Tweedle Dee, Tweedle Dum

  1. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -- March 4, 2004
    CONTACT: 202/857-0044 or editor@capitaleye.org

    BUSH RAISING CAMPAIGN FUNDS
    FROM KERRY'S TOP CONTRIBUTORS

    President Bush begins the head-to-head battle for the White House against Sen. John Kerry with a $100 million advantage in fund raising. For that, Bush can thank his incumbent status, his network of fund-raising Pioneers and Rangers -- and several of the top contributors to the Kerry campaign.

    Nearly half of Kerry's biggest financial supporters contributed more money to Bush than to Kerry himself through Jan. 30 of this year, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics' study of campaign finance reports filed this month with the Federal Election Commission.

    The finding is one of many examples of Bush's fund-raising dominance, and it illustrates how much ground Kerry must make up to approach financial parity with the president. Bush raised a total of $145 million for his re-election effort in the first 13 months of the election cycle, dwarfing Kerry's $33 million.

    Kerry's third-largest contributor, Citigroup, gave more than $79,000 in individual and PAC contributions to the presumptive Democratic nominee through January. Louis Susman, Citigroup's vice-chairman, is one of Kerry's biggest fund-raisers. But the financial services giant gave more than $187,000 to the Bush campaign during the same period, good enough for 12th on the president's list of top contributors.

    Goldman Sachs contributed nearly $65,000 to Kerry through January, earning it the No. 6 ranking among Kerry's top givers. But the company's employees and PAC sent Bush nearly $283,000 -- more than four times the amount it gave to Kerry. Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson and managing director George Walker are Bush Pioneers who have raised at least $100,000 for the campaign.

    Even MassMutual, which ranks among the biggest donors to Kerry over the past 15 years, has contributed more money to Bush than to its home-state senator in the current election cycle. The insurance conglomerate gave $69,000 to Bush through January, compared with slightly more than $50,000 to Kerry. MassMutual CEO Robert O'Connell was a Bush Pioneer in 2000.

    In all, nine of Kerry's top 20 donors favor Bush with their contributions. Kerry's top contributor, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, has given nearly $106,000 to his campaign. But the nation's largest law firm has contributed an additional $65,000 to the Bush campaign.

    Kerry's No. 2 contributor, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, has been far more lopsided in its giving. The trial law firm has contributed nearly $92,000 to Kerry and just $4,000 to Bush. The firm's chairman, Mike Ciresi, is one of Kerry's top fund-raisers.

    Two of Kerry's top donors -- Chicago-based Clifford Law Offices and Hill, Holliday, the Boston-based ad firm -- have given no money to Bush. Bob Clifford of the Clifford Law Offices and Hill, Holliday Chairman Jack Connors are top fund-raisers for Kerry.

    Half of Kerry's top contributors through January are law firms. Two-thirds of Bush's top contributors represent the financial sector. Bush's No. 1 financial supporter, with nearly $458,000 in individual and PAC contributions, is Merrill Lynch, the financial services firm that has topped the list of the president's contributors since he first began fund-raising last spring. Second among Bush's top donors is PricewaterhouseCoopers with nearly $430,000 in contributions.

    ###
    Last edit by NurseHardee on Mar 7, '04
    •  
  2. 6 Comments

  3. by   kmchugh
    Quote from NurseHardee
    -- and several of the top contributors to the Kerry campaign.

    Nearly half of Kerry's biggest financial supporters contributed more money to Bush than to Kerry himself through Jan. 30 of this year, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics' study of campaign finance reports filed this month with the Federal Election Commission.

    A long standing and well know tradition, known as "hedging your bets." It's funny that people made such a to do over the Bush campaign taking contributions from Enron in the 2000 election, as though that somehow smeared him with their crimes. But those same people ignored the fact that Enron gave to Algore as well. Don't know why this is so surprising, or such a big deal.

    KM
  4. by   nurseygrrl
    The talk of all these millions for an American presidential campaign sickens me...What has this world come to? There are SO MANY more worthy causes these funds could be spent on. I live in NY and I see EXTREME poverty...meanwhile people are throwing around millions for 'advertising' and scmoozing parties to get even more...disgusting!
  5. by   NurseHardee
    Gee, KM.... it's a big deal since many Americans are under the delusion that they live in a democracy. But how can that be, when corporations are able to buy "both sides", at the same time, in the two-party system forced on us by these same businesses?

    Nurse Hardee
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    A long standing and well know tradition, known as "hedging your bets." It's funny that people made such a to do over the Bush campaign taking contributions from Enron in the 2000 election, as though that somehow smeared him with their crimes. But those same people ignored the fact that Enron gave to Algore as well. Don't know why this is so surprising, or such a big deal.

    KM
  6. by   WyomingRN
    "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." Johann W. Von Goethe

    Moreover, I can't figure out why non-human entities like corporation are even allowed to give anything for any reason. Only human persons that breath air and can actually cast a ballet should be allowed to support candidates.
  7. by   pickledpepperRN
    To be fair I believe some of these companies gave to Kerry too.

    March 10, 2004 |
    NEW REPORT: Why Bush Supports Outsourcing


    On the eve of his trip to Ohio to "focus on jobs,"1 President Bush claimed yesterday that "we're creating jobs - good, high-paying jobs for the American citizen."2 His comments come despite the country having lost more than 2 million manufacturing jobs since he was elected. In Ohio, which lost 270,000 manufacturing jobs alone, the economic crisis has raised questions about why the president last month strongly endorsed the outsourcing of U.S. jobs to cheap overseas labor markets. A look at the president's donors offers an answer.3

    Misleader compared the companies that outsource the most U.S. jobs (referred to as "captive remote services companies" on page 11 of the trade association report noted below) with the president's campaign finance records.4 The analysis shows that the president's campaign has pocketed more than $440,000 and his party more than $3.6 million in just 4 years. These companies have a direct stake in the president publicly supporting outsourcing and doing everything he can to water down or oppose legislation to curb the practice.5

    The breakdown of campaign contributions is as follows:

    TOP OUTSOURCER: American Express
    Contributions directly to the President Bush: $39,000
    Soft Money contributions to the Republican Party: $422,405

    TOP OUTSOURCER: Bechtel
    Contributions directly to President Bush: $10,300
    Soft Money contributions to the Republican Party: $465,150

    TOP OUTSOURCER: Convergys
    Contributions directly to President Bush: $7,500
    Soft Money contributions to the Republican Party: $5000

    TOP OUTSOURCER: Dell Computer
    Hard Money to Bush: $40,250
    Soft Money contributions to the Republican Party: $793,550

    TOP OUTSOURCER: Delphi Automotive
    Contributions directly to President Bush: $10,950

    TOP OUTSOURCER: Fidelity
    Contributions directly to President Bush: $164,908
    Soft Money contributions to the Republican Party: $574,270

    TOP OUTSOURCER: Ford
    Contributions directly to President Bush: $76,200
    Soft Money contributions to the Republican Party: $268,257

    TOP OUTSOURCER: General Electric
    Contributions directly to President Bush: $49,125
    Soft Money contributions to the Republican Party: $756,987

    TOP OUTSOURCER: Hewlett Packard
    Contributions directly to President Bush: $6,200
    Soft Money contributions to the Republican Party: 29,000

    TOP OUTSOURCER: HSBC
    Soft Money contributions to the Republican Party: $4,240

    TOP OUTSOURCER: McKinsey & Co
    Contributions directly to President Bush: $19,500
    Soft Money contributions to the Republican Party: $102,500

    TOP OUTSOURCER: Sallie Mae
    Contributions directly to President Bush: $19,250
    Soft Money contributions to the Republican Party: $261,000

    Sources:
    1. "Bush focusing on jobs in Ohio trip", MSNBC, 03/10/2004.
    2. "President Commends Recipients of Malcolm Baldridge Awards", 03/09/2004.
    3. "Jobs may be focal point in Ohio race", The Sacramento Bee, 03/10/2004.
    4. NASSCOM FY02 Results.
    5. "Senate pushes ahead with offshore outsourcing legislation", ComputerWorld, 03/05/2004.
  8. by   NurseHardee
    Published on Friday, March 12, 2004 by the Boston Globe
    Trash Food Makers Fatten GOP Coffers
    by Derrick Z. Jackson

    FOR THE PHOTO-OP on Tuesday, the United States became a fat farm. "We're just too darned fat, ladies and gentlemen, and we're going to do something about it," Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson said.

    He said this as he released new statistics showing that obesity will probably become our number one preventable killer next year, on its way to killing 500,000 people a year. The next day on the "Today Show," Thompson vowed that his department "is going to take an all-out, aggressive, offensive effort" against the epidemic. He went so far as to claim that the pharaohs of fat were loosening their bonds on the minds of America's youth. "Kraft food has come out . . . with all healthy foods. Pepsi Cola, Coca Cola, all of these companies are starting to step up. McDonald's has just stopped super-sizing. So we're starting to have an impact."

    As we know, photo-ops are shows laden with the political equivalent of hydrogenated fats, meant to disguise the fact that there is no meat on the bones. Even as Thompson spoke, the pharaohs were on Capitol Hill, sitting in glee as the House voted, 276-139, to ban lawsuits against trash-food companies. The bill's sponsor, Republican Ric Keller of Florida, said, "The food industry is under attack and in the cross hairs of the same trial lawyers who went after big tobacco."

    Unsaid was that Keller and his fellow Republicans were in the cross hairs of the food industry. Among Keller's current top five political contributors are the corporation that runs the Olive Garden and Red Lobster chains, Outback Steakhouse, and Disney (and we all know how healthy the food is at Disney World).

    From 1995 to 2002, according to Common Cause, food and grocery companies and restaurants gave more than $19.3 million in soft money to Republican causes compared with $5.5 million for Democrats.

    Many companies give to both parties, but there is no mistaking their political loyalties. Coca-Cola and affiliated donors, for instance, gave $807,000 to Democrats but $1.74 million to Republicans. PepsiCo gave $255,000 to the Democrats but $1.7 million to Republicans. Nestle gave the Democrats $59,000 but gave the Republicans $208,000.Burger King gave $20,000 to Democrats but $111,000 to Republicans.

    Of the $26 million contributed by restaurant companies and food processors in the 2000 elections, 71 percent of the money went to Republicans. The National Restaurant Association, Philip Morris (with a constellation of trash food in its resume, such as Kraft), Outback, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, McDonald's, Waffle House, Pizza Hut, Olive Garden, Red Lobster, Burger King, Cracker Barrel, and General Mills are among the top contributors on lists compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics that gave 77 percent or more of their money to Republican causes.

    You probably never knew that doughnuts were a peculiarly Republican trash food. But in the current election cycle, Dunkin' Donuts and Krispy Kreme have both given 100 percent of their money to Republicans.

    This is more than whether companies should be shielded from lawsuits. In a vacuum, it is an individual choice to put an apple or a Krispy Kreme in your mouth. It is about a larger war the fat pharaohs, profiting on easy-to-process sugars and starches, are waging to rearrange our brains to make us think we need the Krispy Kreme. The House vote this week on legal shields pales next to the oncoming cultural war over advertising.

    Already, health advocates are calling for bans of trash food ads on children's TV, the removal of soda and candy machines from schools, and cigarette-like taxes on trash food. The House vote only fuels the culture war instead of squelching it. As with cigarettes, the dawning upon us of the health disaster of trash food and our sedentary lives took a while. Now that it is here, advertising limitations or bans may be closer and more welcomed than you think.

    Thompson's braggadocio means very little given his paltry ammunition. Thompson says he wants $440 million for obesity research. Well, the trash food companies have already done their research, and their investment in brainwashing makes the government look like it's holding a wilting single stalk of asparagus in an avalanche of French fries.

    In 2002 alone, McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, Subway, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Applebee's, Starbucks, and Domino's Pizza spent a combined $2.2 billion on advertising, according to Advertising Age. McDonald's alone outspends government efforts to combat obesity. In 2002, the fried burger company spent $548 million on advertising.

    Thompson is right. The nation is too darned fat. Thompson's political allies are also too fat in the wallet from the companies making us fat. Until that changes, his decrees is just a hydrogenated photo op. All fat. No meat. And definitely no fruit or vegetables.

    © Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.

    ###

Must Read Topics


close