Special interest sided with Democrats in 2010 election

Tim Carney:

Democrats raised far more money from political action committees this past election than Republicans did, even counting the new "Super PACs" President Obama claimed were giving the GOP a corporate-funded unfair advantage.

Final campaign finance figures from the Federal Election Commission have come in, and they show a very different picture from the one painted by Obama and most of the media. The Democrats' advantage in money from traditional PACs was just about 10 times the size of the Republicans' advantage from the new Super PACs.

The Obama line -- special interests, upset about the Democrats' tough reforms, favored the GOP -- got plenty play this cycle, and fit neatly into many journalists' prejudices. But the truth is more complicated. Both parties are probably equally cozy with special interests.

PAC giving is a good measure of corporate political leanings, and by any measure, PACs gave more to Democratic candidates. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, traditional PACs -- which are limited to $10,000 to each candidate -- gave $220 million to Democratic House and Senate candidates this cycle, compared with $153 million to Republicans.

Some of the Democrats' PAC advantage stems from PACs' tendency to mostly fund incumbents -- and Democrats had a lot more of those. But even adjusting for Democrats' numerical advantage, you get a similar story: The average House Democrat running for re-election raised $677,409 from PACs, compared with $530,492 for the average Republican. On the Senate side, Democrats enjoyed a narrower advantage: $1.85 million to $1.61 million on average.

...
There is more.

This does not even count the advantage the Democrats had with the unions who out spent the Republican "super PACs" by a large margin. The Democrats were not out spent in 2010, but they did resent the fact that the GOP was competitive and more importantly, it had a message the Democrats had difficulty dealing with because of the failure of liberalism.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t
Read more