DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: _JS on October 26, 2007, 12:30:59 PM
-
Comfy With K Street: Democrats tell business to pay up or else.
BY STEPHEN MOORE
Friday, October 19, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
The late Milton Friedman used to rail against what he called corporate America's "suicidal impulse." By that he meant that the business community continually financed the very politicians who were intent on robbing their profits and slitting their throats.
It's happening again. The latest quarterly Federal Election Commission Report on political giving, released this week, shows the majority of corporate money flowing to the Democrats. Firms like Comcast, General Electric, Federal Express and UPS have shifted campaign giving away from the GOP. Employees of five major defense contractors including Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop-Grumman spent $104,000 on Democratic presidential candidates, versus $88,800 for the Republican field.
Meanwhile, according to FEC data, about 85% of the donations from Roll Call newspaper's top-20 list of corporate lobbyists are helping Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid protect and expand their House and Senate majorities. Roll Call calls it a "Democratic donor surge," noting that many of the highest-priced lobbyists already "maxed out"--they've bumped up against the legal limit in how much they are allowed to give the Democrats.
The shift in corporate allegiance helps explain the Democrats' commanding fund-raising lead. The House Democratic money-raising committee had $22 million of cash on hand at the end of August, the Republican committee $1.6 million. With more than $50 million in the bank, Hillary Clinton has as much cash as all the Republican presidential wannabes combined. The FEC report does note that Republicans closed some of the money gap thanks to a surge in small dollar contributions.
This deluge of corporate dollars comes at a time when congressional Democrats aren't the least bit bashful about their agenda. Should they win the White House they'll raise tax rates, pursue a trade protectionist policy under the guise of "fair trade," and enact as much of Big Labor's wish list as they can, from doing away with secret ballots in union certification elections to piling on more labor, environmental and health regulations. "There's almost nothing in the Pelosi/Reid agenda that we favor," one long-time industry government affairs representative tells me. "But we're still giving the bulk of our money to them."
Last spring, Democratic Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus said he wanted to more than double the tax on private equity and hedge-fund managers, which could cost this industry up to $6 billion a year. Yet Wall Street firms, investment banks, and private equity firms are still among the Democrats' most reliable ATMs. Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, and UBS are all giving about two-thirds of their dollars to Democrats this cycle.
Sen. Charles Schumer runs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and is playing the role of "good cop" when he dials Wall Street donors. As one hedge-fund manager tells me: "Senator Schumer says on the phone, 'I can make your problems go away.' " Of course, the Democrats created the problems. Mr. Schumer has raised at least $2 million this year from managers at leading PE firms like Carlyle and Blackstone Group.
High-tech companies depend for their existence on policies such as free trade, low capital-gains taxes, a tax-free Internet. But employees at firms like Microsoft, Cisco Systems and IBM give most of their money to the party largely opposed to these policies. In 2006, Google's employees gave 91% of their donations to Democrats.
Silicon Valley givers complain, with justification, about Republicans' lousy record of fiscal restraint, and of their harassment of employers with round-'em-up immigration tactics. More typically these donors say they are uncomfortable with the GOP positions on abortion and gay rights. Do they care so much about those issues that they're willing to jeopardize their jobs and multimillion dollar investment portfolios? For now the answer is yes.
When Republicans were in control, Ms. Pelosi and company denounced the "K Street Project," run by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. They protested that corporate lobbyists were allowed to become a fourth branch of government--and in some cases their protests had merit, as Republicans curried favor with money interests.
Meanwhile, Democrats under Rep. Rahm Emanuel and Sen. Schumer have quietly erected their own K Street Project, and employ some of the same strong-arm tactics they once deplored. "I've never felt the squeeze that we're under now to give to Democrats and to hire them," says one telecom industry representative. "They've put out the word that if you have an issue on trade, taxes, or regulation, you'd better be a donor and you'd better not be part of any effort to run ads against our freshmen incumbents."
Why does corporate America go along? The standard excuse is that this is the way the game is played. They've made a calculated decision that Democrats are going to sweep in 2008. Republicans rightly object that corporate interests are making this a self-fulfilling prophecy.
When Republicans took over Congress, the labor bosses didn't climb into bed with them. Unions like the Communications Workers of America and Service Employees International Union have a long track record of giving more than 90% of their dollars to Democrats and have spent millions more on independent campaigns to pound Republicans. Labor seems to understand what corporate America doesn't: It's a policy war, stupid.
So why won't business groups go to the mat for their friends and spend whatever it takes to defeat their enemies? Former Republican House majority leader Dick Armey explains that "the business groups are simply not ideological givers. They give to buy access and to minimize risk."
He's undoubtedly right. And so, if Democrats run the table in 2008, they will have corporate America to thank. But business is living in a fantasy world if they believe this will spare them from what is likely to be one of the most anti-growth agendas that Washington has seen in many decades. Nor should they be spared. When you sell the rope to the hangman, you deserve to have a noose around your neck.
Link (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010753)
Mr. Moore is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board.
-
Interestingly enough, Lanya has had nothing to say about K Street this year, either.
-
Interestingly enough, Lanya has had nothing to say about K Street this year, either.
Hmmm......
This is signifigant , Lanya spends a lot of time trolling the left side of the internet and bringing back for our perusual the best of what she finds.
If Lanya hasn't seen K street complaints , there probly arn't any.
-
I don't think this needs to be "attack Lanya time."
I find that rather petty. I doubt she is pleased with Democrats cozying up to corporate bigshots, but I didn't see either of you complaining much about the Republicans benefitting from it in 2000 or 2004, either.
Shouldn't we focus on the article?
-
Maybe we should recycle some of her posts? Replace "conservative" with "liberal", "Republican" with "Democrat", etc?
-
If I say nothing about it, it probably means (as in this case) that I was not aware it was again a big problem. I know my congressman does not take any lobbyists' money.
There are quite a few issues I am aware of and I have become distracted. Torture. SCHIP. FISA. Etc.
I'm for public financing of elections, and against lobbyists. Period.
Ami, you do whatever you feel is right.
-
I find that rather petty. I doubt she is pleased with Democrats cozying up to corporate bigshots, but I didn't see either of you complaining much about the Republicans benefitting from it in 2000 or 2004, either.
But the claims at the time were that it showed a "Republican culture of corruption." Surely, if getting money from K Street shows corruption, shouldn't she be complaining about it still?
Or were her posts just partisan?
(Incidentally, I don't see much complaint from either of us about the Democrats, either. Does that mean we're just more consistent?)
-
I know my congressman does not take any lobbyists' money.
And who is this saint?
-
(Incidentally, I don't see much complaint from either of us about the Democrats, either. Does that mean we're just more consistent?)
Assholes to Lanya?
In fairness these Democrats have yet to commit the notable ethics violations and go on to criminal trials for their involvement with K-street. They may still, and are certainly looking to head that direction, but I wouldn't say it is equivalent just yet. I haven't seen the Democrat version of Tom DeLay out of this group.
-
If I say nothing about it, it probably means (as in this case) that I was not aware it was again a big problem.
You were only "not aware" since you didn't bother to listen to people at the time you made the posts. It was said at that time that Democrats in the past got lots of money from K Street when they were in power, and when they came back in power they would get lots of money from them again. Par for the course.
Guess you either ignored it or didn't believe it.
-
I don't think this needs to be "attack Lanya time."
I find that rather petty. I doubt she is pleased with Democrats cozying up to corporate bigshots, but I didn't see either of you complaining much about the Republicans benefitting from it in 2000 or 2004, either.
Shouldn't we focus on the article?
I apologise if what I ment in humor was hurtfull.
I assure you and Lanya too that I ment no harm.
But I do think that Lanya opens a windo on Liberal conversations for me that I would not have otherwise , Haven't I said so before?
-
If corproate giveing is a problem , it is not a partizen problem , there has never been a time when Lobbyists were not influential.
The secret here is that corporations don't mind tax , it changes price but doesn't change the bottom line.
-
Assholes to Lanya?
Well, what do you expect. After all, we want all women to die of cancer.
-
I know my congressman does not take any lobbyists' money.
And who is this saint?
The Zack Space Ethics Pledge
I pledge to you, as your Congressman, I will accept:
1. No gifts from lobbyists.
2. No trips from lobbyists.
3. No meals from lobbyists.
4. I will never put corporate interests ahead of the people I represent.
Zachary T. Space
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:jegVDkRrlh0J:www.zackspace.org/content/view/134/85/+zack+space+phone&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us&client=firefox-a
People really got tired of Ney and the lobbyists.
As to Democrats and lobbyists, I believe in the past I said that we weren't in on the big K Street money because we weren't in power at the time. K Street had changed so that all the lobbyists were Republicans, just about (or so I read) and the recipients of their largesse were Republicans.
It can change fast.
-
(Incidentally, I don't see much complaint from either of us about the Democrats, either. Does that mean we're just more consistent?)
Assholes to Lanya?
In fairness these Democrats have yet to commit the notable ethics violations and go on to criminal trials for their involvement with K-street. They may still, and are certainly looking to head that direction, but I wouldn't say it is equivalent just yet. I haven't seen the Democrat version of Tom DeLay out of this group.
What have yuo convicted Tom DeLay of?
No court is convicting him , they keep swapping the charges but it is not yet sticking.
Did Tom DeLay do something worse than railroading an opponent through the court system?
Do you know exactly what he was origionally accused of and do you know what they changed it to ?
Tom DeLay is gonna have a comeback , mostly because a comeback is better than an apology.
-
Zachary T. Space
According to the Washington Post, he has accepted money from lobbyists:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/elections/keyraces/funding/n00027902/ (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/elections/keyraces/funding/n00027902/)
-
Thanks, I will find out about this.
-
The New York Times 1/9/00 Richard Berke ".... Many prominent Democrats say they are deeply troubled that the Republican Party is collecting so much more money than the Democrats that it will enjoy an insurmountable financial advantage -- perhaps enough to cost them the White House. These Democrats have a recurring fear: that their nominee, either Al Gore or Bill Bradley, will emerge in late March from the peak presidential primary season battered, bruised and broke. And if at that time the Republican National Committee has a big surplus of unregulated "soft money" over the Democratic counterpart, they say, the Democratic candidate would face a relentless blizzard of television commercials condemning Democratic programs. ...."
-
I found out about the "Lawyers/Lobbyists" contribution to my congressman.
Turns out it is only from lawyers. That grouping was done by the WaPo. He takes no money, no donations, no gifts, no trips, nada rien nothing from lobbyists/
He does this so that he's not owned by them and because he has a big job to prove to his constituents that he's not another Bob Ney (Property of Highest Bidder).
-
He takes no money, no donations, no gifts, no trips, nada rien nothing from lobbyists/
He accepted $5,000 from the AFL-CIO which is a registered lobbying group. I'm sure there are others.