| State | Legislator Only Ties | Legislator & Spouse Ties |
| Texas | 48.9% | 52.3% |
| Virginia | 39.0% | 40.7% |
| Florida | 38.1% | 38.8% |
| North Carolina | 37.9% | 40.5% |
| California | 33.3% | 35.8% |
| Delaware | 32.8% | 34.4% |
| New York | 32.8% | 40.3% |
| Washington | 31.9% | 36.1% |
| New Jersey | 30.0% | 36.0% |
| Ohio | 28.7% | 28.7% |
| Alaska | 28.3% | 38.3% |
| Connecticut | 27.6% | 33.0% |
| Maryland | 27.4% | 28.5% |
| Minnesota | 25.4% | 25.4% |
| Utah | 24.0% | 25.0% |
| Nevada | 23.8% | 31.7% |
| Wisconsin | 23.1% | 27.7% |
| Indiana | 23.1% | 26.5% |
| Arkansas | 22.6% | 25.6% |
| North Dakota | 22.6% | 26.9% |
| Massachusetts | 22.2% | 29.4% |
| Nebraska | 21.7% | 21.7% |
| Arizona | 20.7% | 26.4% |
| Montana | 18.6% | 18.6% |
| Colorado | 18.4% | 20.4% |
| Kansas | 16.0% | 18.5% |
| Kentucky | 15.9% | 18.1% |
| Illinois | 14.7% | 15.3% |
| Oklahoma | 13.5% | 14.9% |
| New Mexico | 11.7% | 17.1% |
| Hawaii | 11.1% | 11.1% |
| Alabama | 10.4% | 13.3% |
| Oregon | 10.2% | 21.6% |
| Pennsylvania | 9.0% | 9.0% |
| Rhode Island | 9.0% | 11.3% |
| Iowa | 8.7% | 8.7% |
| Tennessee | 8.7% | 15.9% |
| West Virginia | 7.7% | 7.7% |
| Missouri | 7.4% | 12.6% |
| Georgia | 7.3% | 7.3% |
| Wyoming | 6.9% | 6.9% |
| Maine | 5.4% | 6.5% |
| Mississippi | 3.8% | 5.6% |
| New Hampshire | 2.8% | 3.0% |
| South Carolina | 2.4% | 3.0% |
| South Dakota | 1.0% | 1.0% |
| Louisiana | 0.7% | 0.7% |
sábado, 5 de abril de 2008
Center for Public Integrity shows lobby ties in each state
This table shows the percentage of legislators in each state who reported in 2002 a financial tie—through an employer, a personal business, a stock investment or a directorship—to a business or organization registered in 2001 to lobby their state's government.
Louisiana issues legislation on ethical standars
A bill passed during a special session of the Louisiana State Legislature makes substantial changes in the state's financial disclosure standards, an analysis by the Center for Public Integrity shows.
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal
The new law, which takes effect in January 2009, will provide more information to the public about the personal financial interests of state legislators and public officials. The law earned 99 out of a possible 100 points on a survey used by the Center to rank public disclosure requirements for state legislators and puts Louisiana's law on par with the nation's best financial disclosure laws.
Two years ago, in the same survey, Louisiana's financial disclosure law earned 43 out of 100 points, ranking it in the bottom fifth of all states for ethics standards.
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who took office in January, initiated the special legislative session, which focused on ethics reform. Jindal, a Republican, made transparency in government the centerpiece of his 2007 campaign for governor. He maintains that strengthening Louisiana's ethics laws will help the state attract investment and jobs.
In pushing for reform, Jindal has pointed to the Center's survey and similar yardsticks in arguing that Louisiana must achieve the "gold standard" in ethics. During the special legislative sessions, for example, the governor's staff distributed a 16-page document to lawmakers that explained how the Center's survey awards points.
Jindal's staff relied on the Center's methodology for ranking ethics laws as a jumping-off point in the governor's ethics proposals, Camille Conaway, a policy adviser, said. "We started with the ranking, then tried to go beyond that and see what other states were doing," Conaway told the Center. "We did our best to craft a bill that would make us a model."
The new law includes provisions that do not earn points in the Center's rankings. One, for example, requires public officials to disclose loans and other liabilities of more than $10,000.
According to Conaway, the governor's office plans to use improvements in rankings such as the Center's as tool to attract investors to Louisiana.
"Louisiana thinks, and it may be rightly or wrongly, that the nation views Louisiana as incredibly corrupt and therefore untrustworthy," G. Pearson Cross, a professor of political science at University of Louisiana-Lafayette, told the Center. "They think that nationally people will notice that Louisiana has cleaned up its act."
An earlier version of the bill would have required state judges to meet the same disclosure standards as legislators and public officials. The Louisiana Supreme Court has promised that it will upgrade its disclosure rules for the state judiciary to an equivalent standard by June.
In a letter to Jindal and Joel Chaisson II, the president of the state Senate, Supreme Court Chief Justice Pascal Calogero, Jr., said that he has "already begun the process of examining financial disclosure provisions adopted by other states with an eye towards amending our Code of Judicial Conduct," according to the New Orleans Times-Picayune. Judicial disclosure standards vary widely from state to state, a July 2007 Center report found.
viernes, 4 de abril de 2008
The Clintonian Free Trader Lobbyist
So, Ms Clinton is opposed to the signing of any more free trade agreement. She has told everybody that story. All right with that. However, her main campaign advisor seems to 
think different. Mark Penn, the advisor, is lobbying on behalf the government of Colombia to get the bilateral trade agreement approved in the Senate. He is doing that because he works for Burson-Marsteller Worldwide, one of the most important lobbying firms in the world, hired ussually by countries to lobby such things as international agreements, financial aid, etc. in Washington.
There is nothing wrong at first glance. Mr Penn works for that firm, that ok. He also advises Hillary on PR, great!. But what the hell was he thinking when he accepted to have a meeting with the colombian govenmental agents. The fees charged to Colombia must be so high that he did not care about the conquence of his action.
Do you know how much does it cost to invite senators expensive meals, trips, gifts an all those luxurious things that tend to awake their best democratic rationale? Apparently, most journalist do not. Othewise, they would not charge against him because of this. Penn has a lot of mouths to feed (his own family, lawmakers, and lawmaker´s families). It is not easy to be a guardian of good policy-making.
Poor Mark, this is not a time nor a place for heroes like you....... Check out the story in the The Wall Street Journal.
think different. Mark Penn, the advisor, is lobbying on behalf the government of Colombia to get the bilateral trade agreement approved in the Senate. He is doing that because he works for Burson-Marsteller Worldwide, one of the most important lobbying firms in the world, hired ussually by countries to lobby such things as international agreements, financial aid, etc. in Washington.There is nothing wrong at first glance. Mr Penn works for that firm, that ok. He also advises Hillary on PR, great!. But what the hell was he thinking when he accepted to have a meeting with the colombian govenmental agents. The fees charged to Colombia must be so high that he did not care about the conquence of his action.
Do you know how much does it cost to invite senators expensive meals, trips, gifts an all those luxurious things that tend to awake their best democratic rationale? Apparently, most journalist do not. Othewise, they would not charge against him because of this. Penn has a lot of mouths to feed (his own family, lawmakers, and lawmaker´s families). It is not easy to be a guardian of good policy-making.
Poor Mark, this is not a time nor a place for heroes like you....... Check out the story in the The Wall Street Journal.
miércoles, 2 de abril de 2008
Corporate world is bipartisan, money goes to the winner, that is it.
The democrats are receiving more money from the corporate world that Republicans. That demonstrate two things: 1) Big Pharma, Finance Industry and so on are bipartisan, they only care who wins, no matter which patry the candidate is from. 2) Democrats and Republicans have one and only big difference, democrats tend to be more fun to whatch and hear and Rpublicans more boring.
Wall Street Journal brings the story (Do not miss the graphic):
Business Donors Bypass McCain
Democrats Rake In
Cash From Industry;
Catch-Up for GOP
By BRODY MULLINS
April 2, 2008; Page A1
WASHINGTON -- John McCain faces a problem as he tries to close a deep fund-raising deficit against the two Democratic candidates for president: Both have been cleaning his clock among business interests that give mainly to Republicans.
Of seven major industries that have been the most reliable Republican resources, Sen. McCain has beaten Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama in only one, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan organization. Even that one, transportation, is a close call. Among the seven combined, the expected Republican nominee raised $13.1 million through February, compared with $22.5 million for Sen. Obama and $27.1 million for Sen. Clinton.
See more data on the finances behind the Clinton, Obama and McCain campaigns
The Republican standard-bearer's attempt to claw back financial support from the GOP's business base could be a pivotal factor in determining the outcome of the presidential race. Employees of financial-services, insurance and real-estate companies so far have donated to Sen. Obama over Sen. McCain by almost two-to-one -- and favored Sen. Clinton by even more. Health-care and pharmaceutical firms have given three times as much to each of the two Democrats as to Sen. McCain. Defense firms put Sen. McCain ahead of Sen. Obama, but behind Sen. Clinton. Energy, construction and agribusiness firms have given more to both Democrats. (See related article.)
In February, as Sen. McCain neared a lock on the nomination, he showed signs of a fund-raising recovery among those industries. A Wall Street Journal analysis of campaign-finance reports shows that he raised far more from energy firms in February than either Democratic rival, cutting into his deficit there. He outraised Sen. Clinton among employees of finance, insurance and real-estate firms, though he fell short of Sen. Obama's total during that month, the latest available. In agriculture, Sen. McCain outraised Sen. Clinton and fell just $1,000 short of tying Sen. Obama.
But in the health and defense industries, he fell further behind -- by more than enough to wipe out his gains elsewhere. From the Republican-friendly industries combined, Sen. McCain raised $1.6 million in February, closing in on Sen. Clinton's $1.8 million but well behind Sen. Obama's $2.7 million. Those figures don't include major industry sectors -- media, entertainment, communications and high-tech -- where Democrats are historically strong and which almost double the industry totals for Sens. Obama and Clinton.
Sen. McCain told reporters last week that his campaign had seen a "dramatic increase in contributions" once other Republicans ended their campaigns in early February. He also noted how badly he needed the turnaround: "We've got our work cut out for us," Sen. McCain said. "I mean, the numbers don't lie." The Republican is some $100 million behind each of the two Democrats in fund raising from all sources.
Executive Donations
Corporations themselves by law aren't allowed to donate money to candidates. But executives and employees of companies and their spouses can each give up to $2,300 to a candidate for the primary campaign and another $2,300 for the general election. Candidates must make public the names and employers of people who donate $200 or more, a group that the Center for Responsive Politics says mostly come from executive ranks.
Two main factors have combined to put Sen. McCain in such a deep hole with businesses. First: Since early 2007, Democrats in general have been more successful at fund raising than their Republican counterparts. The unusually strong business-sector fund raising of Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama has been helped by a wide expectation during 2007 of likely Democratic success in the White House and congressional races because of President Bush's unpopularity. Corporations have been "moving in a direction where the electorate is likely to be," says Mike Feldman, a Democrat and consultant for a number of U.S. corporations in Washington.
Second, Sen. McCain's maverick status in his party and frequent tangles with big business interests made other Republican candidates far more attractive to many industry donors. The 2008 presidential nominee of the traditional party of business is seen as one of the least business-friendly Republicans in Washington, and the fund-raising numbers reflect that. "It's very foreboding for Republicans," says Jan Baran, a former general counsel at the Republican National Committee and now a campaign-finance lawyer at Washington law and lobbying firm Wiley Rein LLP. Mr. Baran called McCain's weakness among business interests compared with the Democrats "startling."
According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 40 of 47 current Republicans it ranked in the Senate have stronger pro-business voting records over their lifetimes than Sen. McCain -- though he still has voted with business interests 81% of the time, the Chamber says.
Jill Hazelbaker, a spokeswoman for the McCain campaign, noted that Sen. McCain "led the charge to limit the money and influence of special interests in politics, so it's not surprising that he's not at the top of their handout list." But, she added, the campaign will "have the money we need to win."
In the Senate, the Arizona Republican has had no trouble raising money to run for re-election, even from industries whose interests he sometimes opposed. But Sen. McCain hasn't needed to raise much: He has faced only token opposition for decades in the Senate, and Arizona isn't an expensive state to campaign in.
Regulatory Influence
Senators who hold important positions also can generally count on campaign donations from businesses with legislative or regulatory issues over which they have influence. Sen. McCain is a senior Republican and holds top-ranking positions on the Armed Services Committee and the Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over industries ranging from aviation to telecommunications.
Even businesses that he has clashed with have often given him campaign money, such as the cable industry and auto makers. "Every single entity that I've ever been involved with has given him money, and every single entity has gotten the crap beaten out them by McCain," says Brian Kelly, a telecommunications lobbyist.
But presidential fund raising works on a much larger scale, against different competition for the funds.
During 2007, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney -- with decades of experience in private industry -- and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani won the biggest Republican share of business donations. Sen. McCain, whose fund-raising problems famously all but pushed him out of the race midyear, trailed even a Democratic also-ran, Sen. Chris Dodd, in a number of business fund-raising categories through 2007.
Now, as Democrats increasingly paint Sen. McCain as a friend to business who favors light regulation, the question is whether he can raise more in business donations than the Democrats have.
To be sure, Sen. McCain can expect more help from across the party now that he's the presumptive nominee. Corporate executives tend to donate to candidates they think will win, and Republicans are gaining confidence in their chances this November as Sens. Clinton and Obama continue to slug it out in their primary. The Democrats' fund-raising efforts have yet to be combined behind one candidate, while Sen. McCain is marshaling forces across the party. His fund-raising staff is telling prospective donors that Sen. McCain is "better than the alternative," says Rick Hohlt, a longtime Republican fund-raiser.
The candidates haven't yet announced their overall fund-raising figures for March. Details including breakdowns of donations by industry won't be available until April 20.
Sen. McCain's February fund-raising comeback came partly from reaching out to executives who backed other Republicans who left the race. People who raised money for Mr. Giuliani began working with Sen. McCain's fund-raising staff in February. Mr. Romney's fund-raising team began working to raise money for Sen. McCain later that month and Mr. Romney appeared last week at a pair of events in Salt Lake City and Denver. "I'll think you'll find that the Republican Party, like any great family, comes together," Mr. Romney said after the events.
Detroit Chips In
In February, officials at Ford Motor Co. helped raise money for Sen. McCain's presidential bid at an event outside Detroit. Ford's chief Washington lobbyist and general counsel were among the officials who donated the maximum $2,300, though Mr. McCain has worked with Democrats to raise fuel-efficiency standards.
"For me, I like him because he's strong on national security, will keep our taxes low and spending in check," says Ziad Ojakli, the Ford lobbyist.
On a trip this month to the Middle East and Europe, Sen. McCain worked in a private fund-raising event in London. Last week, he raised money at an event hosted by Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson at the Venetian Resort Hotel Casino, and attended a New York fund-raiser that drew many of Wall Street's titans.
MORE ON ELECTIONS
• McCain Has Yet to Win Over Key Conservatives
• Complete Coverage: Campaign 2008
• Washington Wire: Updates from the campaign trailBut the extent of Democratic inroads in former Republican strongholds is daunting. From the beginning of 2007 through the end of February 2008, the Democratic presidential candidates together won a slight majority of donations from employees in the defense sector, an industry that since 1990 has favored Republicans by a 61%-39% ratio, according to figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics for all federal elections.
The Democratic presidential candidates have collected 41% of construction-industry giving and about 43% of agribusiness contributions, both up from their normal share of about a third. Most strikingly, they've won a combined majority of the donations from the health industry and from the combined financial, insurance and real-estate industries, receiving 58% and 53%, respectively. Since 1990, Republicans have taken about 55% of the donations from those sectors.
Individually, Sens. Clinton and Obama haven't just beaten Sen. McCain to business donors. In many areas they bested the top Republican fund-raisers, Messrs. Romney and Giuliani, too.
Sen. Clinton was first among all candidates in raising money through February from financial, defense and health-care firms. She's helped by representing New York in the Senate and by taking a leadership role on health-care issues, even though many firms in the industry oppose aspects of her health-care plans. Sen. Obama, meantime, was the most popular recipient of donations from pharmaceutical manufacturers and electric utilities -- both normally Republican strongholds.
Sen. McCain's rocky relationship with business stems from his evolving regulatory outlook. At his core, he is a conservative inclined to trust free markets to lower prices and produce benefits for consumers. But mainly in the last decade, he has developed what some see as a populist streak, becoming more willing to use his powers in the Senate to help consumers when he thinks the free market isn't working properly. The Club for Growth, a leading advocate for lower taxes and smaller government, released a nine-page report last fall titled: "John McCain's Tenuous Record as an Economic Conservative."
Sen. McCain bucked oil and gas interests by opposing new drilling in Alaska while championing global-warming legislation. He supports the importation of cheap prescription drugs over the opposition of the drug manufacturers. He helped pass a fuel-efficiency increase that was resisted by auto manufacturers. He backed legislation to regulate tobacco. He has spent a decade feuding with cable and broadcast companies. And he has worried defense contractors with demands for stricter oversight, most recently helping to reopen a $23 billion Boeing Co. contract for airborne fuel tankers.
Many of the industries and companies he clashes with nevertheless have been top sources of campaign cash for Sen. McCain, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The oil and gas sector ranks among the top contributors to Sen. McCain over his career. So do people who work in the real-estate, securities, finance and commercial-bank industries, even though he voted against President Bush's tax cuts on investments.
Employees of Miami-based law firm Greenberg Traurig are top contributors to Sen. McCain, even though he led the Senate investigation into the firm's former top lobbyist, Jack Abramoff. Jill Perry, a spokeswoman for Greenberg Traurig, says employees of the firm have been "active givers to all three presidential candidates."
Cable Battles
Sen. McCain's pushes against some businesses also have benefited other firms, which have sometimes donated to his campaigns. His decadelong battle with cable companies and television broadcasters has benefited the satellite-television companies, which have become top backers. Sen. McCain's push for cleaner energy sources has aided the nuclear industry, whose executives have sometimes donated to him. His tussle with Boeing has coincided with $12,000 in donations from employees from a Boeing competitor: European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co.
McCain fund-raiser Kirk Blalock tells corporate executives to "take a leap of faith" on Sen. McCain. Many companies calculate that, on balance, Sen. McCain helps them, even if he tangles with them on some specific priorities. "If someone is going to write a check to McCain, it's on the broader macro issues. I don't think it's because he's for one industry or another because he's not," says Mr. Blalock, who lobbies for a range of industries including insurance and generic pharmaceuticals.
Sen. McCain supports free-trade agreements and, in a reversal of an earlier position, now backs extending President Bush's lower tax rates on individuals and investments, currently set to expire at the end of 2010. Neither Sen. Clinton nor Sen. Obama wants the tax cuts to become permanent, and both have become increasingly harsh about free trade on the campaign trail. Both vote with business interests just under half the time, according to the Chamber of Commerce ratings, despite their success at business-sector fund raising.
Perhaps no industry better shows Sen. McCain's approach to industry regulation than cable. In the early 1990s, Sen. McCain helped cable companies win deregulation. But when cable rates spiked up, Sen. McCain stepped in. Unwilling to impose regulations, he backed injecting competition into the marketplace by beefing up satellite-television companies, such as DirecTV and EchoStar, to create marketplace pressure to hold down rates. (News Corp., the owner of this newspaper, owned DirecTV for a period during that time.)
Recently, Sen. McCain has tried to lower cable prices by forcing the industry to allow consumers to purchase only the channels they want, without having to pay higher prices for packages of channels. The cable industry opposes the plan.
"Lord knows the guy has a track record of not helping us," says Kyle McSlarrow, the head of the cable industry's Washington lobbying association. But Mr. McSlarrow serves as a volunteer fund-raiser for Sen. McCain, because "there are big-time issues I agree with him on, even though there are smaller issues that we agree to disagree on."
Cable executives and employees have donated $161,000 to Sen. McCain's presidential campaign -- a sizable amount, but far behind the $561,000 and $249,000 they have given to Sens. Clinton and Obama, respectively, neither of whom has been involved in cable issues.
--Elizabeth Holmes contributed to this article.
Write to Brody Mullins at brody.mullins@wsj.com
Business Donors Bypass McCain
Democrats Rake In
Cash From Industry;
Catch-Up for GOP
By BRODY MULLINS
April 2, 2008; Page A1
WASHINGTON -- John McCain faces a problem as he tries to close a deep fund-raising deficit against the two Democratic candidates for president: Both have been cleaning his clock among business interests that give mainly to Republicans.
Of seven major industries that have been the most reliable Republican resources, Sen. McCain has beaten Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama in only one, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan organization. Even that one, transportation, is a close call. Among the seven combined, the expected Republican nominee raised $13.1 million through February, compared with $22.5 million for Sen. Obama and $27.1 million for Sen. Clinton.
See more data on the finances behind the Clinton, Obama and McCain campaigns
The Republican standard-bearer's attempt to claw back financial support from the GOP's business base could be a pivotal factor in determining the outcome of the presidential race. Employees of financial-services, insurance and real-estate companies so far have donated to Sen. Obama over Sen. McCain by almost two-to-one -- and favored Sen. Clinton by even more. Health-care and pharmaceutical firms have given three times as much to each of the two Democrats as to Sen. McCain. Defense firms put Sen. McCain ahead of Sen. Obama, but behind Sen. Clinton. Energy, construction and agribusiness firms have given more to both Democrats. (See related article.)
In February, as Sen. McCain neared a lock on the nomination, he showed signs of a fund-raising recovery among those industries. A Wall Street Journal analysis of campaign-finance reports shows that he raised far more from energy firms in February than either Democratic rival, cutting into his deficit there. He outraised Sen. Clinton among employees of finance, insurance and real-estate firms, though he fell short of Sen. Obama's total during that month, the latest available. In agriculture, Sen. McCain outraised Sen. Clinton and fell just $1,000 short of tying Sen. Obama.
But in the health and defense industries, he fell further behind -- by more than enough to wipe out his gains elsewhere. From the Republican-friendly industries combined, Sen. McCain raised $1.6 million in February, closing in on Sen. Clinton's $1.8 million but well behind Sen. Obama's $2.7 million. Those figures don't include major industry sectors -- media, entertainment, communications and high-tech -- where Democrats are historically strong and which almost double the industry totals for Sens. Obama and Clinton.
Sen. McCain told reporters last week that his campaign had seen a "dramatic increase in contributions" once other Republicans ended their campaigns in early February. He also noted how badly he needed the turnaround: "We've got our work cut out for us," Sen. McCain said. "I mean, the numbers don't lie." The Republican is some $100 million behind each of the two Democrats in fund raising from all sources.
Executive Donations
Corporations themselves by law aren't allowed to donate money to candidates. But executives and employees of companies and their spouses can each give up to $2,300 to a candidate for the primary campaign and another $2,300 for the general election. Candidates must make public the names and employers of people who donate $200 or more, a group that the Center for Responsive Politics says mostly come from executive ranks.
Two main factors have combined to put Sen. McCain in such a deep hole with businesses. First: Since early 2007, Democrats in general have been more successful at fund raising than their Republican counterparts. The unusually strong business-sector fund raising of Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama has been helped by a wide expectation during 2007 of likely Democratic success in the White House and congressional races because of President Bush's unpopularity. Corporations have been "moving in a direction where the electorate is likely to be," says Mike Feldman, a Democrat and consultant for a number of U.S. corporations in Washington.
Second, Sen. McCain's maverick status in his party and frequent tangles with big business interests made other Republican candidates far more attractive to many industry donors. The 2008 presidential nominee of the traditional party of business is seen as one of the least business-friendly Republicans in Washington, and the fund-raising numbers reflect that. "It's very foreboding for Republicans," says Jan Baran, a former general counsel at the Republican National Committee and now a campaign-finance lawyer at Washington law and lobbying firm Wiley Rein LLP. Mr. Baran called McCain's weakness among business interests compared with the Democrats "startling."
According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 40 of 47 current Republicans it ranked in the Senate have stronger pro-business voting records over their lifetimes than Sen. McCain -- though he still has voted with business interests 81% of the time, the Chamber says.
Jill Hazelbaker, a spokeswoman for the McCain campaign, noted that Sen. McCain "led the charge to limit the money and influence of special interests in politics, so it's not surprising that he's not at the top of their handout list." But, she added, the campaign will "have the money we need to win."
In the Senate, the Arizona Republican has had no trouble raising money to run for re-election, even from industries whose interests he sometimes opposed. But Sen. McCain hasn't needed to raise much: He has faced only token opposition for decades in the Senate, and Arizona isn't an expensive state to campaign in.
Regulatory Influence
Senators who hold important positions also can generally count on campaign donations from businesses with legislative or regulatory issues over which they have influence. Sen. McCain is a senior Republican and holds top-ranking positions on the Armed Services Committee and the Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over industries ranging from aviation to telecommunications.
Even businesses that he has clashed with have often given him campaign money, such as the cable industry and auto makers. "Every single entity that I've ever been involved with has given him money, and every single entity has gotten the crap beaten out them by McCain," says Brian Kelly, a telecommunications lobbyist.
But presidential fund raising works on a much larger scale, against different competition for the funds.
During 2007, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney -- with decades of experience in private industry -- and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani won the biggest Republican share of business donations. Sen. McCain, whose fund-raising problems famously all but pushed him out of the race midyear, trailed even a Democratic also-ran, Sen. Chris Dodd, in a number of business fund-raising categories through 2007.
Now, as Democrats increasingly paint Sen. McCain as a friend to business who favors light regulation, the question is whether he can raise more in business donations than the Democrats have.
To be sure, Sen. McCain can expect more help from across the party now that he's the presumptive nominee. Corporate executives tend to donate to candidates they think will win, and Republicans are gaining confidence in their chances this November as Sens. Clinton and Obama continue to slug it out in their primary. The Democrats' fund-raising efforts have yet to be combined behind one candidate, while Sen. McCain is marshaling forces across the party. His fund-raising staff is telling prospective donors that Sen. McCain is "better than the alternative," says Rick Hohlt, a longtime Republican fund-raiser.
The candidates haven't yet announced their overall fund-raising figures for March. Details including breakdowns of donations by industry won't be available until April 20.
Sen. McCain's February fund-raising comeback came partly from reaching out to executives who backed other Republicans who left the race. People who raised money for Mr. Giuliani began working with Sen. McCain's fund-raising staff in February. Mr. Romney's fund-raising team began working to raise money for Sen. McCain later that month and Mr. Romney appeared last week at a pair of events in Salt Lake City and Denver. "I'll think you'll find that the Republican Party, like any great family, comes together," Mr. Romney said after the events.
Detroit Chips In
In February, officials at Ford Motor Co. helped raise money for Sen. McCain's presidential bid at an event outside Detroit. Ford's chief Washington lobbyist and general counsel were among the officials who donated the maximum $2,300, though Mr. McCain has worked with Democrats to raise fuel-efficiency standards.
"For me, I like him because he's strong on national security, will keep our taxes low and spending in check," says Ziad Ojakli, the Ford lobbyist.
On a trip this month to the Middle East and Europe, Sen. McCain worked in a private fund-raising event in London. Last week, he raised money at an event hosted by Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson at the Venetian Resort Hotel Casino, and attended a New York fund-raiser that drew many of Wall Street's titans.
MORE ON ELECTIONS
• McCain Has Yet to Win Over Key Conservatives
• Complete Coverage: Campaign 2008
• Washington Wire: Updates from the campaign trailBut the extent of Democratic inroads in former Republican strongholds is daunting. From the beginning of 2007 through the end of February 2008, the Democratic presidential candidates together won a slight majority of donations from employees in the defense sector, an industry that since 1990 has favored Republicans by a 61%-39% ratio, according to figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics for all federal elections.
The Democratic presidential candidates have collected 41% of construction-industry giving and about 43% of agribusiness contributions, both up from their normal share of about a third. Most strikingly, they've won a combined majority of the donations from the health industry and from the combined financial, insurance and real-estate industries, receiving 58% and 53%, respectively. Since 1990, Republicans have taken about 55% of the donations from those sectors.
Individually, Sens. Clinton and Obama haven't just beaten Sen. McCain to business donors. In many areas they bested the top Republican fund-raisers, Messrs. Romney and Giuliani, too.
Sen. Clinton was first among all candidates in raising money through February from financial, defense and health-care firms. She's helped by representing New York in the Senate and by taking a leadership role on health-care issues, even though many firms in the industry oppose aspects of her health-care plans. Sen. Obama, meantime, was the most popular recipient of donations from pharmaceutical manufacturers and electric utilities -- both normally Republican strongholds.
Sen. McCain's rocky relationship with business stems from his evolving regulatory outlook. At his core, he is a conservative inclined to trust free markets to lower prices and produce benefits for consumers. But mainly in the last decade, he has developed what some see as a populist streak, becoming more willing to use his powers in the Senate to help consumers when he thinks the free market isn't working properly. The Club for Growth, a leading advocate for lower taxes and smaller government, released a nine-page report last fall titled: "John McCain's Tenuous Record as an Economic Conservative."
Sen. McCain bucked oil and gas interests by opposing new drilling in Alaska while championing global-warming legislation. He supports the importation of cheap prescription drugs over the opposition of the drug manufacturers. He helped pass a fuel-efficiency increase that was resisted by auto manufacturers. He backed legislation to regulate tobacco. He has spent a decade feuding with cable and broadcast companies. And he has worried defense contractors with demands for stricter oversight, most recently helping to reopen a $23 billion Boeing Co. contract for airborne fuel tankers.
Many of the industries and companies he clashes with nevertheless have been top sources of campaign cash for Sen. McCain, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The oil and gas sector ranks among the top contributors to Sen. McCain over his career. So do people who work in the real-estate, securities, finance and commercial-bank industries, even though he voted against President Bush's tax cuts on investments.
Employees of Miami-based law firm Greenberg Traurig are top contributors to Sen. McCain, even though he led the Senate investigation into the firm's former top lobbyist, Jack Abramoff. Jill Perry, a spokeswoman for Greenberg Traurig, says employees of the firm have been "active givers to all three presidential candidates."
Cable Battles
Sen. McCain's pushes against some businesses also have benefited other firms, which have sometimes donated to his campaigns. His decadelong battle with cable companies and television broadcasters has benefited the satellite-television companies, which have become top backers. Sen. McCain's push for cleaner energy sources has aided the nuclear industry, whose executives have sometimes donated to him. His tussle with Boeing has coincided with $12,000 in donations from employees from a Boeing competitor: European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co.
McCain fund-raiser Kirk Blalock tells corporate executives to "take a leap of faith" on Sen. McCain. Many companies calculate that, on balance, Sen. McCain helps them, even if he tangles with them on some specific priorities. "If someone is going to write a check to McCain, it's on the broader macro issues. I don't think it's because he's for one industry or another because he's not," says Mr. Blalock, who lobbies for a range of industries including insurance and generic pharmaceuticals.
Sen. McCain supports free-trade agreements and, in a reversal of an earlier position, now backs extending President Bush's lower tax rates on individuals and investments, currently set to expire at the end of 2010. Neither Sen. Clinton nor Sen. Obama wants the tax cuts to become permanent, and both have become increasingly harsh about free trade on the campaign trail. Both vote with business interests just under half the time, according to the Chamber of Commerce ratings, despite their success at business-sector fund raising.
Perhaps no industry better shows Sen. McCain's approach to industry regulation than cable. In the early 1990s, Sen. McCain helped cable companies win deregulation. But when cable rates spiked up, Sen. McCain stepped in. Unwilling to impose regulations, he backed injecting competition into the marketplace by beefing up satellite-television companies, such as DirecTV and EchoStar, to create marketplace pressure to hold down rates. (News Corp., the owner of this newspaper, owned DirecTV for a period during that time.)
Recently, Sen. McCain has tried to lower cable prices by forcing the industry to allow consumers to purchase only the channels they want, without having to pay higher prices for packages of channels. The cable industry opposes the plan.
"Lord knows the guy has a track record of not helping us," says Kyle McSlarrow, the head of the cable industry's Washington lobbying association. But Mr. McSlarrow serves as a volunteer fund-raiser for Sen. McCain, because "there are big-time issues I agree with him on, even though there are smaller issues that we agree to disagree on."
Cable executives and employees have donated $161,000 to Sen. McCain's presidential campaign -- a sizable amount, but far behind the $561,000 and $249,000 they have given to Sens. Clinton and Obama, respectively, neither of whom has been involved in cable issues.
--Elizabeth Holmes contributed to this article.
Write to Brody Mullins at brody.mullins@wsj.com
¿Why big banks do not need to lobby the Fed?
Because they own it. So, they are the one that make the decisions. You do not need to lobby your selves.
Yeah, the Federal Reserve Bank of United States is a private entity, and the shareholders are the private banks. They even receive profit (6 percent). Your hear right. The power to decide the interest rates and the money supply in the US is taken by the baking corporations, not by a federal agency.
They call it "cuasi-federal", bullshit. It was created long time ago, in 1913, not by elected politicians, not by independent policymakers, but by a bunch of powerful bankers. The law that created it was conceived in a way that assures that the power to control money stays always in their hands.
Why did the Fed acted in such a irrational way as it did during the Great Depression? Because the people behind it want it a financial crisis to expand the power of the biggest banks such a JP Morgan and others. ¿Why did the Fed abandon the gold standard? Invest taxpayers money to save Bear Stearns, who was a bad financial citizen for a long time in which noboday says nothing, sell it at sale price to JP Morgan, and they tell the people that works in their interesting. Something is missing here..... ¿Want to learn more? Check the documentary: ZEITGEIST EPISODE 3: DON'T MIND THE MEN BEHIND THE CURTAIN in Freedocumentaries.org.
Yeah, the Federal Reserve Bank of United States is a private entity, and the shareholders are the private banks. They even receive profit (6 percent). Your hear right. The power to decide the interest rates and the money supply in the US is taken by the baking corporations, not by a federal agency.
They call it "cuasi-federal", bullshit. It was created long time ago, in 1913, not by elected politicians, not by independent policymakers, but by a bunch of powerful bankers. The law that created it was conceived in a way that assures that the power to control money stays always in their hands.
Why did the Fed acted in such a irrational way as it did during the Great Depression? Because the people behind it want it a financial crisis to expand the power of the biggest banks such a JP Morgan and others. ¿Why did the Fed abandon the gold standard? Invest taxpayers money to save Bear Stearns, who was a bad financial citizen for a long time in which noboday says nothing, sell it at sale price to JP Morgan, and they tell the people that works in their interesting. Something is missing here..... ¿Want to learn more? Check the documentary: ZEITGEIST EPISODE 3: DON'T MIND THE MEN BEHIND THE CURTAIN in Freedocumentaries.org.
martes, 1 de abril de 2008
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)