So, it's the GOP & 'rich' donors is it?

[AC54ME]

D. Kyle Ward


There is an unfounded belief among many that Republican politicians represent, and are even bought off by, mega corporations and the rich. A few members of the elite class, it is said, conspire and shape all GOP policy, which is why you hear names like Koch and Murdoch vilified. The same individuals making these claims, most notably Occupy Wall Street protestors, would then likely suggest that Democrats are for the little guy, and thus collect their funds from the working men and women a little at a time. This romanticized view has just one problem: reality is the other way around.

The Center for Responsive Politics provides a valuable public service by tracking and publishing political contributions. Donations over $200 are reported to the FEC, which is where the center gets their source data. While this does not represent all campaign contributions, this information can be used to determine where the big money is being funneled. In particular, the center's Top All-Time Donors list can provide some perspective on who the real power brokers are.

The first thing to note is that, out of the top 20 all-time donors, 15 donate primarily to Democrats, 1 donates primarily to Republicans, and 4 contribute roughly evenly. Here's how the money works out:

Clearly, the Democratic Party is the real party of big money, and voters need to re-evaluate their most basic assumptions. Who are these power players that make up the largest political contributors? The chart below shows the composition of the heaviest hitters for Democrats.






The next time someone claims that Republicans are bought and paid for by Evil, Inc., inform them that labor unions are the biggest string pullers, and that Democrats are their puppets. Is it any wonder that, as the Wall Street Journal reported, former SEIU President Andy Stern was the most frequent visitor to the White House during Barack Obama's first year as President? Being the fifth largest donor of all time comes with certain privileges.

In addition, think about how unions raise their money. In 27 states, if a national union like the SEIU is successful in "closing" a local shop, you must join the union if you want a job there. Once hired, a portion of every check is taken by SEIU, which is where the staggering amount of contributions comes from. In that regard, Democrats could claim to get their contributions from the working man: "Want a job? We'll take that donation first." They then spend that money to swamp voting initiatives like Issue 2 in Ohio, or donate to their favorite liberal politicians.

Does Big Union get anything for their investment in those politicians? Remember that Obama was quick to favor bailing out the auto industry; those UAW workers represent a major component of the Democrat fundraising machine. Don't forget the teachers and other government employees who kept their jobs due to stimulus money; their unions are number six and three on the top donors list, respectively. Democrats have devised a way to send federal tax dollars directly to jobs with an automatic DNC contribution in every paycheck.

In summary, if you want to support the "little guy," stop voting for the well-oiled machine funded with their confiscated wages. As an afterthought, if you're just not particularly fond of ambulance chasers or Goldman Sachs, you too may want to look elsewhere

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...#ixzz1dxj1y7zT

[AC54ME]

Originally Posted by TxAg

Wait for the Commie spin. It should be good.

Joecoool will avoid this thread like the plague.

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by AC54ME

Joecoool will avoid this thread like the plague.

Facts do have that effect.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by AC54ME

Joecoool will avoid this thread like the plague.

Originally Posted by VITE1

Facts do have that effect.

All he did was look at the top 20. He stopped at 20 because the list after that went in favor of Republicans.

Look at the data yourself. Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2012 | OpenSecrets

This is from the same source cited in the "study" It shows all the data and as you can see there is a fairly equal amount of donations from both sides supporters.

Interest Groups | OpenSecrets

Picking on the unions is dishonest when you see all the real data. As you can see, contributions from labor organizations is ranked number 10. The contributions from the financial / insurance / real estate groups which lean strongly republican, are more than ten times what unions contribute.

This is just another example of picking data that agrees with your position and doing a study supporting your position. People that write these kinds of articles rely on the reader to be too stupid or lazy to check the sources. When you see all the data, the discussion falls apart.

[Chris Fowler]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

All he did was look at the top 20. He stopped at 20 because the list after that went in favor of Republicans.

Look at the data yourself. Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2012 | OpenSecrets

This is from the same source cited in the "study" It shows all the data and as you can see there is a fairly equal amount of donations from both sides supporters.

Interest Groups | OpenSecrets

Picking on the unions is dishonest when you see all the real data. As you can see, contributions from labor organizations is ranked number 10. The contributions from the financial / insurance / real estate groups which lean strongly republican, are more than ten times what unions contribute.

This is just another example of picking data that agrees with your position and doing a study supporting your position. People that write these kinds of articles rely on the reader to be too stupid or lazy to check the sources. When you see all the data, the discussion falls apart.

Out of curiosity I plugged that whole table into a spreadsheet and calculated the total contributions:

Democrat: $1,338,547,564.25
Republican: $896,999,877.18

That amounts to approximately 60% of the donations going Democrat and 40% going Republican.

So, does using only the top 20 skew it to make the numbers even worse? Yup.

But using the full set still shows the 'rich' donors lean left...contrary to what the MSM would have you believe.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by Chris Fowler

Out of curiosity I plugged that whole table into a spreadsheet and calculated the total contributions:

Democrat: $1,338,547,564.25
Republican: $896,999,877.18

That amounts to approximately 60% of the donations going Democrat and 40% going Republican.

So, does using only the top 20 skew it to make the numbers even worse? Yup.

But using the full set still shows the 'rich' donors lean left...contrary to what the MSM would have you believe.

The list only shows collective contributions by PAC's and corporations.

This is important to note because as the site notes - "Of the $5,836,415,127 that was given to federal state and federal state-level political campaigns during the 2007-2008 election cycle, $1,017,335,698 (17.4%) came from the top 100 state & federal contributors." So the data only shows about a fifth of the money politicians raised.

I am quite certain that if you look at where the wealthy individuals contribute, that will be heavily skewed in favor of republicans.

[AC54ME]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

The list only shows collective contributions by PAC's and corporations.

This is important to note because as the site notes - "Of the $5,836,415,127 that was given to federal state and federal state-level political campaigns during the 2007-2008 election cycle, $1,017,335,698 (17.4%) came from the top 100 state & federal contributors." So the data only shows about a fifth of the money politicians raised.

I am quite certain that if you look at where the wealthy individuals contribute, that will be heavily skewed in favor of republicans.

Absolutely the most idiotic post and assumption ever, on any Forum!!!!!!

You, without a smiley, state "...where the wealthy individuals contribute, that will be heavily skewed in favor of republicans."

So tell us - when did the Hollywood types all turn over a new leaf and move from the Communist Democratic/Liberal party to Republican?

Or lets discuss the 'Wall Street" elite - where money donated to Obama OUTSPENT money to Republicans by 10:1 (look it up - .gov).

Or the Unions - surely they are amoung the 'wealthy as they extort as much money as possible and thus must provide the majority to the Republicans.

Warren Buffet? Bill Gates? Oh yea, they contribute mostly to Republicans

Like I said above - your position wins, hands down, the most idiotic post of the decade award.

Congratulations.

[AC54ME]

Some humble pie for old Joe, along with some small benefit to his position (re Republicans contribute more money than Democrats):

Those “Evil, Rich People” – are Democrats
From the, “you never hear about that from the media” file – Those “Evil, Rich People” that Democrats are always wailing about are actually – Democrats.

In fact, the Top 4 on the list: Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Larry Ellison, Christy Walton are all Democrats. Together, they are worth $150 Billion Dollars.

An analysis of the Top 20 Richest People in America (from Forbes Top 100) reveals that a full 60% are actually Democrats. Furthermore, if you eliminate the duplication caused by people from the same family being included in that Top 20 list (Wal-Mart & Koch) that ratio widens even further to:

25% Republican / 75% Democrat.

(The purpose of this analysis is not who makes the most money, but where they contribute / by party affiliation. Obviously, people from the same family would tend to contribute to the same party.)

Analyzing the data takes us even further. Not only are there more Democrats in the Top 20 list, but those Democrats are a lot more stingy with their money. Republicans coughed up $5.2 million while Democrats squirted out only $2.1 Million.

Of course, there is no reason not to assume that the money they contribute to Special Interest groups wouldn’t match (or closely match) those of their chosen candidates. So when you add in the money from these groups you end up with Republican Contributions at $10 million while Democrats contributed only $6 million.

Lest we not forget, Democrats outweigh Republicans. Not only in terms of the number of uber-millionaires, but also with their net worth. In this Top 20 group, Democrats have a combined net worth of $263.1 billion dollars while the Republicans have a combined net worth of only $143.9 billion dollars – almost half that of Democrats.

So the next time you hear some Liberal Freak try the “Evil Rich People” rhetoric, remind them and everyone around you that it is the Democrats who are those “Evil Rich People”, not the Republicans. Then stand back and watch their head spin.

For more political analysis visit Michael E’s - web site.



Correction: In the attached chart, Christy Walton was incorrectly identified as Democrat when in fact, she is a Republican. Still, this error doesn’t change the substance of the story. Democrats far outweigh Republicans in terms of income & stinginess.

Richest People in America are Democrats

Community BlogsHome » Blogs » Community Blogs
The Way I See It!
I am an Ultra-Conservative, Alpha-Male, True Authentic Leader, Type "C" Personality, who is very active in my community; whether it is donating time, clothes or money for Project Concern or going to Common Council meetings and voicing my opinions. As a blogger, I intend to provide a different viewpoint "The way I see it!" on various world, national and local issues with a few helpful tips & tidbits sprinkled in.
Top 20 Richest Americans & Which Political Party They Donated To!
Posted by Randy Hollenbeck on March 20, 2011 | 2 comments

America, Money

Rank Name Net Worth Age Residence Source

1 Bill Gates $54 B 55 Medina, WA Microsoft
2 Warren Buffett $45 B 80 Omaha, NE Berkshire Hathaway
3 Larry Ellison $27 B 66 Woodside, CA Oracle
4 Christy Walton & family $24 B 56 Jackson, WY Walmart
5 Charles Koch $21.5 B 75 Wichita, KS Diversified
5 David Koch $21.5 B 70 New York , NY Diversified
7 Jim Walton $20.1 B 63 Bentonville, AR Walmart
8 Alice Walton $20 B 61 Fort Worth, TX Walmart
9 S. Robson Walton $19.7 B 67 Bentonville, AR Walmart
10 Michael Bloomberg $18 B 69 New York , NY Bloomberg
11 Larry Page $15 B 37 Palo Alto, CA Google
11 Sergey Brin $15 B 37 San Francisco, CA Google
13 Sheldon Adelson $14.7 B 77 Las Vegas, NV casinos
14 George Soros $14.2 B 80 Westchester, NY hedge funds
15 Michael Dell $14 B 46 Austin, TX Dell
16 Steve Ballmer $13.1 B 54 Seattle, WA Microsoft
17 Paul Allen $12.7 B 58 Mercer Island, WA Microsoft, investments
18 Jeff Bezos $12.6 B 47 Seattle, WA Amazon
19 Anne Cox Chambers $12.5 B 91 Atlanta, GA Cox Enterprises
20 John Paulson $12.4 B 55 New York, NY hedge funds

http://www.forbes.com/wealth/forbes-400


Which political party they donated to:
D = Democrat
R= Republican
I= Independent

1. d
2 d
3 d
4 r & d
5 r
5 r
7 r
8 r
9 r
10 d, i, r
11 d
11 none
13 r
14 d
15 r
16 r & d
17 d & r
18 d
19 d
20 d & r

http://www.cudahynow.com/blogs/commu...118337144.html

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by AC54ME

Absolutely the most idiotic post and assumption ever, on any Forum!!!!!!

You, without a smiley, state "...where the wealthy individuals contribute, that will be heavily skewed in favor of republicans."

So tell us - when did the Hollywood types all turn over a new leaf and move from the Communist Democratic/Liberal party to Republican?

So its your position that these maybe a thousand people represent a significant percentage of the over all wealthy in this country?

Or lets discuss the 'Wall Street" elite - where money donated to Obama OUTSPENT money to Republicans by 10:1 (look it up - .gov).

10 - 1? BULLSHIT. Back that up.

Or the Unions - surely they are amoung the 'wealthy as they extort as much money as possible and thus must provide the majority to the Republicans.

Unions are collections of people not individuals.

Warren Buffet? Bill Gates? Oh yea, they contribute mostly to Republicans

Bill Gates contributes to both parties - NEWSMEAT ▷ Bill Gates's Federal Campaign Contribution Report

Warren Buffet leans left but has also contributed heavily to republican Christopher Shays.

Like I said above - your position wins, hands down, the most idiotic post of the decade award.

Congratulations.

It is a shame that you can not have a rational discussion without resorting to this nonsense again and again. If you are dumb enough to suggest that the wealthy in this country are supporting democrats by some kind of margin over republicans, then I really don't know what to say.

[AC54ME]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

10 - 1? BULLSHIT. Back that up.

It is a shame that you can not have a rational discussion without resorting to this nonsense again and again. If you are dumb enough to suggest that the wealthy in this country are supporting democrats by some kind of margin over republicans, then I really don't know what to say.

Here is but one case (Union donations to DEMOCRATS above 95% of all money spent).

It is not 10:1 - HOWEVER it DOES NOT include ADVERTISING money spent for specific DEMOCRAT causes!

And that IS where the money is spent in large amounts.

Go look up SEIU spending - I am tired of providing justification for what is factual information to one that could give a fck less in understanding the UNION and DEMOCRATS are one in the same - communists.

In almost every state, teachers are automatically signed up to have their dues money diverted to their unions’ political funds. But the facts show that when “paycheck protection” laws require unions to get permission from teachers before taking money for political purposes, teachers almost always say “no.”

When teachers were given the chance to opt out of paying for the political causes of education unions, the number of teachers participating in Utah dropped from 68 percent to 6.8 percent, and the number of represented teachers contributing in Washington dropped from 82 percent to 6 percent.

Predictably, union officials fight tooth and nail against “paycheck protection” laws that give teachers a real choice about how their money is spent.

It is well-recognized that if you take away the mechanism of payroll deduction you won’t collect a penny from these people, and it has nothing to do with voluntary or involuntary. I think it has a lot to do with the nature of the beast, and the beasts who are our teachers.”

—Robert Chanin, former NEA general counsel
Money & Power
Education unions are perennial political powerhouses, both nationally and locally. Consider:


■Fortune magazine has consistently ranked the National Education Association in the top 15 of its Washington Power 25 list for influence in the nation’s capital.

■Over the last 20 years, the American Federation of Teachers has given more than $28 million in campaign contributions; the National Education Association has given almost $31 million. That’s almost $60 million in campaign contributions — but that’s just the tip of the iceberg. It doesn’t include uncoordinated expenditures like television ads or get out the vote efforts.

■According to The Heritage Foundation, through July 2010 unions had spent almost three-times as much money on campaign ads as all corporations combined.

■According to the Reason Foundation, the California Teachers Association has spent more than $200 million on ballot initiatives, candidates for state and local office, and lobbying. They used this money not only to argue against education reforms, but also to defeat healthcare reform measures and to defeat bills which would have prevented voter fraud.

■In Washington, D.C., the American Federation of Teachers dumped more than a million dollars into the 2010 Democratic Mayoral primary between Adrian Fenty and Vincent Gray. This was in retaliation for Mayor Fenty’s commitment to education reform and an effort to remove the effective school chancellor, Michelle Rhee, who weakened tenure and got rid of bad teachers.

■Colorado saw sweeping education reforms come to the state in the form of weakened tenure and increased merit pay. How did the Colorado Education Association respond? By pumping almost a million dollars into the state. The money went almost exclusively to Democratic candidates and Democrat-backed proposals and ballot initiatives.

■The head of the Chicago Teachers Union had this warning to any mayoral candidate in the 2011 mayor’s race who didn’t toe the teacher’s line: “I think the opportunity is to throw the weight of 30,000 members and their families and students and teachers. I mean, we’re looking at maybe 800,000 people we could affect on some level.”

Due to their massive base and the massive dues that they charge, teachers unions can both mobilize voters and spend huge chunks of money to defeat ballot initiatives and candidates that they don’t like. If you’ve ever wondered why education reform is slow in the offing, now you know: Politicians have real reason to fear crossing the unions.

Unions Don’t Reflect Members’ Politics
The officials who wield teachers unions’ enormous political clout do so at the expense of their members, who frequently disagree with union bosses’ political agendas.

Consider the numbers above: Of that almost $60 million in campaign contributions distributed by the NEA and the AFT, more than $56 million went to Democrats. That means that roughly 95 percent of the unions’ money went toward Democratic candidates. It’s hard to believe that 19 out of 20 teachers are Democrats.


The Education Intelligence Agency obtained results of a massive internal survey of NEA membership and leadership, issuing a report in October 2005 titled “The NEA Pyramid: The View Changes As You Rise to the Top of the Nation’s Largest Union.” The report noted: “The larger a local affiliate is, the less likely the local affiliate president will reflect the demographics, philosophies and tendencies of his or her constituent members.” That certainly describes the NEA and AFT at the national level.

Political Money
According to the NEA’s own “Status of the American Public School Teacher 2000-2001,” only 45 percent of public school teachers are Democrats.

According to the Public Service Research Foundation, the NEA has long known that its political expenditures don’t reflect the views of its members. PSRF obtained two 1980 internal surveys of NEA members, which showed:

■As many members voted for Ronald Reagan (44%) as did for Jimmy Carter (44%)

■More NEA members identified themselves as conservatives (27%) than liberals (21%)

■A large number — 29% — said they did "not trust" the union

Dues and Don’ts | Teachers Union Facts

[AC54ME]

One more Joe:

Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2012 | OpenSecrets

You'll need to go down to #19 to find the first Republican donation above that of Democrats.

BTW- add up the 'donation amounts' of the first 18, or all.

Then get back to us with the ratio spent by Unions on Democrats vs republicans.

[AC54ME]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Bill Gates contributes to both parties - NEWSMEAT ▷ Bill Gates's Federal Campaign Contribution Report

Get your calculator out!

Add up the contributions to DEMOCRATS vs Republicans.

Get back to all with the results.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by AC54ME

One more Joe:

Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2012 | OpenSecrets

You'll need to go down to #19 to find the first Republican donation above that of Democrats.

BTW- add up the 'donation amounts' of the first 18, or all.

Then get back to us with the ratio spent by Unions on Democrats vs republicans.

Your argument has already been debunked. Your thesis for the thread is that the wealthy donate to Democrats. The list you posted shows the donations of groups, not individuals.

Wealthy individuals that contribute to politicians donate overwhelmingly to republicans.

[AC54ME]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Your argument has already been debunked. Your thesis for the thread is that the wealthy donate to Democrats. The list you posted shows the donations of groups, not individuals.

Wealthy individuals that contribute to politicians donate overwhelmingly to republicans.

For some reason you insist on ignoring that Unions, etc. provide much more money to Democrats than any other party.

The original OP showed this, as did subsequent article I provided.

No my ill informed friend - the Democrats take and spend MORE money than ALL other political parties combined.

Concurrently they, the Democrats, are also the most corrupt party in existence.