign.
Add up about half the money spent by the corporate elite on the last few elections and you have enough to pay for free health care and free 2 year training/education and reduce the deficit by a large chunk. And just to make the Neo/Tea partiers happy, a tax cut too……Nah…forget it, it just makes too much sense eh?…
And if you end the wars, then you can throw get all the above..and a budjet surplus in as well !! like the last one when the Dems were in charge in the 90.s…before the tax and spend repubs took charge to cut spending (ha ha).
Interesting …indeed…
10. The only problem with that is that the money isn’t yours to spend. People have a right to speak and try to convince others to agree with them.
Because they can rely on the MSM to propagandize for them for free.
#10 POOR EXCUSE FOR A CITIZEN: I have a better idea:Make George Soros , the Wall street and Hollywood plutocracies,and various cretinous celebrities donate an amount of money that matches the billions they spent to get their sock puppet Obama elected,and we can almost pay for the intensive and extensive treatments you libtard trolls need to deal with your STDs,Drug addictions, and genetically-based insanity.
#10 Very interesting indeed! Sorry POOR EXCUSE FOR A CITIZEN ,but like all liberals,you believe that throwing money at a problem can solve it.If we were to take you up on your suggestions, and add the vast funds spent by George Soros,Hollywood, and the Wall street plutocrats,electing their affirmative -action sock puppet,and spent it treating your STDs,congenital insanity,and compulsive lying,it still wouldn’t be enough to cure you. You see,once syphillis goes tertiary,it’s over dude.But keep posting,It seems to have a therapeutic effect on you,and an amusing effect on us.
#11 Myth Buster: I agree,but liberals will never respect anyone’s right to free speech,if they disagree.Scartch a liberal;find a Stalinist!
Why Do Democrats Promote Campaign Finance Reform?
Yes, Democrats and a few GOPers — like the party’s Presidential candidate.
15. deguello: “Scartch a liberal;find a Stalinist!”
There’s stupid … and then there’s PJM stupid.
All this article proves is what we already know. That virtually everybody except some wingnuts came to hate the Toxic Texan a.k.a. G.W. Bush and the corrupt degenerate bathroom stall crawling Republican politicians. By ’06 everyone was disgusted with them. I suspect if Obama can’t reign in the deficit these figures will go in the other direction big time.
#17 JOSEPH (Stalin wannabee) spewed: There’s stupid,and there’s PJM stupid.Last time,I checked it was the Ohole,and a thuggish gaggle of demtard senators,who were jeering at SCOTUS,for defending the first amendment. There are syphillitics,and then there’s stalinist syphillitic trolls,who infest PJM with their toxic stalinist ravings. SCRATCH A LIBERAL FIND A STALINIST!
Poor Citizen (10)
Thank you for the propaganda. Now for the facts.
The original fight to keep businesses (corporations) from spending their money in support of candidates was when the democrat party didn’t like Republican owned businesses in the south spending their money running ads in support of Republican candidates (who were for the most part black folks at that time). Black folks, you see, didn’t have the money to buy ads and businesses did, so of course the democrat party wanted to keep evil corporations from letting black folks know about candidates and issues. In particular, they didn’t want black folks exposed to the correct spelling of candidate names as recognizing the names on the ballot was something democrats didn’t think black folks should be able to do (even then they preferred special ethnic studies for blacks rather than teaching them to read).
Democrats have always tried to keep as many people ignorant as possible whether it’s in relation to an election simply in relation to learning to read and write. The black literacy rate has fallen constantly since the democrat fight for federal control of schools began, and the black participation rate in elections has fallen constantly since the democrat led monitoring of elections began. It’s part and parcel of the same racist democrat policy that has existed since prior to the democrat led secession from the United States and they have no intention of changing.
Democrats always lie about their fundamental goal which is now and always has been to eliminate the Constitution and replace it with the sort of ruling nobility they had in the southern US prior to the Civil War. Try as you might, you and yours cannot hide the facts about the elitist, racist, socialist, democrat party. The democrat party is now and always has been the party of slavery, secession, civil war, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, eugenics laws, forced sterilization of black folks, filibustering of the Civil Rights Act, destruction of the black middle class, and the mass murder of the unborn.
If you want to eliminate some spending to make something else possible, start by eliminating all federal funding for the arts, all federal funding for education beyond high-school, all federal funding for elected officials other than their paycheck, and last but not least all federal funding for any program introduced as part of the “Great Society” scam. That should not only free a bit of money, it’ll halt the democrat brainwashing programs disguised as edjumakation as well. That’s the REAL criminal money being fed into elections, the money spent to deliberately brainwash students while claiming to be educating them.
Have a wonderful little day
The real why is because they know that Conservatives are more likely to obey the law than they are.