How the 1%-of-1% spends its political dollar

Discuss

16 Responses to “How the 1%-of-1% spends its political dollar”

  1. figurative says:

    This is going to be a big problem for President Obama.  So much of his contributions came from the 1% Wall Streeters.  It’s hard to paint him in a 99% suppportive light.

    • DrunkenOrangetree says:

      It’s a far bigger problem for the 99%, since Obama is the candidate the most likely to care about the rest of country. I’m certainly not looking for Newt or Mitt to give a care.

      • figurative says:

        Caring and good intentions don’t count.  We need solutions and results.  

        • abstract_reg says:

          I would classify caring and good intentions as necessary but not sufficient. If you neither care nor have good intentions then you are not going to be a good president/human being.

    • snarkylicious says:

      Except that’s wrong. Romney has been raking the Wall Street cash and Obama has had the largest majority of small donor cash. But keep humping that chicken.

  2. thaum says:

    Good to know — but what about how the money’s spent? What ends up going into the candidates’ wallets?

  3. Black Jack Canoe says:

    Looking at the article, it appears that D candidates do better than Rs from the .01%. As for ideological groups, four of the top five are left of center.

  4. Michael Hasse says:

    Let the naming and shaming begin!  A decent portion of the 1% actually agrees wholeheartedly with the 99%, they just don’t know what to do about it.  We need a lot more scenes like this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/04/theater-audience-boos-tea_n_804457.html

  5. Mike Hamburg says:

    To be clear, this is not saying that 25% of the contributions come from the 0.01% richest Americans.  Rather, it is saying that 25% of the contributions come from the 0.01% who give the most.

    This is a gap that something that ordinary, middle-class Americans could close if we wanted to.  If every US citizen gave $2.89, it would equal the contribution from this 0.01% (though it wouldn’t show on the chart, because that only counts contributions over $200).  That’s not to say that the disparity isn’t a problem, but it’s more surmountable than the 1% wealth gap.

    • thaum says:

      Why should anyone support the congressvermin that enable the corruption and violence that we’re now seeing everywhere?

      • abstract_reg says:

        This is why you donate to people that aren’t yet congressvermin. If big corp. decides to buy themselves some politicians, then maybe the middle class can buy some of their own. Sure it isn’t the best way to run a government, but for those poor souls living in those United States it may be their only option.

  6. hadlockk says:

    Let me decipher four of those dots for you: Boeing: Seattle/Chicago, Lockheed Martin: Fort Worth, Raytheon: Dallas. All huge military contractors

  7. magnesium says:

    I wonder if there is a recent change to correlate where the money comes from with presidental candidate success/selection? I see Ohio is left out in terms of money and historically has provided the most presidents, but none recently. Looking at the president list, 10 out of the last 15 have generally been “from” the big money states (I arbitrarially started counting after the last president from Ohio). Interesting? And if so, why the change? Power concentration in major cities? Military/industrial complex? Any suggestions?

  8. DJ ahWoo says:

    Excellent ! now we know where to attack.

  9. Cowicide says:

    Related…  Lawrence Lessig was on the Daily Show a couple of nights ago… you can watch it here  at the link below and the must-watch extended interview (part 2) as well:

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-13-2011/exclusive—lawrence-lessig-extended-interview-pt–1

  10. lknope says:

    Related:  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/17/occupy-wall-street/occupy-wall-street-protesters-sign-says-94-percent/
    Quote:
    “In congressional races in 2010, the candidate who spent the most won 85 percent of the House races and 83 percent of the Senate races, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That’s a large percentage, but it’s lower than what the sign indicated. Indeed, the percentage for 2010 was lower than it had been in recent election cycles. The center found that in 2008, the biggest spenders won 93 percent of House races and 86 percent of Senate races. In 2006, the top spenders won 94 percent of House races and 73 percent of Senate races. And in 2004, 98 percent of House seats went to candidates who spent the most, as did 88 percent of Senate seats.”

Leave a Reply