Campaign Finance Stats
by matt at 6:00 am on January 26th, 2004 in PoliticsPercentage of $2000 contributions
Number of $2000 contributions
But giving money is free speech right?
Data from OpenSecrets.org
Percentage of $2000 contributions
Number of $2000 contributions
But giving money is free speech right?
Data from OpenSecrets.org
Greedo wrote:
I’m confused with your point. Are you upset that the limit on individual contributions is $2K? Please explain.
Posted 26 Jan 2004 at 6:57 am ¶
matt wrote:
I think the point is clear. Look how high Bush’s percentage of maxed-out donations is. This isn’t grass roots support or people looking out for the good of the country. It’s government contracts and favors for sale.
The idea that campaign donations are free speech is one of the big lies.
Posted 26 Jan 2004 at 7:28 am ¶
jean-paul wrote:
furthermore, i think your point is that a vote for kucinich is a vote against special interests, although that seems to be kerry’s speech du jour at the moment. kerry, of course, ranking pretty high on the democratic-candidate vested-interest donation scale.
Posted 26 Jan 2004 at 9:13 am ¶
matt wrote:
Surprisingly not my point.
Kerry co-opted a bunch of other messages and cobbled them together because the press is too lazy to report on the evolution of positions. It’s either flip flop or not. He’s taking advantage of the situation which is fine.
Kucinich in ‘72
Posted 26 Jan 2004 at 9:19 am ¶
photosuperstar wrote:
Editor and Publisher has a interesting story about media outlets and their contribution activities.
Posted 26 Jan 2004 at 9:30 am ¶
Greedo wrote:
I guess I still don’t understand.
If an individual donor has $2K (the limit set by the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act) to give to the candidate of their choice, they shouldn’t give the maximum amount? What should they do with the remainder? Put it in a piggy bank?
But maybe I do understand. As individual, I have the right to give up to $2K to the candidate I choose. I guess you really get your money’s worth if an individual with only 2000 bucks can get awarded government contracts and personal favors from the administration.
What the fuck was I thinking? Why haven’t I written a check yet?
Posted 26 Jan 2004 at 12:04 pm ¶
forager wrote:
I didn’t see any mention of LaRouche on the chart… after all, he is approved and on the ballot in almost half the states in the union.
Posted 26 Jan 2004 at 12:07 pm ¶
matt wrote:
Technically, they should be creating jobs with it, but that is a whole other topic that will be covered in these pages.
$2,000 is more than regular working people can afford to give to a politician. Should Clark get the nomination, I’ll probably max out.
But look at the graphs. by 3 to 1, Bush’s donations come from people who max out. Probably from people who give to the RNC as well.
The fact that he has $200 Mills for an unopposed primary election is disgusting.
As for getting your money’s worth, check this. Donate. It works.
All I want from my donation is a speechwriting job. Shmears.
Posted 26 Jan 2004 at 12:15 pm ¶
matt wrote:
Running from jail rules. Just ask Jimmy “The Piece” Traficant.
LaRouche is on the chart.
Posted 26 Jan 2004 at 12:17 pm ¶
forager wrote:
ahh I see it now, matt - thx. My freakin browser mussed up the names on the graphic and I didn’t catch it on my initial glance. hmm not much of a $2000 donation percentage for him… I guess the need for 2 thousand dollar donations is minimal when you’re running your campaign on stolen credit cards Doh!
Posted 26 Jan 2004 at 1:34 pm ¶
Greedo wrote:
I don’t think $2K is too much for average middle-class individuals. Is it too much for a self-centered, low-level PR professional, living in Chicago, saving for a wedding? Yeah. But working-class citizens like my parents and their friends it’s not much of a problem.
I don’t understand why you’re so upset about people maxing out their donation. Maybe the Dems should start getting all of the rich liberals to throw their money around, it’s not like there aren’t any. Look at all of the super-wealthy trial lawyers that have donated to Kerry and Edwards. They’re probably hitting that $2K, I would hope so–to get their money’s worth.
Posted 26 Jan 2004 at 2:27 pm ¶
matt wrote:
$2000 is a month’s take home pay for the average american, 2 month’s gross for someone making minimum wage.
Setting aside that many middle class people are fearful that they will be laid off, none of this is my point.
I’m not angry about people giving $2000. It’s the percentages of people maxing out on Bush. You (as a conservative) should be disgusted that what the chart shows. The republicans are the party of the rich and the barriers to entry in the market of politics are too high.
Posted 26 Jan 2004 at 2:46 pm ¶
tom wrote:
the only things my family has ever dropped $2k on either had 4 wheels or a foundation. to say someone who is “average” can afford that you must really have a distorted view on what “average” means.
i also generally agree with matt on this issue. strange but true.
Posted 26 Jan 2004 at 2:57 pm ¶
Forager wrote:
I knew LaRouche submitted an application for Federal Matching Funds, however I didn’t realize he rec’d full matching funds! Incredible…
http://www.fec.gov/press/20031230certification.html
Posted 27 Jan 2004 at 6:32 am ¶
Greedo wrote:
Nope, no distorted view. Unless you think the son of a school bus salesman and nurse’s aide has distorted my perception.
As a conservative, I think their should be no restrictions on the amount a person can donate, as a pragmatist I realize that it’s been done and impossible.
The republican party has many wealthy people in it, but can you blame them!? With all the backlash (socially and fiscally) that all wealthy person gets from Dems, it’s a miracle we even have people that want to attain wealth. The Dems message paraphrased: Make lots of money so we can tax the shit out of you. Brilliant strategy!
But it is clearly NOT the party of the rich alone. Again, look at yourselves Democrats and realize the wealth of your candidates Dean–wealthy family, Kerry–married a rich women, Edwards–attained millions of dollars as a lawyer.
What about the top donors? So many lawyers, so many entertainers, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, the two wealthiest people in the country identify with the Democrats– So much hypocrisy.
Ideally, the Republican party is supposed to be the party of less government involvement in your personal affairs, save national security (the State of the Union address didn’t express this at all, but I digress). I am a middle-class American and I don’t believe the Dem spin that I’m one paycheck away from the poorhouse, and that if I don’t vote Dem, nobody’s going to reach down to me and lift me up from my condition of incipient bondage, and scraping to survive until I die. It’s all make-believe.
The Dem view is that everyone needs their help, the Rep view is I can do it on my own.
Posted 27 Jan 2004 at 7:51 am ¶
matt wrote:
>Nope, no distorted view. Unless you think the son of a >school bus salesman and nurse’s aide has distorted my >perception
You’re just swimming on this one. $2000 is a ton of money for most people to spend and get nothing in return.
>The republican party has many wealthy people in it, but >can you blame them!? With all the backlash (socially and >fiscally) that all wealthy person gets from Dems, it’s a >miracle we even have people that want to attain wealth.
patently disingenuous.
It’s not about who is rich, who isn’t rich and who gives money. Do I need to point to the chart again, or can you find it by yourself? Bush is collecting money from people he gave money to in the first place. That money was supposed to be for creating jobs. Instead it is being sent offshore and replanted as campaign contributions to the people that pushed the tax cuts through.
Fuck Gates, but Warren Buffet? How is he a hypocrite? Because he showed the difference of what his portion of the tax cuts were versus his secretary’s?
>Ideally, the Republican party is supposed to be the party >of less government involvement in your personal affairs, >save national security
How’s that working out by the way?
>The Dem view is that everyone needs their help, the Rep >view is I can do it on my own.
Interesting phrasing. I suggest a trip into the hood. I used to work in the absolute worst part of SF, Hunter’s Point. Any hood will do. Take a day and walk through and tell me that the free market is working in places like these. That they need to lift themselves up by the bootstraps. After that, we can talk.
Posted 27 Jan 2004 at 8:19 am ¶
Greedo wrote:
I don’t know, my parents dropped almost 20 times that amount for mine and my brothers’ college education. And what are they getting out of that? Self-sufficent offspring? Better birthday presents? we probably could’ve saved them the 20 years of investments and become mechanics.
Buffet’s not a hypocrite, your statement, “the Republicans are the party of the rich” is. WTF? Are you blind to all of the rich people in your party?
Yeah, the “Nanny-in-Chief” (title to Andrew Sullivan’s most recent Time magazine article) is really screwing that up.
It was deliberate phrasing–I’ve volunteered in Cabrini Green, lived with them, and have seen what government-funded housing and welfare programs produced for those people for years. I also see what public housing reforms and welfare reforms are doing right now and it’s inspiring.
There is a place for government to help people. But I’m tired of Dems encouraging middle-class voters to think of themselves as victims of eeevil right-wing forces–to believe that only government programs can save them from market-induced destitution.
Posted 27 Jan 2004 at 11:36 am ¶
matt wrote:
Comparing parents spending money on education vs political contributions is laughable. I don’t even see the need to go into any more depth on that.
I suggest you look into stats regarding voting patters by income. census.gov will have that data.
Sullivan is a tool, and Atrios pretty much proves that every day.
Them? Now you’re talking like a true (R).
So the programs haven’t cured poverty, so lets get rid of them and let everyone fend for themselves. Great logic.
Where EXACTLY is the place that there is room for govt to help people.
How should middle class people think?
All of these “middle class” tax cuts go to people making more than $200K. That’s middle class only in name.
Throw out my whole argument, and you are left with disproportionate tax cuts that benefit the same people who donate disproportionatly to republicans.
I notice that you haven’t addressed my point about creating jobs with that money. And why does the president need $200 Mills for a primary with no opponent?
Posted 27 Jan 2004 at 12:28 pm ¶