Pay to Play: Senators Who Voted For War Got More Defense Lobby Payola

[Bill]

Senators who backed Syria resolution got 83 per cent more defense lobby money than those who voted against it, campaign finance numbers show


By David Martosko

PUBLISHED: 14:38 EST, 5 September 2013 | UPDATED: 11:20 EST, 6 September 2013

Wednesday's 10-7 vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee supporting an authorization of military attacks on Syria may have been affected by varying levels of financial support the senators got from political action committees representing the defense industry, and from the companies' employees.

On average, a 'yes'-voting senator received 83 per cent more money from defense contractors than one who voted 'no.'

The resolution in its current form would endorse Obama administration-led strikes against Syria for up to 90 days, following revelations that the regime of dictator Bashar al-Assad used a nerve gas weapon against civilians as part of a brutal civil war.

The resolution would not authorize the deployment of ground forces, but MailOnline reported Wednesday that the Pentagon has already estimated the need for 75,000 troops to secure Syria's vast supplies of chemical weapons and the factories that produce them.

John McCain received more defense lobby cash than any other senator who cast a vote Wednesday on Syria. He is one of three committee Republicans to support President Obama
The big kahuna: Republican John McCain received more defense lobby cash than any other senator who cast a vote Wednesday on Syria: $176,300. He is one of three committee Republicans to support President Obama, saying it would be 'catastrophic' if Congress doesn't go along

Democratic Sen Tom Udall voted to deny Obama the approval he wants for a Syrian bombing campaign. He received only $18,700 from defense contractors and their political action committees over a five-year period
The small fry: Democratic Sen Tom Udall voted to deny Obama the approval he wants for a Syrian bombing campaign. That may have had something to do with the fact that his campaigns received only $18,700 from defense contractors and their political action committees over a five-year period




Committee members who voted Wednesday to support the proposal collected an average of $72,850 in defense campaign financing between 2007 and 2012, Wired magazine reported, based on data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The analysis of that data was performed by MapLight, a nonprofit research organization that tracks money in politics.


Those who dissented in the committee vote averaged $39,770. The Center's data include more than $1 million in political donations to the 17 senators who cast up-or-down votes on the measure.


The phenomenon crossed party lines. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, one of three Republicans to vote in the affirmative, collected the largest amount – $176,300 – for his campaigns. The next largest numbers belonged to Democrats, including $127,350 given to Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin and $101,025 given to Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine.

All three voted yes.

The four senators who received the least amount of defense dollars, ranging from $14,000 to $19,250, all voted no. They included three Republicans and one Democrat.

The Democratic party holds 10 of the 18 seats on the powerful foreign relations committee. The 18th member, Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey, voted 'present,' abstaining from a decision until, he said, he could examine more classified intelligence information and consult with experts.

Voting their consciences? GOP Sens. John Barasso of Wyoming (L) and Marco Rubio of Florida (R) voted against military action in Syria, despite collecting nearly $150,000 between them from the defense lobby


Among the biggest contributors to senators involved in yesterday's vote were Lockheed Martin, Boeing, United Technologies and Honeywell International, companies that make everything from stealth bombers to long-range missiles and aerial drones.


While members of Congress have complained that Pentagon budget cuts due to the 2013 budget sequester will hamper any military effort in the Middle East, those giant contractors will likely benefit from any military action.

A single Tomahawk cruise missile costs the government between $700,000 and $1.4 million, according to published estimates. And each unmanned Predator aerial drone sets the Defense Department back a whopping $4 million.

In 2012 A Pentagon spokesman told CNN that it costs another $815,000 per year to pay, deploy, feed, house, arm and maintain every soldier on the ground in Afghanistan.

Applying that math to the 75,000 troops the Pentagon has said it will need to secure Syrian chemical weapons sites, a two-month deployment at similar costs would cost $5.09 billion per month.

Secretary of State John Kerry told a House of Representatives committee on Wednesday that countries in the Arab world have offered to pay the cost of removing Assad from power in a full-blown military offensive, but the Obama administration has said its objectives would be limited to ensuring the Syrian government can no longer access or use chemical weapons.


Read more: Senators who backed Syria resolution got 83 per cent more defense lobby money | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Awesome!

[VITE1]

Eisenhower warned us on the "Defense industrial complex" as being a threat to America. And the left have harped on it for decades.

Yet the we have dozens of other "complexes" developing that are far greater threats to all Americans.

[Fasglas]

In 2012 A Pentagon spokesman told CNN that it costs another $815,000 per year to pay, deploy, feed, house, arm and maintain every soldier on the ground in Afghanistan.

Hmmmmm....

[mph1972]

Crooked and corrupt bastards!!!

If you have never seen the documentary, "Iraq for Sale" peak it. What a waste of tax payers money.

Flush all of DC and start over!

[StaticCling]

Even if you flush all of DC the replacements will eventually become just as bad as the current crop.

The colleges have indoctrinated the future 'leaders' and we are doomed. I'm glad I don't have any children...

[Kerrmudgeon]

In a democratic society lobbyists should be banned, and any congressman accepting this payola should be fired. And they should probably implement secret ballots in the congress. The same thing goes for our system. Cheaters and money grubbers have infected both governments since the beginning, but now it's too big and too much.

[69camfrk]

Originally Posted by mph1972

Crooked and corrupt bastards!!!

If you have never seen the documentary, "Iraq for Sale" peak it. What a waste of tax payers money.

Flush all of DC and start over!

The system is so corrupt that it is likely to never be changed. The military/industrial complex runs the .gov at our expense. But I guarantee you that 99.9% of the public have no clue. I'm sure Dick Cheney among others profited handsomely because of Iraq and Afghanistan. Syria would be no different. Hell, cruise missiles are 1.5 mil a pop. Somebody's pockets are really getting lined.

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by 69camfrk

The system is so corrupt that it is likely to never be changed. The military/industrial complex runs the .gov at our expense. But I guarantee you that 99.9% of the public have no clue. I'm sure Dick Cheney among others profited handsomely because of Iraq and Afghanistan. Syria would be no different. Hell, cruise missiles are 1.5 mil a pop. Somebody's pockets are really getting lined.

The fact is Defense contractor lobbyist are way down the list.

Top Interest Groups Giving to Members of Congress, 2012 Cycle | OpenSecrets

[mrvette]

Originally Posted by 69camfrk

The system is so corrupt that it is likely to never be changed. The military/industrial complex runs the .gov at our expense. But I guarantee you that 99.9% of the public have no clue. I'm sure Dick Cheney among others profited handsomely because of Iraq and Afghanistan. Syria would be no different. Hell, cruise missiles are 1.5 mil a pop. Somebody's pockets are really getting lined.

Yeh, the kickbacks are outta line, totally, BUT as a % of the expense, it's insignificant, and then the idea of our .mil well, what we going to DO?? gotta have it, but you are correct in that they have been abused and used up in the stupidest ways since WW2, joints like Korea, VN, and now an endless war conducted in stupid ways ....freeking poly ticks rules everything.....

BUT on the positive note, look at all the JOBS, nice high paying middle class supporting JOBS that the mil-ind complex generates....